Can anyone freaking tell me that Agile is still relevant and yet one of the most hated approach??

I'm freaking confused.

Yes, yes, and oh god yes.

Agile is a bullet point list of mostly common sense ideas (sprinkled with a couple of stupid items from some undergrad psych seminar). None of it is new or revolutionary. As a whole, it's pretty good guidance. However, because it's been the darling for a while now, a monumental amount of really bad management has been done under it's banner. Bad managers were already bad. Agile makes them think they're smart without making them better managers. Plus, Scrum sucks no matter what got a while bunch of reasons that have nothing to do with agile. When the next management fad comes around, we'll hate that, too. Remember TQM?

Agile sucks! It's a trademark now. Without substance, killed by the need to sell stuff.
"Do you want to do better? Scrum is magical it works out the box"
"Work at scale? We have a certification for the best framework"

Like pragmatic Dave said, Agile is dead, and we killed it.

Now deploying agile methods can do a lot. But that means REAL change at every level. And real change is really scary.

Like some of the others here already said it often is considered bad because almost no company really gets the ideas behind agile. I really hate the certification shit because everyone needs now a certificate but still almost non get the ideas right. I am a certified scrum master but I don't give a fuck. I worked really hard to implement a agile way in my last company. the hardest part of all the change to agile is that people are always afraid of changes. Even I had such thoughts because by implementing "real" agile ways I was making my own job as CTO obsolete. In the end it worked out pretty well with some exceptions (people who couldn't change or didn't even try) and really was much better than the waterfall way of doing things. The quality rose because I introduced TDD, pairing and reviews. the involvement of the team members skyrocketed.

@ShotgunSurgeon ideas for new features were coming from people I would have never suspected to think that far. they felt responsible for the things they built. it really can work but it is extremely hard to change a companys way. it almost burned me out. In the end I left and now I regret that I couldn't work as normal dev in the company I helped to change so much.

@ShotgunSurgeon Ironically, I agree with the tenor of your comment. However, I lump TDD, pairing, etc. all in the same bucket of abused and overhyped pseudo management crap. Not because TDD or pairing are bad. But because so many assume that anyone who uses or tries them will like/succeed/do better/etc. with them. I hate pair programming. I think TDD is a stupid approach to problem solving. For Me. For any other person, those might be the very best things in the world. IMO, a good manager knows how to blend people and tools/methods so that each individual is allowed to work in his/her most effective manner.

@monkeyboy Sorry to disagree but TDD, as every test first method increase the quality of a product. Not by reducing bugs, but by reducing regressions, when it's well done. It the same as a CI or a defined software factory.

Now as a lot of processes and artefact defined as agile methods, they shine when more than two people work on the same product.