←back to thread

837 points turrini | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.221s | source
Show context
caseyy ◴[] No.43972418[source]
There is an argument to be made that the market buys bug-filled, inefficient software about as well as it buys pristine software. And one of them is the cheapest software you could make.

It's similar to the "Market for Lemons" story. In short, the market sells as if all goods were high-quality but underhandedly reduces the quality to reduce marginal costs. The buyer cannot differentiate between high and low-quality goods before buying, so the demand for high and low-quality goods is artificially even. The cause is asymmetric information.

This is already true and will become increasingly more true for AI. The user cannot differentiate between sophisticated machine learning applications and a washing machine spin cycle calling itself AI. The AI label itself commands a price premium. The user overpays significantly for a washing machine[0].

It's fundamentally the same thing when a buyer overpays for crap software, thinking it's designed and written by technologists and experts. But IC1-3s write 99% of software, and the 1 QA guy in 99% of tech companies is the sole measure to improve quality beyond "meets acceptance criteria". Occasionally, a flock of interns will perform an "LGTM" incantation in hopes of improving the software, but even that is rarely done.

[0] https://www.lg.com/uk/lg-experience/inspiration/lg-ai-wash-e...

replies(27): >>43972654 #>>43972713 #>>43972732 #>>43973044 #>>43973105 #>>43973120 #>>43973128 #>>43973198 #>>43973257 #>>43973418 #>>43973432 #>>43973703 #>>43973853 #>>43974031 #>>43974052 #>>43974503 #>>43975121 #>>43975380 #>>43976615 #>>43976692 #>>43979081 #>>43980549 #>>43982939 #>>43984708 #>>43986570 #>>43995397 #>>43998494 #
mjr00 ◴[] No.43973105[source]
> the market sells as if all goods were high-quality

The phrase "high-quality" is doing work here. The implication I'm reading is that poor performance = low quality. However, the applications people are mentioning in this comment section as low performance (Teams, Slack, Jira, etc) all have competitors with much better performance. But if I ask a person to pick between Slack and, say, a a fast IRC client like Weechat... what do you think the average person is going to consider low-quality? It's the one with a terminal-style UI, no video chat, no webhook integrations, and no custom avatars or emojis.

Performance is a feature like everything else. Sometimes, it's a really important feature; the dominance of Internet Explorer was destroyed by Chrome largely because it was so much faster than IE when it was released, and Python devs are quickly migrating to uv/ruff due to the performance improvement. But when you start getting into the territory of "it takes Slack 5 seconds to start up instead of 10ms", you're getting into the realm where very few people care.

replies(5): >>43973152 #>>43973337 #>>43974116 #>>43974554 #>>43977067 #
1. caseyy ◴[] No.43973152[source]
That's true. I meant it in a broader sense. Quality = {speed, function, lack of bugs, ergonomics, ... }.