←back to thread

838 points turrini | 6 comments | | HN request time: 2.164s | source | bottom
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 #
dahart ◴[] No.43973432[source]
The dumbest and most obvious of realizations finally dawned on me after trying to build a software startup that was based on quality differentiation. We were sure that a better product would win people over and lead to viral success. It didn’t. Things grew, but so slowly that we ran out of money after a few years before reaching break even.

What I realized is that lower costs, and therefore lower quality, are a competitive advantage in a competitive market. Duh. I’m sure I knew and said that in college and for years before my own startup attempt, but this time I really felt it in my bones. It suddenly made me realize exactly why everything in the market is mediocre, and why high quality things always get worse when they get more popular. Pressure to reduce costs grows with the scale of a product. Duh. People want cheap, so if you sell something people want, someone will make it for less by cutting “costs” (quality). Duh. What companies do is pay the minimum they need in order to stay alive & profitable. I don’t mean it never happens, sometimes people get excited and spend for short bursts, young companies often try to make high quality stuff, but eventually there will be an inevitable slide toward minimal spending.

There’s probably another name for this, it’s not quite the Market for Lemons idea. I don’t think this leads to market collapse, I think it just leads to stable mediocrity everywhere, and that’s what we have.

replies(35): >>43973826 #>>43974086 #>>43974427 #>>43974658 #>>43975070 #>>43975211 #>>43975222 #>>43975294 #>>43975564 #>>43975730 #>>43976403 #>>43976446 #>>43976469 #>>43976551 #>>43976628 #>>43976708 #>>43976757 #>>43976758 #>>43977001 #>>43977618 #>>43977824 #>>43978077 #>>43978446 #>>43978599 #>>43978709 #>>43978867 #>>43979353 #>>43979364 #>>43979714 #>>43979843 #>>43980458 #>>43981165 #>>43981846 #>>43982145 #>>43983217 #
rom16384 ◴[] No.43974086[source]
I had the same realization but with car mechanics. If you drive a beater you want to spend the least possible on maintenance. On the other hand, if the car mechanic cares about cars and their craftsmanship they want to get everything to tip-top shape at high cost. Some other mechanics are trying to scam you and get the most amount of money for the least amount of work. And most people looking for car mechanics want to pay the least amount possible, and don't quite understand if a repair should be expensive or not. This creates a downward pressure on price at the expense of quality and penalizes the mechanics that care about quality.
replies(1): >>43974358 #
AtlasBarfed ◴[] No.43974358[source]
Luckily for mechanics, the shortage of actual blue collar Hands-On labor is so small, that good mechanics actually can charge more.

The issue is that you have to be able to distinguish a good mechanic from a bad mechanic cuz they all get to charge a lot because of the shortage. Same thing for plumbing, electrical, HVAC, etc etc etc

But I understand your point.

replies(1): >>43974494 #
1. Multicomp ◴[] No.43974494[source]
Here in Atlanta Georgia, we have a ToyoTechs business. They perform maintenance on only Toyota-family automobiles. They have 2 locations, one for large trucks, one for cars, hybrids, and SUV-looking cars. Both are always filled up with customers. Some of whom drive hundreds of miles out of state to bring their vehicles exclusively there, whether the beater is a customized off-roader or a simple econobox with sentimental value.

Why? Because they are on a different incentive structure: non-comissioned payments for employees. They buy OEM parts, give a good warranty, charge fair prices, and they are always busy.

If this computer fad goes away, I'm going to open my own Toyota-only auto shop, trying to emulate them. They have 30 years of lead time on my hypothetical business, but the point stands: when people discover that high quality in this market, they stick to it closely.

replies(2): >>43976755 #>>43978258 #
2. worik ◴[] No.43976755[source]
People understand cars. Abstract data structures, not so much.

There are laws about what goes into a car, strict regulation. Software, not so much.

Until my boss can be prosecuted for selling untested bug ridden bad software that is what I am instructed to produce

replies(1): >>43977986 #
3. jimbokun ◴[] No.43977986[source]
With the introduction of insurance for covering the cost of a security breach, suddenly managers have an understanding of the value of at least the security aspect of software quality. As it impacts their premiums.
replies(1): >>43978180 #
4. worik ◴[] No.43978180{3}[source]
I really hope so. But I do not have much faith in insurance companies. I have seen what they have done to worker safety, made it a minefield for workers, a box ticking exercise for bosses, and done very little for worker safety.

What works for worker safety is regulation. I am afraid the same will be true for software.

replies(1): >>43979779 #
5. AtlasBarfed ◴[] No.43978258[source]
That's a particularly good strategy with Toyota, a company with both a good reputation and a huge market share.

Currently trading at a price to earnings ratio of about seven, compared to 150-800 for Tesla (depending on how you judge their book cooking)

6. jimbokun ◴[] No.43979779{4}[source]
The regulations are the reason the insurance policies exist. Otherwise, corporations would just ignore or cover up any breaches.