zlacker

>>vimes6+(OP)
The problem that the article doesn't address is that users don't actually seem to mind using terrible software so long as it solves the problem they face better than not using it. I could list literally hundreds of half-assed, broken, bloated applications that I've encountered in the past 25 years that have done very well simply because they kind of solve a problem a bit for the user.

Pushing out something completely broken that doesn't do what it's supposed to is definitely not going to work (duh!). Pushing out an app that solves the problem of managing shopping lists that has a bug where it doesn't work given a particular set of circumstances will still lead to many people using it if the users don't have any alternatives and it's better than using a piece of paper.

Software quality is important to companies because it means that they can spend more time building features instead of fighting fires, and because low quality represents a threat that a competitor could launch a better, less buggy app. Users mostly don't care so long as the app works well enough to do what they need it to do (but they're not dumb, they'll still pick the least buggy option if there are alternatives..).

A high level of quality in software is not important unless you're entering an already well-served market. I wish it was.

>>onion2+85
Just guessing, but I suspect this is because most software is designed to extract some minimum acceptable investment per person from maximum people, and simply focus on scaling.

When software is designed to focus on extracting maximum investment per person, and focus on whaling vs scaling, then you get loot boxes. Suddenly overall software quality matters a whole lot to the user base.

>>chesch+i6
> whaling vs scaling

This is a great phrase that I'll have to remember. Pretty much all enterprise sales is "whaling".

>>pjc50+Zc
And yet, what I see is that enterprise software seems much less polished than consumer software.

My assumption is also that enterprise software contains _more_ bugs than consumer software.

>>andrub+rf
That's probably why articles like this get written so often. The companies who create enterprise software seem to think they're still working on scale.

And I don't intend my loot box reference to be taken too seriously. The gaming industry isn't any better. As an obvious example, Cyberpunk 2077 was delivered as a hot mess only to meet overhyped timelines.

But look at games like Apex Legends, Fortnite, etc. They work very diligently to ensure the core gameplay is solid so streamers will provide eyeballs, driving lootbox sales. Whales provide the biggest investments there, with some individuals spending thousands of dollars for cosmetic lootboxes in what would otherwise be a free game.

Then look at games like Quake Champions which should've been successful in the same way, and completely failed because they didn't focus on making the core game tech (net code specifically) rock solid before attempting to monetize. They immediately lost the pro crowd and failed to convert the people playing Quake Live (or even the die hard Q3A players).

Enterprise software often doesn't spend enough time improving core process loops, or worse, provides too many core loops making the experience disjointed and unproductive.