Well, I get where you're coming from but I don't think that the _market_ tells this. Not really. Maybe it's okay for businesses and the market, but it affects individual users. The market/business maybe pays the bills, but the users pay the market.
When I wrote the reason isn't super clear, I understood that as developers, you're just the sausage makers so to speak. (but let's not think of this in a bad way! Sausages are tasty and a stable of many cuisines!) The loss of agency (or lack of it from the beginning) for developers is not unknown and it's a point I'm extremely sympathetic to. Where I say it's unclear is that:
- Developers don't like bugs
- Users don't like bugs
- When it loses them money, businesses don't like bugs
Every participant in the software chain basically doesn't like bugs and wants to make it better. A bug that does a particularly bad thing at a bad time can be fatal to any business; cosmetic bugs that require constant workarounds can be costly to the users and businesses using the software, and those issues that "only take a second to workaround" add up.
Basically, as I see it all bugs are costing us a ton and chipping away at our time and expenses, but universally we still seem to be pretty okay with even fairly large blocking bugs sitting in production systems for months or longer.
That is the part that is unclear for me; it's well documented how impactful the bugs are, we can measure the costs for everyone involved, lost renewals or contracts because bugs couldn't be fixed fast enough or were deprioritized for something else; but we're still pretty okay with having these sit around.
The only simple answer I can really come up with is that the market is okay with it only because short term profit can still be derived or there is capture, or both and possibly more.
It's just a really bad situation for everyone except a select few who still profit despite everyone hating the situation.
When I wrote the reason isn't super clear, I understood that as developers, you're just the sausage makers so to speak. (but let's not think of this in a bad way! Sausages are tasty and a stable of many cuisines!) The loss of agency (or lack of it from the beginning) for developers is not unknown and it's a point I'm extremely sympathetic to. Where I say it's unclear is that:
- Developers don't like bugs
- Users don't like bugs
- When it loses them money, businesses don't like bugs
Every participant in the software chain basically doesn't like bugs and wants to make it better. A bug that does a particularly bad thing at a bad time can be fatal to any business; cosmetic bugs that require constant workarounds can be costly to the users and businesses using the software, and those issues that "only take a second to workaround" add up.
Basically, as I see it all bugs are costing us a ton and chipping away at our time and expenses, but universally we still seem to be pretty okay with even fairly large blocking bugs sitting in production systems for months or longer.
That is the part that is unclear for me; it's well documented how impactful the bugs are, we can measure the costs for everyone involved, lost renewals or contracts because bugs couldn't be fixed fast enough or were deprioritized for something else; but we're still pretty okay with having these sit around.
The only simple answer I can really come up with is that the market is okay with it only because short term profit can still be derived or there is capture, or both and possibly more.
It's just a really bad situation for everyone except a select few who still profit despite everyone hating the situation.