I think this is a pretty interesting comment because it gets to the heart of differing views on what quality means.

For you, non-buggy software is important. You could also reasonably take a more business centered approach, where having some number of paying customers is an indicator of quality (you've built something people are willing to pay for!) Personally I lean towards the second camp, the bugs are annoying but there is a good sprinkling of magic in the product which overall makes it something I really enjoy using.

All that is to say, I don't think there is a straightforward definition of quality that everyone is going to agree on.

What do I care if Anthropic makes money? Do you think Oracle makes money because they have a quality product?

ok, well if youd like to trade in 14billion dollars of revenue for better quality feel free.