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.

How fast you can compile, start and execute some particular code matters. The experience of using a program that performs well if you use it daily matters.

Performance is not just a quantitative issue. It leaks into everything, from architecture to delivery to user experience. Bad performance has expensive secondary effects, because we introduce complexity to patch over it like horizontal scaling, caching or eventual consistency. It limits our ability to make things immediately responsive and reliable at the same time.

Disagree, the main reason so many apps are using "slow" languages/frameworks is precisely that it allows them to develop way more features way quicker than more efficient and harder languages/frameworks.

I never said performance wasn't an important quality metric, just that it's not the only quality metric. If a slow program has the features I need and a fast program doesn't, the slow program is going to be "higher quality" in my mind.

> How fast you can compile, start and execute some particular code matters. The experience of using a program that performs well if you use it daily matters.

Like any other feature, whether or not performance is important depends on the user and context. Chrome being faster than IE8 at general browsing (rendering pages, opening tabs) was very noticeable. uv/ruff being faster than pip/poetry is important because of how the tools integrate into performance-sensitive development workflows. Does Slack taking 5-10 seconds to load on startup matter? -- to me not really, because I have it come up on boot and forget about it until my next system update forced reboot. Do I use LibreOffice or Word and Excel, even though LibreOffice is faster? -- I use Word/Excel because I've run into annoying compatibility issues enough times with LO to not bother. LibreOffice could reduce their startup and file load times to 10 picoseconds and I would still use MS Office, because I just want my damn documents to keep the same formatting my colleagues using MS Office set on their Windows computers.

Now of course I would love the best of all worlds; programs to be fast and have all the functionality I want! In reality, though, companies can't afford to build every feature, performance included, and need to pick and choose what's important.

That’s irrelevant here, the fully featured product can also be fast. The overwhelming majority of software is slow because the company simply doesn’t care about efficiency. Google actively penalized slow websites and many companies still didn’t make it a priority.

So why is it so rarely the case? If it's so simple, why hasn't anyone recognized that Teams, Zoom, etc are all bloated and slow and made a hyper-optimized, feature-complete competitor, dominating the market?

Software costs money to build, and performance optimization doesn't come for free.

> The overwhelming majority of software is slow because the company simply doesn’t care about efficiency.

Don't care about efficiency at all, or don't consider it as important as other features and functionality?

Zoom’s got 7,412 employees a small team of say 7 employees could make a noticeable difference here and the investment wouldn’t disappear, it would help drive further profits.

> Don't care about efficiency at all

Doesn’t care beyond basic functionality.

What would those 7 engineers specifically be working on? How did you pick 7? What part of the infrastructure would they be working on, and what kind of performance gains, in which part of the system, would be the result of their work?

7 people was roughly chosen to be able to cover the relevant skills while also being a tiny fraction of the workforce. Such efforts run into diminishing returns, but the company is going to keep creating low hanging fruit.

Neither do caching, operational/architectural overhead, slow builds and all the hoops we jump through in order to satisfy stylistic choices. All of this stuff introduces complexity and often demands specialized expertise on top.

And it's typically not about optimization, but about not doing things that you don't necessarily have to do. A little bit of frugality goes a long way. Often leading to simpler code and fewer dependencies.

The hardware people are (actually) optimizing, trying hard to make computers fast, to a degree that it introduces vulnerabilities (like the apple CPU cache prefetching memory from arrays of pointers, which opened it up for timing attacks, or the branch prediction vulnerability on intel chips). Meanwhile we software people are piling more and more stuff into programs that aren't needed, from software patterns/paradigms to unnecessary dependencies etc.

There's also the issue of programs feeling entitled to resources. When I'm running a video game or a data migration, I obviously want to give it as many resources as possible. But it shouldn't be necessary to provide gigabytes of memory for utility programs and operative applications.

In an efficient market people buy things based on a value which in the case of software, is derived from overall fitness for use. "Quality" as a raw performance metric or a bug count metric aren't relevant; the criteria is "how much money does using this product make or save me versus its competition or not using it."

In some cases there's a Market of Lemons / contract / scam / lack of market transparency issue (ie - companies selling defective software with arbitrary lock-ins and long contracts), but overall the slower or more "defective" software is often more fit for purpose than that provided by the competition. If you _must_ have a feature that only a slow piece of software provides, it's still a better deal to acquire that software than to not. Likewise, if software is "janky" and contains minor bugs that don't affect the end results it provides, it will outcompete an alternative which can't produce the same results.

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.

This implication is the big question mark. It's often true but it's not at all clear that it's necessarily true. Choosing better languages, frameworks, tools and so on can all help with lowering costs without necessarily lowering quality. I don't think we're anywhere near the bottom of the cost barrel either.

I think the problem is focusing on improving the quality of the end products directly when the quality of the end product for a given cost is downstream of the quality of our tools. We need much better tools.

For instance, why are our languages still obsessed with manipulating pointers and references as a primary mode of operation, just so we can program yet another linked list? Why can't you declare something as a "Set with O(1) insert" and the language or its runtime chooses an implementation? Why isn't direct relational programming more common? I'm not talking programming in verbose SQL, but something more modern with type inference and proper composition, more like LINQ, eg. why can't I do:

    let usEmployees = from x in Employees where x.Country == "US";

    func byFemale(Query<Employees> q) =>
      from x in q where x.Sex == "Female";

    let femaleUsEmployees = byFemale(usEmployees);

EF code-first is also on the right track, but the fluent and attribute mapping are awkward, foreign key associations often have to be unpacked directly as value type keys, there's no smooth transition between in-memory native types and durable types, and schema migration could be smoother.

Lots of the bits and pieces of what I'm describing are around but they aren't holistically combined.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fsharp/language-ref...

    var set = new HashSet<Employee>();

    @JdbcRepository(dialect = ANSI) interface EmployeeQueries : CrudRepository<Employee, String> {
        fun findByCountryAndGender(country: String, gender: String): List<Employee>
    }

    val femaleUSEmployees = employees.findByCountryAndGender("US", "Female")

But now you've hard-coded this selection, why can't the performance characteristics also be easily parameterized and combined, eg. insert is O(1), delete is O(log(n)), or by defining indexes in SQL which can be changed at any time at runtime? Or maybe the performance characteristics can be inferred from the types of queries run on a collection elsewhere in the code.

> That would turn into an efficient SQL query that does a WHERE ... AND ... clause.

For a database you have to manually construct, with a schema you have to manually and poorly to an object model match, using a library or framework you have to painstakingly select from how many options?

You're still stuck in this mentality that you have to assemble a set of distinct tools to get a viable development environment for most general purpose programming, which is not what I'm talking about. Imagine the relational model built-in to the language, where you could parametrically specify whether collections need certain efficient operations, whether collections need to be durable, or atomically updatable, etc.

There's a whole space of possible languages that have relational or other data models built-in that would eliminate a lot of problems we have with standard programming.

A language fully integrated with the relational model exists, that's PL/SQL and it's got features like classes and packages along with 'natural' SQL integration. You can do all the things you ask for: specify what operations on a collection need to be efficient (indexes), whether they're durable (temporary tables), atomically updatable (LOCK TABLE IN EXCLUSIVE MODE) and so on. It even has a visual GUI builder (APEX). And people do build whole apps in it.

Obviously, this approach is not universal. There are downsides. One can imagine a next-gen attempt at such a language that combined the strengths of something like Java/.NET with the strengths of PL/SQL.

If you mean JIT and similar tech, that's not really what I'm describing either. I'm talking about lifting the time and space complexity of data structures to parameters so you don't have to think about specific details.

Again, think about how tables in a relational database work, where you can write queries against sets without regard for the underlying implementation, and you have external/higher level tools to tune a running program's data structures for better time or space behavior.

> A language fully integrated with the relational model exists, that's PL/SQL

Not a general purpose language suitable for most programming, and missing all of the expressive language features I described, like type/shape inference, higher order queries and query composition and so on. See my previous comments. The tool you mentioned leaves a lot to be desired.

https://pldotnet.brickabode.com/cms/uploads/pldotnet_v0_99_b...

    case class Person(name: String, age: Int)
    inline def onlyJoes(p: Person) = p.name == "Joe"

    // run a SQL query
    run( query[Person].filter(p => onlyJoes(p)) )
    
    // Use the same function with a Scala list
    val people: List[Person] = ...
    val joes = people.filter(p => onlyJoes(p))

    // Or, after defining some typeclasses/extension methods
    val joesFromDb = query[Person].onlyJoes.run
    val joesFromList = people.onlyJoes

[0] https://github.com/zio/zio-protoquill?tab=readme-ov-file#sha...

[1] https://github.com/zio

[2] https://github.com/zio/zio-http

You're also just describing a SQL mapping tool, which is also not really it either, though maybe that would be part of the runtime invisible to the user. Define a temporary table whose shape is inferred from another query, that's durable and garbage collected when it's no longer in use, and make it look like you're writing code against any other collection type, and declaratively specify the time complexity of insert, delete and lookup operations, then you're close to what I'm after.

I don't think it's reasonable to specify the time complexity of insert/delete/lookup. For one, joins quickly make you care about multi-column indices and the precise order things are in and the exact queries you want to perform. e.g. if you join A with B, are your results sorted such that you can do a streaming join with C in the same order? This could be different for different code paths. Simply adding indices also adds maintenance overhead to each operation, which doesn't affect the time complexity (it scales with number of indices, not dataset size), but is nonetheless important for real-world performance. Adding and dropping indexes on the fly can also be quite expensive if your dataset size is large enough to care about performance.

That all said, you could probably get at what you mean by just specifying indices instead of complexity and treating an embedded sqlite table as a native mutable collection type with methods to create/drop indices and join with other tables. You could create the table in the constructor (maybe using Object.hash() for the name or otherwise anonymously naming it?) and drop it in the finalizer. Seems pretty doable in a clean way in Scala. In some sense, the query builders are almost doing this, but they tend to make you call `run` to go from statement to result instead of implicitly always using sqlite.

What I meant is that there would be no explicit List<T> types, or array types, or hash tables, or trees, etc. Contiguity of the data is an implementation detail that doesn't matter for the vast majority of programming, much like how fields are packed in an object is almost completely irrelevant. Existing languages drive people to attend to these small details like collection choice that largely don't matter except in extreme circumstances (like game programming).

What it would have is something more like a Set<T ordered by T.X>, and maybe not even ordering should be specifiable as that's typically a detail of presentation/consumers of data. Restrictions are freeing, so the point is to eliminate many ill-advised premature optimizations and unnecessary internal details. Maybe the runtime will use one of those classic collections internally from the constraints you specify on the set, but the fundamental choice would not typically be visible.

> That all said, you could probably get at what you mean by just specifying indices instead of complexity and treating an embedded sqlite table as a native mutable collection type with methods to create/drop indices and join with other tables.

Yes, something like sqlite would likely be part of the runtime of such a language, and seems like the most straightforward way to prototype it. Anyway, I don't have a concrete semantics worked out so much as rough ideas of certain properties, and this is only one of them.

Other functional languages, too, but Clojure. You get exactly this, minus all the <'s =>'s ;'s and other irregularities, and minus all the verbosity...

I couldn't find anything specific when searching.

https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/a/450699

I did read actual studies that were conducted years ago, but don't have access to them at this point.

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.

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.

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

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

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)

If it was just because it was cheap, we'd also see similar fraud from Mexican or Vietnamese sellers, but I don't really see that.

Random sampling can make sure a product matching the description arrives. But someone familiar with it would have to carefully compare over time. And that process doesn’t scale.

One thing Walmart does right is having “buyers” in charge of each department in the store. For example fishing - and they know all the gear and try it out. And they can walk into any store and audit and know if something is wrong.

I’m sure Amazon has responsible parties on paper - but the size and rate at which the catalog changes makes this a lower level of accountability.

[1] https://studiotanais.com/

Has she tried raising prices? To signal that her product is highly quality and thus more expensive than her competition?

Some customers WANT to pay a premium just so they know they’re getting the best product.

First, honest impression: At least on my phone (Android/Chromium) the typography and style of the website don't quite match that "high quality & expensive ingredients" vibe the parfums are supposed to convey. The banners (3 at once on the very first screen, one of them animated!), italic text, varying font sizes, and janky video header would be rather off-putting to me. Maybe it's also because I'm not a huge fan of flat designs, partially because I find they make it difficult to visually distinguish important and less important information, but also because I find them a bit… unrefined and inelegant. And, again, this is on mobile, so maybe on desktop it comes across differently.

Disclaimer: I'm not a designer (so please don't listen only to me and take everything with a grain of salt) but I did work as a frontend engineer for a luxury retailer for some time.

This design is very 2025 and the rules you're judging by have long-since been thrown out the window. Most brands run on Shopify now, marketing is via myriad social channels in ways that feel insane and unintuitive, aesthetics are all over the map.

What's old is new is old is different is the same is good is bad, and what is garish to you (strangely, honestly) isn't to most; you'll see if you hang out with some young people lol, promise.

P.S. I am not young, I'm figuring this out by watching from afar HAHAHA

That site does run on Shopify.

The ones for me usually look way shittier or just use Etsy.

[edit] the only exception I can come up with is Imaginary Authors, which is much slicker-looking than this, actually, but with a far darker palette—this one definitely says “this is feminine stuff” in the design. And actually I’d say IA leans far more feminine as far as overall vibe of their catalog than most others that’ve had at least one scent that worked out for me.

See, I find IA actually quite well-designed. Am I the target audience? Certainly not. But the typography is much much easier to parse.

this website looks like a scam website redirecter the one where you have to click on 49 ads and wait for 3 days before you get to your link the video playing immediately makes me think that's a Google ad unrelated to what the website is about the different font styles reminds me of the middle school HTML projects we had to do with each line in a different size and font face to prove that we know how to use <font face> and <font size>. All its missing is a jokerman font

From the site there's a huge assumption that potential customers are aware of what extrait de parfum is vs eau de parfum (or even eau de toilette!).

Might be worth a call out that these fragrances are in fact a standard above the norm.

"The highest quality fragrance money can buy" kind of thing.

It's great to say your software is higher quality, but the question I have is whether or not is is higher quality with the same or similar features, and second, whether the better quality is known to the customers.

It's the same way that I will pay hundreds of dollars for Jetbrains tools each year even though ostensibly VS Code has most of the same features, but the quality of the implementation greatly differs.

If a new company made their IDE better than jetbrains though, it'd be hard to get me to fork over money. Free trials and so on can help spread awareness.

If you look around, notice people still use Microsoft yet ransomware almost universally attacks Windows installations. This is despite everyone knowing Windows is a security nightmare courtesy of the Sony hack 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Sony_Pictures_hack

Mind you, when I say "everyone", Microsoft's marketing is very good. A firm I worked lost $500k to a windows keyboard logger stealing banking credentials. They had virus scanners for firewalls installed of course, but they aren't a sure deference. As the technical lead for many years, I was asked about my opinion of what they could do. The answer is pretty simple: don't use Windows for banking. Buy an iPad of Android tablet, and do you safety critical stuff on there. The CEO didn't believe a tablet could be more secure than a several thousand dollar laptop when copy of Windows cost more than the tablet. Sigh.

So the answer to why don't people move away from poor quality subscription software is by the time they've figure out it's crap, the cost of moving isn't just the subscription. It's much larger than that.

I assume all software is shit in some fashion because every single software license includes a clause that has "no fitness for any particular purpose" clause. Meaning, if your word processor doesn't process words, you can't sue them.

When we get consumer protection laws that require that software does what is says on the tin quality will start mattering.

Their software quality itself is about average for the tech industry. It's not bad, but not amazing either. It's sufficient for the task and better than their primary competitor (Windows). But, their UI quality is much higher, and that's what people can check quickly with their own eyes and fingers in a shop.

Apple's aesthetic is more important than the quality (which has been deteriorating lately)

All of those were marketed as just-barely-affordable consumer luxury goods. The physical design and the marketing were more important than the specs.

They have constant, frequent, hardware design issues that they just don't even acknowledge and somehow people still treat their hardware as "high quality"

They once shipped a phone that lost signal if you held it with your hand. Their solution, after insisting that people hold their phone differently, was cheap plastic cases.

They shipped a new keyboard that would fail after singular grains of dust got into it, in order to save a millimeter of thickness on a product that was already quite thin. In order to repair or replace the keyboard, you have to replace half of the whole machine, for half the price of a brand new laptop.

Apple does not spend real effort on hardware quality.

I simply don't understand how people can live in the real world, look around themselves and claim quality is getting worse. This is simply not the case for 99% of product I have consumed over my few decades of being an adult.

A typical day. I get up, mattress I have now is better. I brush my teeth with a powerful electric toothbrush that is much superior then the once a decade ago. I use a amazing induction stove that is far better then what I had a decade ago. I ride a beautiful electric bus to the train station. From there I take modern fast train to work, much better and faster then 10-20 years ago. I set on my desk that goes up and down, has a insanely large beautiful monitor on it, incredible. I turn on my laptop that 100x more powerful then my first one. I start a IDE that is much better then what I had when I started. I use a programming language better then the one I used when I started, and I have a much larger library ecosystem. I spin up VM and containers, both locally and if I need in a waste internet cloud. I go for launch, I have like 20 options, food from one end of the globe to the the other, much better then I had 20 years ago.

I could go on about almost every single product I tough on typical day. The only thing that is actually not much better are things like backed goods, and mostly because they were already amazing. At most its now faster to buy them and I can buy them at more places.

I really don't why so many people inhere are crying about how everything is getting worse all the time.

Race to the bottom

Capitalism? Marx's core belief was that capitalists would always lean towards paying the absolute lowest price they could for labor and raw materials that would allow them to stay in production. If there's more profit in manufacturing mediocrity at scale than quality at a smaller scale, mediocrity it is.

Not all commerce is capitalistic. If a commercial venture is dedicated to quality, or maximizing value for its customers, or the wellbeing of its employees, then it's not solely driven by the goal of maximizing capital. This is easier for a private than a public company, in part because of a misplaced belief that maximizing shareholder return is the only legally valid business objective. I think it's the corporate equivalent of diabetes.

But that shifted later, with Milton Friedman, who pushed the idea of shareholder capitalism in the 70s. Where companies switched to thinking the only goal is to maximize shareholder value.

In his theory, government would provide regulation and policies to address stakeholder's needs, and companies therefore needed focus on shareholders.

In practice, lobbying, propaganda and corruption made it so governments dropped the ball and also sided to maximize shareholder value, along with companies.

Do you drive the cheapest car, eat the cheapest food, wear the cheapest clothes, etc.?

I'm thinking out loud but it seems like there's some other factors at play. There's a lower threshold of quality that needs to happen (the thing needs to work) so there's at least two big factors, functionality and cost. In the extreme, all other things being equal, if two products were presented at the exact same cost but one was of superior quality, the expectation is that the better quality item would win.

There's always the "good, fast, cheap" triangle but with Moore's law (or Wright's law), cheap things get cheaper, things iterate faster and good things get better. Maybe there's an argument that when something provides an order of magnitude quality difference at nominal price difference, that's when disruption happens?

So, if the environment remains stable, then mediocrity wins as the price of superior quality can't justify the added expense. If the environment is growing (exponentially) then, at any given snapshot, mediocrity might win but will eventually be usurped by quality when the price to produce it drops below a critical threshold.

If you want to be rewarded for working on quality, you have to find a niche where quality has high economic value. If you want to put effort into quality regardless, that's a very noble thing and many of us take pleasure in doing so, but we shouldn't act surprised when we aren't economically rewarded for it

In most cases the company making the inferior product didn't spend less. But they did spend differently. As in, they spent a lot on marketing.

You were focused on quality, and hoped for viral word of mouth marketing. Your competitors spent the same as you, but half their budget went to marketing. Since people buy what they know, they won.

Back in the day MS made Windows 95. IBM made OS/2. MS spend a billion $ on marketing Windows 95. That's a billion back when a billion was a lot. Just for the launch.

Techies think that Quality leads to sales. If does not. Marketing leads to sales. There literally is no secret to business success other than internalizing that fact.

The key point to understand is the only effort that matters is that which makes the sale. Business is a series of transactions, and each individual transaction is binary: it either happens or it doesn't. Sometimes, you can make the sale by having a product which is so much better than alternatives that it's a complete no-brainer to use it, and then makes people so excited that they tell all their friends. Sometimes you make the sale by reaching out seven times to a prospect that's initially cold but warms up in the face of your persistence. Sometimes, you make the sale by associating your product with other experiences that your customers want to have, like showing a pretty woman drinking your beer on a beach. Sometimes, you make the sale by offering your product 80% off to people who will switch from competitors and then jacking up the price once they've become dependent on it.

You should know which category your product fits into, and how and why customers will buy it, because that's the only way you can make smart decisions about how to allocate your resources. Investing in engineering quality is pointless if there is no headroom to deliver experiences that will make a customer say "Wow, I need to have that." But if you are sitting on one of those gold mines, capitalizing on it effectively is orders of magnitude more efficient than trying to market a product that doesn't really work.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnsSUqgkDwU

This. Per your example, this is exactly what it was like when most of us first used Google after having used AltaVista for a few years. Or Google Maps after having used MapQuest for a few years. Google invested their resources correctly in building a product that was head and shoulders above the competition.

And yes, if you are planning to sell beer, you are going to need the help of scantily clad women on the beach much more than anything else.

Except that they didn't: they bought a company that had been building a product that was head and shoulders above the competition (Where 2 Technologies), then they also bought Keyhole which became Google Earth.

Incidentally they also bought, not built, Youtube .. and Android.

So, yes, they had a good nose for "experiences that will make a customer say "Wow, I need to have that.""

They arguably did do a good job investing their resources but it was mostly in buying, not building.

.. and they are good at marketing :)

YouTube now, well only someone with deep pockets could have made it what it is today(unlimited video uploads and the engineering to support it). It was nothing special.

They did build a large part of those products, Keyhole is just a part of Google earth google maps in general has many more features than that.

For example driving around cars in every country that allowed it to take street photos is really awesome and nobody else does that even today. Google did that, not some company they aquired, they built it.

People read that YouTube or Android were acquisitions and don't realize just how much development happened internally, though. Android was a 6-person startup; basically all the code was written post-acquisition. YouTube was a pure-Python application at time of acquisition; they rewrote everything on the Google stack soon afterwards, and that was necessary for it to scale. They were also facing a company-ending lawsuit from Viacom that they needed Google's legal team to fight; the settlement to it hinged on ContentID, which was developed in-house at Google.

We're still trying to figure out the marketing. I'm convinced the high failure rate of restaurants is due largely to founders who know how to make good food and think their culinary skills plus word-of-mouth will get them sales.

It was not a huge commercial success though, even though it wasn't a failure either; it generated just enough money to stay afloat.

This would be beautiful in a world where retirement was better and it didn’t feel like inflation or financial crashes are looming around the next corner most of the time.

For many folks, trying to get savings and putting money into investments is less about wanting a lavish lifestyle later and more about just wanting financial security in case something bad happens.

Doesn't that depend on your audience? Also, what do you mean by quality?

Where I live, the best food can lead to big success. New tiny restaurants open, they have great food, eventually they open their big successor (or their second restaurant, third restaurant, etc.).

[0] https://www.wsj.com/style/michelin-star-removal-giglio-resta...

There is a market for quality, but it's a niche. Several niches actually.

But you need to attract that customer. And the food needs to be interesting. And the drinks need to match. Because foodies care about quality but also want a certain experience.

Average Joe Blow who dines at McDonald's doesn't give a flying fuck about quality, that's true. Market quality to him and he'll probably think it tastes worse.

If you want to make quality food, everything else needs to match. And if you want to do it profitably, your business model needs to be very focused.

It can't just be the same as a chain restaurant but 20% more expensive...

Famously Toyota beat many companies that were basing their strategy on marketing rather than quality.

They were able to use quality as part of their marketing.

My father in law worked in a car showroom and talks about when they first installed carpet there.

No one did that previously. The subtle point to customers being that Toyotas didn’t leak oil.

And its also a cherry picked example. There are so many counter-examples, how Sun out-competed HP, IBM, Appollo and DEC. Or how AMD in the last 10 years out-competed Intel, sure its all marketing. I could go on with 100s of examples just in computer history.

Marketing is clearly an important aspect in business, nobody denies that. But there are many other things that are important as well. You can have the best marketing in the world, if you fuck up your production and your supply chain, your company is toast. You can have the best marketing in the world, if your product sucks, people will reject it (see the Blackbarry Strom as an nice example). You can have the best marketing in the world, if your finance people fuck up, the company might go to shit anyway.

Anybody that reaches for simple explanations like 'marketing always wins' is just talking nonsense.

Also, one should not confuse the quality of the final product and the quality of the process.

[1] https://archive.org/details/qualityisfree00cros

You cannot make a cheap product with high margins and get away with it. Motorola tried with the RAZR. They had about five or six good quarters from it and then within three years of initial launch were hemorrhaging over a billion dollars a year.

You have to make premium products if you want high margins. And premium means you’re going for 10% market share, not dominant market share. And if you guess wrong and a recession happens, you might be fucked.

You must have read that the Market for Lemons is a type of market failure or collapse. Market failure (in macroeconomics) does not yet mean collapse. It describes a failure to allocate resources in the market such that the overall welfare of the market participants decreases. With this decrease may come a reduction in trade volume. When the trade volume decreases significantly, we call it a market collapse. Usually, some segment of the market that existed ceases to exist (example in a moment).

There is a demand for inferior goods and services, and a demand for superior goods. The demand for superior goods generally increases as the buyer becomes wealthier, and the demand for inferior goods generally increases as the buyer becomes less wealthy.

In this case, wealthier buyers cannot buy the superior relevant software previously available, even if they create demand for it. Therefore, we would say a market fault has developed as the market could not organize resources to meet this demand. Then, the volume of high-quality software sales drops dramatically. That market segment collapses, so you are describing a market collapse.

> There’s probably another name for this

You might be thinking about "regression to normal profits" or a "race to the bottom." The Market for Lemons is an adjacent scenario to both, where a collapse develops due to asymmetric information in the seller's favor. One note about macroecon — there's never just one market force or phenomenon affecting any real situation. It's always a mix of some established and obscure theories.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons

The Market for Lemons idea seems like it has merit in general but is too strong and too binary to apply broadly, that’s where I was headed with the suggestion for another name. It’s not that people want low quality. Nobody actually wants defective products. People are just price sensitive, and often don’t know what high quality is or how to find it (or how to price it), so obviously market forces will find a balance somewhere. And that balance is extremely likely to be lower on the quality scale than what people who care about high quality prefer. This is why I think you’re right about the software market tolerating low quality; it’s because market forces push everything toward low quality.

No objection to your use/non-use of the Market for Lemons label. Just wanted to clarify a possible misconception.

P.S. Apologies for editing this comment late. I thought the original version wasn't very concise.

No, the inferior good is a device with 2GB RAM, a poor quality battery, easy to crack screen, a poor camera. poor RF design and thus less stable connectivity, and poor mechanical assembly. But it has its market segment because it costs like 15% of the cost of an iPhone. Some people just cannot afford the expensive high-quality goods at all. Some people, slightly better-off, sometimes don't see the point to "overpay" because they are used to the bottom-tier functionality and can't imagine how much higher quality may be materially beneficial in comparison.

In other words, many people have low expectations, and low resources to match. It is a large market to address once a product-market fit was demonstrated in the high-end segment.

That is, the choice between a $10 organic grass-fed milk and $8 organic grass-fed milk is literally a matter of taste, not the $2 price difference. The real price/quality choice is between the $10 fancy organic milk, $4.99 okay milk, and $2.49 bottom-shelf milk. They attract materially different customer segments.

The strongest decider for whether a good will show positive or negative elastic demand (and be considered superior or inferior) is probably how it's branded, pricing strategy included. For example, wealthy people shop in boutiques more than large retail centers, though the items sold are often sourced from the same suppliers. The difference? Branding, including pricing.

You're right about basic goods, such as groceries. Especially goods that are almost perfectly identical and freely substitutable, like milk. What's a superior or inferior good becomes hard to guess when there is a high degree of differentiation (as you say, ecosystems, cameras, security). It's easier to measure than predict.

Anyway, this is all a "fun fact." My original comment really does make the assumption that software, which is relatively substitutable, is like the milk example — the price and the inferiority/superiority are strongly correlated. And the entire expensive software market has collapsed like the expensive secondary market for used cars.

Now it seems that the price has very little to do with quality. Cheaply made products might be priced higher just to give the appearance of quality. Even well known brands will cut corners to save a buck or two.

I have purchased things at bargain prices that did everything I wanted and more. I have also paid a lot for things that disappointed me greatly.

A big part of the drive towards lower prices is likely driven by companies exploiting that lack of information to deliver a low-quality product for a high price. Consumers rationally respond to this by just always picking the low-price product

Unless, of course, there's another factor (such as brand) that assures users they are receiving something worth spending extra on (and of course it's oh so easy for companies with such a reputation to temporarily juice returns if they are willing to make sacrifices)

I don't think this has ever actually been true. There was plenty of expensive snake oil in 1800s America. There were plenty of expensive shit things. There always has been. Christ, that ancient tablet of that guy complaining about copper quality is one of the oldest written documents we have, and I can assure you that copper was not cheap.

Price has never been a signal of quality because it wouldn't make any sense. The price is set by the seller. That's the only signal it can convey; what the seller expects you to pay. There's never been a perfectly efficient market where a seller is forced to set the price of something to match it's value or quality. There has always been information asymmetry. There has always been a difficulty in finding out whether that thing for sale is actually worth it.

The real effects are way smaller then claimed in the paper and market collapses don't or almost never happen for that reason.

And in real live many people drive reliable used cars. And may people buy used cars over and over again. Because its not about verification, only about picking one of the better options, and many heuristics can be applied to do that.

If market forces push everything towards lower quality. Why are cars (and everything else) today so much more energy efficient and more comfortable. Why are phones so much better? Why is pretty much every product today so much better then it was 50 years ago?

Somehow everything gets worse, yet my operating system on my computer crashes far less often. Despite many more features. My hardware fails less often to, harddisk, then and now, its a joke.

The food is better, both in quality and diversity when I go to restaurants.

I really don't understand how people can argue against this claiming quality is going down over time. Outside of very specific things very temporarily, like twitter, this isn't the case.

There are many reason for this, and only focusing on finding a list of as many 'market failures' as economist can come up with, misses so much about how in the real world people (including governments) deal with many of these things.

A differentiator would be having the ability to have a higher than average quality per cost. Then maybe you're onto something.

It's really hard to reconcile your comment with Silicon Valley, which was built by often expensive innovation, not by cutting costs. Were Apple, Meta, Alphabet, Microsoft successful because they cut costs? The AI companies?

Meta and Alphabet had zero cost products (to consumers) that they leveraged to become near monopolies.

Aren’t all the AI companies believed to be providing their products below cost for now to grab market share?

Apple's incredible innovation and attention to detail is what made them legendary and successful. Steve Jobs was legendary for both.

> Meta and Alphabet had zero cost products (to consumers) that they leveraged to become near monopolies.

What does zero cost have to do with it? The comment I responded to spoke of cutting the business's costs - quality inputs, labor, etc. - not their customers' costs. Google made a much better search engine than competitors and then better advertising engine; Facebook made the best social media network.

> Aren’t all the AI companies believed to be providing their products below cost for now to grab market share?

Again, what does that have to do with cutting costs rather than innovating to increase profit?

It's the same concept as the age old "only an engineer can build a bridge that just barely doesn't fall down" circle jerk but for a more diverse set of goods than just bridges.

Take cars for instance, if all people wanted the cheapest one then Mercedes or even Volkswagen would be out of business.

Same for professional tools and products, you save more by buying quality product.

And then, even in computer and technology. Apple iPhone aren't cheap at all, MacBook come with soldered ram and storage, high price, yet a big part of people are willing to buy that instead of the usual windows bloated spyware laptop that run well enough and is cheap.

I would argue this is a bad example - most luxury cars aren't really meaningfully "better", they just have status symbol value. A mid range Honda civic or Toyota corolla is not "worse" than a Mercedes for most objective measurements.

The Mercedes has superior suspension that feels plush and smooth. Wonderful materials in the cabin that feel pleasant to the touch. The buttons press with a deep, satisfying click. The seats hug you like a soft cloud.

All of that isn’t nothing. It is difficult to achieve, and it is valuable.

All of that make the Mercedes better than a Corolla, albeit at a higher cost.

Will you get there faster? No. Will you get there safer? Well... no. Will you get there with less traffic? Will the drive be easier? Eh... no.

So it's about equivalent. You might be slightly more comfortable. If you happen to be paying attention when you take that measurement, otherwise you wouldn't notice.

To borrow your example, it's as if Mercedes started giving every 4th customer a Lada instead (after the papers are signed). The expensive Mercedes market would quickly no longer meet the luxury demand of wealthy buyers and collapse. Not the least because Mercedes would start showing super-normal profits, and all other luxury brands would get in on the same business model. It's a race to the bottom. When one seller decreases the quality, so must others. Otherwise, they'll soon be bought out, and that's the best-case scenario compared to being outcompeted.

There is some evidence that the expensive software market has collapsed. In the 00s and 90s, we used to have expensive and cheap video games, expensive and cheap video editing software, and expensive and cheap office suites. Now, we have homogeneous software in every niche — similar features and similar (relatively cheap) prices. AAA game companies attempting to raise their prices back to 90s levels (which would make a AAA game $170+ in today's money) simply cannot operate in the expensive software market. First, there was consumer distrust due to broken software, then there were no more consumers in that expensive-end market segment.

Hardware you mention (iPhones, Androids, Macs, PCs) still have superior and inferior hardware options. Both ends of the market exist. The same applies to most consumer goods - groceries, clothes, shoes, jewelry, cars, fuel, etc. However, for software, the top end of the market is now non-existent. It's gone the way of expensive secondary market (resale) cars, thanks to how those with hidden defects undercut their price and destroyed consumer trust.

    for software, the top end of the market is now non-existent

If by "top end" you mean "built to spec, hardened, and close to bug-free", it's alive and well in heavy manufacturing, telecommunication, automotive, aerospace, military, and medical industries. The technologies used there are not sexy (ask anyone working at Siemens or Nokia), the code wouldn't delight you, the processes are likely glacial, but there you will find software that works because it absolutely has to.

If by "top end" you mean "serves the implied user need in the best way imaginable", then modern LLMs systems are a good example. Despite the absolute mess and slop that those systems are built of, very few people come to ChatGPT and leave unsatisfied with its results.

If by "top end" you mean "beautifully engineered and maintained", think SQLite, LLVM and some OS kernels, like seL4. Those are well-written, foundational pieces of software that are not end-products in themselves, but they're built to last, studied by developers, and trusted everywhere. This is the current forefront in our knowledge of how to write software.

If by "top end" you mean "maximising profit through code", then the software in the top trading firms match this description. All those "hacker-friendly" and "tech-driven" firms run on the same sloppy code as everyone else, but they are ruthlessly optimised to make money. That's performance too.

You can carry on. For each definition of "top end", there is a real-life example of software matching it.

One can moan about the market rewarding mediocrity, but we, as technologists, all have better things to do instead of endless hand-wringing, really.

Increased productivity means that the company has a new option to either reduce costs or increase output at no additional cost, one of which it has to do to stay ahead in the rat-race of competitors. Investing the added productivity into employee leisure time would be in the best case foolish and in the worst case suicidal.

Of course we learned this all before a century ago, it's why we have things like the FDA in the first place. But this new generation of techno-libertarians and DOGE folks who grew up in a "move fast and break things" era, who grew up in the cleanest and safest times the world has ever seen, have no understanding or care of the dangers here and are willing to throw it all away because of imagined inefficiencies. Regulations are written in blood, and those that remove them will have new blood on their hands.

Your post started out talking about labor laws but then switched to the FDA, which is very different. This is one of the reasons that people like the DOGE employees are tearing things apart. There are so many false equivalences on the importance of literally everything the government does that they look at things that are clearly useless and start to pull apart things they think might be useless.

The good will has been burned on the “trust me, the government knows best”, so now we’re in an era of cuts that will absolutely go too far and cause damage.

Your post mentioning “imagined inefficiencies” is a shining example of the issue of why they are there. Thinking the government doesn’t have inefficiencies is as dumb as thinking it’s pointless. Politicians are about as corrupt of a group as you can get and budget bills are filled with so much excess waste it’s literally called “pork”.

Same with low flush toilets. I vaguely remember the initial ones had issues, but tbh less than the older use a ton of water toilets my family had before that were also super clog prone. Nowadays I can’t even remember the last time a low flush toilet clogged. Massive water saving that took regulation.

Efficiency regulations may not be directly written in blood, instead they are built on costly mountains of unaddressed waste.

BTW the same thing happened with vacuum cleaners, you need to hover more to get the same amount of dust out because they capped the power in the EU. My old Vacuum Cleaner I managed to find, literally sticks to the carpet when hoovering.

And the Norwegian made and designed low flow toilets in my house flush perfectly every time. Have the flush volumes reduced further in the last fifteen years?

I don't believe you and it besides the point because I suspect that it is an expensive vacuum cleaner. I don't want to put any thought into a vacuum cleaner. I just want to buy the most powerful (bonus points if it is really loud), I don't care about it being quiet or efficient. I want the choice to buy something that makes a dent in my electricity bill if I so choose to.

> And the Norwegian made and designed low flow toilets in my house flush perfectly every time. Have the flush volumes reduced further in the last fifteen years?

This reads as "I have some fancy bathroom that costs a lot, if you had this fancy bathroom you wouldn't have issues". I don't want to have to care whether my low flush toilet is some fancy Norwegian brand or not. I just want something to flush the shit down the hole. The old toilets never had the problems the newer ones have. I would rather buy the old design, but I can't. I am denied the choice because someone else I have never met thinks they know better than I.

Have you considered that the market for such a thing is effectively zero? Why would anyone make this?

Dysons are fine, even if the founder is a total tool.

Every-time you have a conversation around older stuff being better than newer stuff (some of this is due to regulation), you will have someone say their boutique item that costs hundreds of pounds (or maybe 1000s) works perfectly well. Ignoring the fact that most people don't wish to buy these boutique items (the dude literally talked about some Norwegian toilet design). I buy whatever is typically on offer than is from a brand that I recognise. I don't care about the power consumption of my vacuum cleaner. I am not using it for the entire day. It is maybe 30 minutes to an hour twice a week. I just want to do this task (which I find tedious) as quickly as possible.

BTW Dysons count in this regard as boutique, they are expensive and kinda rubbish. They are rendered useless by cat fur (my mother had three cats and it constantly got clogged with it). Bagless vacuum cleaners are generally garbage anyway (this is a separate complaint) because when you try to empty them, you have to empty it into a bag typically.

Patently untrue. Mine works fine.

BTW The old Henry Hoover (not bagless) never had any problems.

I own a Land Rover. It is old, expensive and unreliable. You know how I justify my spending on it? I like driving it.

Your Land Rover is good because it’s expensive but you like it.

Reading several of your comments on this thread are a real whirlwind. If you just flat out reject anyone’s experience that doesn’t reflect your own or that of your mother then I don’t know why you’re even responding to anyone.

I bought just about the cheapest toilet possible and it works identically to the one it replaced that was probably 15 years old. Maybe EU regulations are truly onerous and mad but the standards that have now been thrown in the garbage in the US have not been a problem for me literally ever. Anyone who needs to flush the toilet 10 times is doing something wrong.

I dunno what kind of cats your mom has but I’ve got 2 cats and 4 dogs and I haven’t had a problem with either a modest Shark or a (refurbished) Dyson.

I am not trying to justify my purchase by pretending it is not bourgeois choice, that was the point I was making.

Dyson's have historically been more expensive than other brands (at least in the UK) and they aren't actually worth the extra money. I just looked on amazon for prices "air purifier fans" and it is £500, I have something similar for my living room and I bought was £50.

> Reading several of your comments on this thread are a real whirlwind. If you just flat out reject anyone’s experience that doesn’t reflect your own or that of your mother then I don’t know why you’re even responding to anyone.

My experiences was flat out rejected to begin with. I told there isn't a problem, even though I know there is because I have some of the older products and I know they work better.

Other people have told me personally that they have made similar observations. So I know it isn't just I.

Compliance with the regulations can be done both by the capable and the incapable, but caveat emptor rears its ugly head, and that assumes the end user is the buyer (right now, I'm renting). There's often quite a price gap between good enough and terrible too. A lot of people end up stuck with the crap and little recourse.

The government cares that your dishwasher uses less water and the detergent doesn't put phosphate into the water. It doesn't care that your dishwasher actually works well. We can layer more regulations to fix that problem too, but they will make things cost more, and they will require more expensive and competent civil servants to enforce, and so on. And I don't see any offer in that arrangement to replace my existing dishwasher, which is now just a sunk cost piece of future e-waste that neither the government nor the manufacturer have been made responsible for.

Even with a total clog, there’s a 1-2 flush bowl capacity before it over flows.

Who remembers the abject terror of watching the water rise in a clogged high flush toilet and just praying it didn’t overflow.

Also unless every usage is a big poop requiring extra flushes, it’s far fetched that more flushes occasionally are adding up to the same water usage. If the toilet clogs for #1, something is very wrong - likely installed wrong, plumbing issues, or user error. Your toilet might not have been seated right so the wax seal ring is partially blocking the sewer line.

Firstly No my one works properly thank you. They just aren't as good as the old ones. Many of the plumbers have agreed with me on this.

> Who remembers the abject terror of watching the water rise in a clogged high flush toilet and just praying it didn’t overflow.

I don't remember the old ones clogging, because it rarely happened. So no I don't remember of this because it didn't happen that often.

> Your toilet might not have been seated right so the wax seal ring is partially blocking the sewer line.

It isn't fitted like that. I know because I took apart the old one (which was poorly installed). It quite frustrating on my end to read a post that when you make a bunch of assumptions about the fitting of my lavatory which are incorrect, while you are telling me I've got it all wrong.

Not a regulation on water usage, but flow.

Additionally, the fact that it was federal and not per state made it farcical because significant portions of the eastern US are inundated with fresh water.

none has been found. The command economy is inefficient, and prone to corruption.

informal/barter systems are too small in scale and does not produce sufficient amounts to make the type of abundant lifestyle we enjoy today possible.

As the saying goes - free market capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others.

It is even easy to explain why: Humans are part of all the moving pieces in such a system and they will always subvert it to their own agenda, no matter what rules you put into place. The more complex your rule set, the easier it is to break.

Look at games, can be a card game, a board game, some computer game. There is a fixed set of rules, and still humans try to cheat. We are not even talking adults here, you see this with kids already. Now with games there is either other players calling that out or you have a computer not allowing to cheat (maybe). Now imagine everyone could call someone else a cheater and stop them from doing something. This in itself is going to be misused. Humans will subvert systems.

So the only working system will be one with a non-human incorruptible game master, so to speak. Not going to happen.

With that out of the way, we certainly can ask the question: What is the next best thing to that? I have no answer to that, though.

all systems are competitive, if the system involves humans - after all, even in a constrained environment like academia, where research is cooperative, the competition for recognition is still strong. This includes the order of the authorship presented in the paper.

What you're asking for, regarding cooperation to achieve common goals, is altruism. This does not exist in human nature.

It's harder to design systems that avoid competitive behavior, but I don't think it's impossible. And of course competition is not all bad, it's a good tool when used carefully. But it's way too much when most of our systems are based on it.

Any sort of scheme to try allocate the funding leads to competition for said funding!

In other words, in order to remove all competition in the system, you need unlimited funding. Even randomly allocating funding is insufficient, as it simply means you're competing on luck (for example, by trying to acquire more slots in the lottery).

> harder to avoid competitive behavior, but I don't think it's impossible.

Which i think is not true - it is in fact, impossible, unless you add in the condition that there's unlimited 'resources' (after all, there's competition for resources while it is limited).

This has been proven over and over not to work. Humans are inherently competitive, and so corruption ALWAYS takes over.

Even if you make everything and everyone equal, they eventually get bored and start trying to one-up each other and push the limits of what's allowed, which is just another way to say corruption.

Small government, big government, socialism, communism, capitalism, everything the world has tried has ended in mass corruption.

> It's possible to design systems that do not force people to compete

I have yet to see any real evidence of this working on a societal level.

i argue that what we have today is the so called next best thing - free market capitalism, with a good dose of democracy and strong gov't regulations (but not overbearing).

And, dare I say, mostly due to capitalism.

Guess it’ll just have to be this way forever and ever.

Corruption mainly exists because people have low standards for enforcing eradication of it. This is observable in the smallest levels. In countries where corruption is deeply engraved, even university student groups will be corrupted. Elected officials of societies of any size will be prone to put their personal interests in front of the groups' and will appoint or employ friends instead of randomers based on some quality metrics. The question is what are the other people willing to do? Is anyone willing to call them out? Is anyone willing to instead put on the job themselves and do it right (which can be demanding)?

The real question is how far are the individuals willing to go and how much discomfort are they willing to embrace to impose their requirements, needs, moral expectations on the political leader? The outcomes of many situations you face in society (should that be a salary negotiation or someone trying to rip you off in a shop) depend on how much sacrifice (e.g. discomfort) you are willing to take on to get out as a "winner" (or at least non-loser) of the situation? Are you willing to quit your job if you cannot get what you want? Are you going to argue with the person trying to rip you off? Are you willing to go to a lawyer and sue them and take a long legal battle? If people keep choosing the easier way, there will always be people taking advantage of that. Sure, we have laws but laws also need maintenance and anyone wielding power needs active check! It doesn't just magically happen but the force that can keep it in check is every individual in the system. Technological advances and societal changes always lead to new ideas how to rip others off. What we would need is to truly punish the people trying to take advantage of such situations: no longer do business with them, ask others to boycott such behaviour (and don't vote for dickheads!, etc.) -- even in the smallest friends group such an issue could arise.

The question is: how much are people willing to sacrifice on a daily basis to put pressure on corrupt people? There is no magic here, just the same bare evolutionary forces in place for the past 100,000 years of humankind.

(Just think about it: even in rule of law, the ultimate way of enforcing someone to obey the rules is by pure physical force. If someone doesn't listen, ever, he will be picked up by other people and forced into a physical box and won't be allowed to leave. And I don't expect that to ever change, regardless of the political system. Similarly, we need to keep up an army at all times. If you simply go hard pacifist, someone will take advantage of that... Evolution. )

Democracy is an active game to be played and not just every 4 years. In society, people's everyday choices and standards are the "natural forces of evolution".

But most of the world doesn't work like that. Countries like China and Russia have dictators that steer the car. Mexico have gangs and mafia. European countries have parliamentary democracies and "commie journalists" that do their job and reign political and corporate corruption--sometimes over-eagerly--and unions. In many of those places, wealth equals material well-being but not overt political power. In fact, wealth often employs stealth to avoid becoming a target.

USA is not trying to change things because people are numbed down[^1]. Legally speaking, there is nothing preventing that country from having a socialist party win control of the government with popular support and enact sweeping legislation to overcome economic inequality somewhat. Not socialist, but that degree of unthinkable was done by Roosevelt before and with the bare minimum of popular support.

[^1]: And, I'm not saying that's a small problem. It is not, and the capitalism of instant gratification entertainment is entirely responsible for this outcome. But the culprit is not capitalism at large. IMO, the peculiarities of American culture are, to a large extent, a historic accident.

A smart dictator is probably harder to corrupt, but they die and then if you get unlucky with the next dictator the car will crash and burn.

Mao and communism brought famine and death to millions.

The move from that to "capitilism with Chinese characteristics" is what has brought about the greatest standard of living increase in human history.

What they're doing now is a mix of socialism, capitilism and CPP dominance. I'm not an American, but I understand FDR wielded socialism too, and that really catapulted the US towards its golden era.

We have that already. It's called part-time jobs. Usually they don't pay as much as full-time jobs, provide no health insurance or other benefits, etc.

I am so glad to live in Germany...

[Ed.: actually, thanks to 'recent developments' causing the USD to depreciate, it's pretty exactly double.]

(Only the highest of the local minimum wage setups in the US are slightly higher than the German one, e.g. CA's $16.50)

That's why everyone in the US works full-time if they have the choice. I would HAPPILY work 20/hr a week at half my rate. Such a job just does not exist. I would have to take a huge, huge paycut for that.

This could be said about most jobs in the 21st century these days in any career field given. That's a culture shift and business management/organization practice change that isn't likely to happen anytime soon.

It became feasible because back when the workweek was "whenever you're not asleep", a lot of people set a lot of things on fire until it wasn't.

The actual realization is that most people simple rather work 40h a week (or more) and spend their money on whatever they want to spend their money on.

Specially many of us here, can do so easily. I personally work 80% and could reduce it further if my goal was maximum leisure.

By far the biggest reason it doesn't feel that way, is that housing polices in most of the Western world have been utterly and completely braindead. That and the ever increasing cost of health care as people get ever older and older.

In actuality, everyone is doing the same thing and their decisions are already made for them. Companies don't just act evil because they are evil. They act evil because all they can ever be is evil. If they don't, then they lose. So what's left?

Facebook becoming an ad-ridden disaster was, in a way, predestined. Unavoidable.

Sure, but what about the people who consider quality as part of their product evaluation? All else being equal everyone wants it cheaper, but all else isn't equal. When I was looking at smart lighting, I spent 3x as much on Philips Hue as I could have on Ikea bulbs: bought one Ikea bulb, tried it on next to a Hue one, and instantly returned the Ikea one. It was just that much worse. I'd happily pay similar premiums for most consumer products.

But companies keep enshittifying their products. I'm not going to pay significantly more for a product which is going to break after 16 months instead of 12 months. I'm not going to pay extra for some crappy AI cloud blockchain "feature". I'm not going to pay extra to have a gaudy "luxury" brand logo stapled all over it.

Companies are only interested in short-term shareholder value these days, which means selling absolute crap at premium prices. I want to pay extra to get a decent product, but more and more it turns out that I can't.

These companies often place a greater emphasis on reputation and legacy Very few and far between, Robert McNeel & Associates (American) is one that comes to mind (Rhino3D), as his the Dutch company Victron (power hardware)

The former especially is not known for maximising their margins, they don’t even offer a subscription-model to their customers

Victron is an interesting case, where they deliberately offer few products, and instead of releasing more, they heavily optimise and update their existing models over many years in everything from documentation to firmware and even new features. They’re a hardware company mostly so very little revenue is from subscriptions

Many high-quality open-source designs suggest this is a false premise, and as a developer who writes high-quality and reliable software for much much lower rates than most, cost should not be seen as a reliable indicator of quality.

I used to write signal processing software for land mobile radios. Those radios were used by emergency services. For the most part, our software was high quality in that it gave good quality audio and rarely had problems. If it did have a problem, it would recover quickly enough that the customer would not notice.

Our radios got a name for reliability: such as feedback from customers about skyscrapers in New York being on fire and the radios not skipping a beat during the emergency response. Word of mouth traveled in a relatively close knit community and the "quality" did win customers.

Oddly we didn't have explicit procedures to maintain that quality. The key in my mind was that we had enough time in the day to address the root cause of bugs, it was a small enough team that we knew what was going into the repository and its effect on the system, and we developed incrementally. A few years later, we got spread thinner onto more products and it didn't work so well.

    > feedback from customers about skyscrapers in New York being on fire

It was an interesting job. Among other things, our gear ran stage management for a couple of Olympic opening ceremonies. Reliability was key given the size of the audience. We also did gear for the USGC, covering the entire US coastline. If you placed an emergency call at sea, it was our radios that were receiving that signal and passing it into the USCG's network.

Relevant apocrypha: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFcb-XF1RPQ

With physical items, quality prevents deterioration over time. Or at least slows it. Improves function. That sort of thing.

Software just works or doesn't work. So you want to make something that works and iterate as quickly as possible. And yes, cost to produce it matters so you can actually bring it to market.

There is an exception: luxury goods. Some are expensive, but people don't mind them being overpriced because e.g. they are social status symbols. Is there such a thing like "luxury software"? I think Apple sort of has this reputation.

In this case quality also means code quality which in my coding believe should lead to faster feature development

"Enshittification." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification

In fact, the realization is that the market buy support.

And that includes google and other companies that lack much of human support.

This is the key.

Support is manifested in many ways:

* There is information about it (docs, videos, blogs, ...)

* There is people that help me ('look ma, this is how you use google')

* There is support for the thing I use ('OS, Browser, Formats, ...')

* And for my way of working ('Excel let me do any app there...')

* And finally, actual people (that is the #1 thing that keep alive even the worst ERP on earth). This also includes marketing, sales people, etc. This are signal of having support even if is not exactly the best. If I go to enterprise and only have engineers that will be a bad signal, because well, developers then to be terrible at other stuff and the other stuff is support that matters.

If you have a good product, but there is not support, is dead.

And if you wanna fight a worse product, is smart to reduce the need to support for ('bugs, performance issues, platforms, ...') for YOUR TEAM because you wanna reduce YOUR COSTS but you NEED to add support in other dimensions!

The easiest for a small team, is just add humans (that is the MOST scarce source of support). After that, it need to be creative.

(also, this means you need to communicate your advantages well, because there is people that value some kind of support more than others 'have the code vs propietary' is a good example. A lot prefer the proprietary with support more than the code, I mean)

Starting an OSS product - write good docs. Got a few enterprise people interested - “customer success person” is most important marketing you can do …

Suddenly, everything in this crazy world is starting to make sense.

Software is always sold new. Software can increase in quality the same way cars have generally increased in quality over the decades. Creating standards that software must meet before it can be sold. Recalling software that has serious bugs in it. Punishing companies that knowingly sell shoddy software. This is not some deep insight. This is how every other industry operates.

Sometimes that happens with buggy software, but I think in general, people just want to pay less and don't mind a few bugs in the process. Compare and contrast what you'd have to charge to do a very thorough process with multiple engineers checking every line of code and many hours of rigorous QA.

I once did some software for a small book shop where I lived in Padova, and created it pretty quickly and didn't charge the guy - a friend - much. It wasn't perfect, but I fixed any problems (and there weren't many) as they came up and he was happy with the arrangement. He was patient because he knew he was getting a good deal.

It is easy to get information of features. It is hard to get information on reliability or security.

The result is worsened because vendors compete on features, therefore they all make the same trade off of more features for lower quality.

Probably not, and that's like 90% of the issue with enterprise software. Sadly enterprise software products are often sold based mainly on how many boxes they check in the list of features sent to management, not based on the actual quality and usability of the product itself.

You might not think about this as “quality” but it does have the quality of meeting the perverse functional requirements of the situation.

Meanwhile I'm a founder of startup that has gotten from zero to where it is on probably what that consultancy spends every year on catering for meetings.

I'd take this one step further, 99% of the software written isn't being done with performance in mind. Even here in HN, you'll find people that advocate for poor performance because even considering performance has become a faux pas.

That means you L4/5 and beyond engineers are fairly unlikely to have any sort of sense when it comes to performance. Businesses do not prioritize efficient software until their current hardware is incapable of running their current software (and even then, they'll prefer to buy more hardware is possible.)

Also Microsoft has educated now several generations to accept that software fails and crashes.

Because "all software is the same", customers may not appreciate good software when they're used to live with bad software.

For example: Docker, iterm2, WhatsApp, Notes.app, Postico, Cursor, Calibre.

I'm using all of these for specific reasons, not for reasons so trivial that I can just use the best-performing solution in each niche.

So it seems obviously true that it's more important that software exists to fill my needs in the first place than it pass some performance bar.

That an alternate tool might perform better is compatible with the claim that performance alone is never the only difference between software.

Podman might be faster than Docker, but since it's a different tool, migrating to it would involve figuring out any number of breakage in my toolchain that doesn't feel worth it to me since performance isn't the only thing that matters.

Another example is that I use oh-my-zsh which is adds weirdly long startup time to a shell session, but it lets me use plugins that add things like git status and kubectl context to my prompt instead of fiddling with that myself.

Developers do care about performance up to a point. If the software looks to be running fine on a majority of computers why continue to spend resources to optimize further? Principle of diminishing returns.

It bothered me the AI BS, but the price was good and the machine works fine.

1. Sometimes speed = money. Being the first to market, meeting VC-set milestones for additional funding, and not running out of runway are all things cheaper than the alternatives. Software maintenance costs later don't come close to opportunity costs if a company/project fails.

2. Most of the software is disposable. It's made to be sold, and the code repo will be chucked into a .zip on some corporate drive. There is no post-launch support, and the software's performance after launch is irrelevant for the business. They'll never touch the codebase again. There is no "long-term" for maintenance. They may harm their reputation, but that depends on whether their clients can talk with each other. If they have business or govt clients, they don't care.

3. The average tenure in tech companies is under 3 years. Most people involved in software can consider maintenance "someone else's problem." It's like the housing stock is in bad shape in some countries (like the UK) because the average tenure is less than 10 years. There isn't a person in the property's owner history to whom an investment in long-term property maintenance would have yielded any return. So now the property is dilapidated. And this is becoming a real nationwide problem.

4. Capable SWEs cost a lot more money. And if you hire an incapable IC who will attempt to future-proof the software, maintenance costs (and even onboarding costs) can balloon much more than some inefficient KISS code.

5. It only takes 1 bad engineering manager in the whole history of a particular piece of commercial software to ruin its quality, wiping out all previous efforts to maintain it well. If someone buys a second-hand car and smashes it into a tree hours later, was keeping the car pristinely maintained for that moment (by all the previous owners) worth it?

And so forth. What you say is true in some cases (esp where a company and its employees act in good faith) but not in many others.

Bad things are cheaper and easier to make. If they weren't, people would always make good things. You might say "work smarter," but smarter people cost more money. If smarter people didn't cost more money, everyone would always have the smartest people.

In my experiences, companies can afford to care about good software if they have extreme demands (e.g. military, finance) or amortize over very long timeframes (e.g. privately owned). It's rare for consumer products to fall into either of these categories.

That's where FOSS or even proprietary "shared source" wins. You know if the software you depend on is generally badly or generally well programmed. You may not be able to find the bugs, but you can see how long the functions are, the comments, and how things are named. YMMV, but conscientiousness is a pretty great signal of quality; you're at least confident that their code is clean enough that they can find the bugs.

Basically the opposite of the feeling I get when I look at the db schemas of proprietary stuff that we've paid an enormous amount for.

At least when talking about software that has any real world use case, and not development for developments sake.

in software the regulations can be boiled down to 'lol lmao' in pre-GDPR era. and even now i see GDPR violations daily.

Just through pure Darwinism, bad software dominates the population :)

The user cannot but a good AI might itself allow the average user to bridge the information asymmetry. So as long as we have a way to select a good AI assistant for ourselves...

In the end it all hinges on the users ability to assess the quality of the product. Otherwise, the user cannot judge whether an assistant recommends quality products and the assistant has an incentive to suggest poorly (e.g. sellout to product producers).

The AI can use tools to extract various key metrics from the product that is analysed. Even if we limit such metrics down to those that can be verified in various "dumb" ways we should be able to verify products much further than today.

  > And one of them is the cheapest software you could make.

We're currently operate in a world where new features are pushed that don't interest consumers. While they can't tell the difference between slop and not at purchase they sure can between updates. People constantly complain about stuff getting slower. But they also do get excited when things get faster.

Imo it's in part because we turned engineers into MBAs. Wherever I ask why can't we solve a problem some engineer always responds "well it's not that valuable". The bug fix is valuable to the user but they always clarify they mean money. Let's be honest, all those values are made up. It's not the job of the engineer to figure out how much profit a big fix will result in, it's their job to fix bugs.

Famously Coke doesn't advertise to make you aware of Coke. They advertise to associate good feelings. Similarly, car companies advertise to get their cars associated with class. Which is why sometimes they will advertise to people who have no chance of buying the car. What I'm saying is that brand matters. The problem right now is that all major brands have decided brand doesn't matter or brand decisions are always set in stone. Maybe they're right, how often do people switch? But maybe they're wrong, switching seems to just have the same features but a new UI that you got to learn from scratch (yes, even Apple devices aren't intuitive)

Right now, the market buys bug-filled, inefficient software because you can always count on being able to buy hardware that is good enough to run it. The software expands to fill the processing specs of the machine it is running on - "What Andy giveth, Bill taketh away" [1]. So there is no economic incentive to produce leaner, higher-quality software that does only the core functionality and does it well.

But imagine a world where you suddenly cannot get top-of-the-line chips anymore. Maybe China invaded Taiwan and blockaded the whole island, or WW3 broke out and all the modern fabs were bombed, or the POTUS instituted 500% tariffs on all electronics. Regardless of cause, you're now reduced to salvaging microchips from key fobs and toaster ovens and pregnancy tests [2] to fulfill your computing needs. In this world, there is quite a lot of economic value to being able to write tight, resource-constrained software, because the bloated stuff simply won't run anymore.

Carmack is saying that in this scenario, we would be fine (after an initial period of adjustment), because there is enough headroom in optimizing our existing software that we can make things work on orders-of-magnitude less powerful chips.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_and_Bill%27s_law

[2] https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a33957256/this-prog...

These days I feel like I'd be willing to pay more for a product that explicitly disavowed AI. I mean, that's vulnerable to the same kind of marketing shenanigans, but still. :-)

In the minds of some CEOs and VCs, maybe.

As for consumers, the AI label is increasingly off-putting.[0]

[0] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19368623.2024.2...

Finally, the perfect example of AI-washing.

The Market for Lemons story is about a complex thing that most people don't understand and is to low value. But even that paper misses many real world solution people have found for this.

> The user cannot differentiate between sophisticated machine learning applications and a washing machine spin cycle calling itself AI.

Why then did people pay for ChatGPT when Google claimed it had something better? Because people quickly figured out that Google solution wasn't better.

Its easy to share results, its easy to look up benchmarks.

The claim that anything that claims its AI will automatically be able to demand some absurd prices is simply not true. At best people just slap AI on everything and its as if everybody stands up in a theater, nobody is better off.