Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Quality is a hard sell in big tech

pcloadletter.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 165 posts

Re: Quality is a hard sell in big tech

#101

Post by poisonborz »

jraph wrote: post #95
poisonborz wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Simple code won't usually handle complex stuff I think you are confused about what simple code means.

Enlighten me with your definitive and universal definition of simple code then :-) (but I'm totally happy with isoprophlex's answer actually)

Well, yes, +1 for "uncomplicated", I just wouldn't say the term is related to complexity.

Most any software can be broken down in a modular way so that the units could be understood by a junior and you'd rarely need to think about more than one cluster of interactions at once. Maybe this is naive, but up until now found it to be true - that said, I never worked in rocket science.

Re: Quality is a hard sell in big tech

#102

Post by pylua »

ozim wrote: post #85
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #77

Quality is expensive. Even a fairly minor improvement in basic Quality can double the cost of implementation. But, in my opinion, it’s absolutely required for complex systems, and complex problems often need complex answers, despite the wish for simplicity (which can sometimes happen, but less frequently than people might think). I had an online back-and-forth, the other day, with someone that didn’t seem to be able…

I would hook on quality is expensive take. Lots of people write lengthy posts nagging about quality and usually these people work in qa or software dev where they get paid for it and mor quality is more work safety for them. But no one wants really put their own money. Where fixing even trivial bug is 1h of work because someone has to write requirements, someone has to code it, someone has to check if it works and di…

Worse is that no one wants to pay to keep the domain knowledge alive. The project finishes, the team disbands which makes maintenance cost more.

Re: Quality is a hard sell in big tech

#103

Post by whiterknight »

mnau wrote: post #86
madaxe_again wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, it’s the Vimes Boot Theory, everywhere. Everyone wants everything cheap, and now, and end up costing themselves more in the long term.

Vimes Boot theory was that poor people can't afford high quality stuff and thus pay more (constant replacement of low quality boots) and get less (wet feet).

And is one of the (few) problem that financing solves.

Re: Quality is a hard sell in big tech

#105

Post by pdimitar »

127 wrote: post #57
hyperhello wrote: post #17

I wondered about this a lot, while using certain software at work, and noticing that there are certain kinds of low quality that annoy me in different ways, and the one I focused on is the maddening kind of software crap where you know it could be good if they just looked at it and got a few brave people to fix it! Why don’t they? It’s because, first principle, the kind of quality dip that drives you nuts, is the one…

I'm the only engineer for my product. The feedback from the customers is very positive. They like most of the parts. Yet there are also many problems and annoying issues. They exist because extremely complex multidimensional issues. Majority of those issues could be solved by heroic use of mental and physical energy. Yet the cost/benefit for my life and mental health goes too high.

You are the exception however. Most people just dissociate and collect paychecks because bureaucracy and clueless managers burned them out. I don't blame the engineers, not by default anyway, though there are still some pretty dense people I wouldn't grace with the word "programmer" at all. We should blame leadership 90% of the time and history shows that we are right to do so.

Re: Quality is a hard sell in big tech

#106

Post by caskstrength »

toastercat wrote: post #97
caskstrength wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to parrot a take that is popular these days in western internet ("cApiTaliSm bAd!!1"), but let me tell you as someone born in USSR that quality of everything starting from simple things (shoes, etc.) to complex things (cars) was atrocious. The problem with modern software quality is very simple - no one is going to buy stable and polished iPhone app for 500$ when there is bunch of similar apps that may have…

Capitalism and Authoritarian State-Capitalism can both be bad. I agree with your general sentiment in that the general populace is OK with minor annoyances given a cheap price.

It seems you are confusing USSR with China. There was no "Authoritarian State-Capitalism" in USSR, no free-ish market with some level of competition, no entrepreneurship, no shareholders, no nothing and yet somehow car quality was significantly inferior to Ford, BMW, etc. and TVs were much worse than Sony ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Re: Quality is a hard sell in big tech

#107

Post by lmeyerov »

safety1st wrote: post #44
lmeyerov wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article's stance is those are effects, not causes: As a product succeeds and establishes lockin, management may decide that devoting resources to improving the product's design has less relative ROI than devoting those resources to targeting new users who are not locked in. Those new users may be in an adjacent market that needs new features, which is typical when a product started in an intentionally narrow nich…

It's a weird article because he muses about what the causes might be, and quotes/links Corey Doctorow. If you follow the link Doctorow explains what he thinks the causes of enshittification are. Very broadly they boil down to monopoly/market power and governments either crafting the law to favor big tech or failing to enforce it when it doesn't. Doctorow is right and it basically all comes down to competition. Intern…

Agreed, I think the monopoly scenarios play out similarly/worse to the lock in ones -- monopolies are basically the extreme case of lock in. They're the ultimate removal of end-user influence on purchase decisions.

Frustratingly, well-designed competition isn't necessarily enough, especially for b2b. Even when there is a challenger, that mostly impacts new customers. For locked in ones, renewal cycles and implementation burden may make it more 6-10 year levels to even be a serious conversation as long one as the legacy product functions. There are only so many Global 10K's, and that's a good chunk of the b2b user population.

An interesting way to avoid the trap is 'mission focus'. If a company culture is mission-focused -- which is often easier in founder-led scenarios -- then decisions come from more than these $ reactions.

Re: Quality is a hard sell in big tech

#108

Post by krapp »

Mistletoe wrote: post #37
krapp wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry... I tried to fight that battle when it first became popular and just got snarked on and voted down. Like it or not, the tech community has decided that Cory Doctorow's poop joke is a precise term of art to be taken seriously in technical discussion. People will even gatekeep it, if you use it in the wrong context. It's a very important and necessary word, apparently.

Is this about your username?

No, obviously it isn't about my username. Are you old enough to be using this forum?

Re: Quality is a hard sell in big tech

#109

Post by sgarland »

pooper wrote: post #61
makk wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, most engineers are bad at advocating for the resources needed to make the changes and most product managers are bad at prioritizing fixes without clear guidance from engineering. Catch-22.

My manager talks the talk about how every developer in the team should be able to do all tasks. Why are we waiting for the database administrator guy to do the SQL part instead of doing it ourselves and yet I have a feeling he is not even a developer at all. At least my skip clearly has some development experience and even some self awareness that what used to be "best practices" then are now known to be bad now but…

> every developer in the team should be able to do all tasks

I hate this. People have strengths, even if they’re all technically backend / frontend / whatever. Should you have more than one person who can perform a given task? Ideally yes, but let’s not pretend that Alice isn’t objectively better at SQL than James, but worse at async functions. Let people do what they’re best at, and enjoy the most.

Re: Quality is a hard sell in big tech

#110

Post by krapp »

RangerScience wrote: post #24
krapp wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry... I tried to fight that battle when it first became popular and just got snarked on and voted down. Like it or not, the tech community has decided that Cory Doctorow's poop joke is a precise term of art to be taken seriously in technical discussion. People will even gatekeep it, if you use it in the wrong context. It's a very important and necessary word, apparently.

Would you say… that people got pretty shitty at naming things? Edit: I kid, but, do you have a word you’d like used instead?

I don't know if a specific term is even needed but I like "platform decay."
Post reply on HN