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

Let's make quality the norm again

forbrukerradet.no

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 506 posts

Re: Let's make quality the norm again

#121

Post by carlosjobim »

austin-cheney wrote: post #117
carlosjobim wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't say anything about quality, except for "should not kill you or give you a disease". What shopper would be satisfied with the bare minimum of the minimum, no matter what they are buying?

I think you misunderstand quality versus competition. The purpose of regulation is to impose a minimum baseline of quality. Software does not have regulation. In many areas of software we force shit quality on the users and just expect them to take it without complaint as a common practice. Then we as developers, like entitled children, completely rage the moment anyone casts light on this insanity.

It's because something is better than nothing when it comes to software. Which people always forget.

Is eating spoiled food which gives you a disease better than not eating anything? No, it's worse, and therefore the minimum quality regulations make sense.

Is having low quality software better than not having any software? Yes, in almost all cases it is better. So a minimum quality regulation doesn't make sense.

When people put quality requirements too high on software, we get situations where for example public transport information and tickets aren't available digitally because the government is taking 15 or more years to make the "perfect" platform. The public is better served by a shitty solution the first years, an OK solution after that, and hopefully a good solution later on.

Delivering fast has a very important value when it comes to software, because you can replace it with improved versions at no physical cost. Delivering a vehicle which will kill you or food which will make you sick is very different. In those cases nothing is better than anything.

Re: Let's make quality the norm again

#122

Post by crefiz »

iamflimflam1 wrote: post #27
piker wrote: post #3

While it does relate to price discovery--i.e., some folks just aren't willing to pay for an additional unit of quality at 10x--my theory is that the decline in quality is another hidden form of inflation. Thing continues to cost X even though regulations have increased costs Y, ship production to China and scrimp on the inputs. (Or have market forces do that for you.)

To me, this is why we have regulation. The CE mark in Europe and the UL mark in the US is supposed to provide a floor on quality. That floor can be increased if we as a society decides that this is required. You might be unwilling to pay for this increased quality, but you don't have a choice.

Where on earth are you getting that "CE mark" == quality?

Re: Let's make quality the norm again

#123

Post by bryanlarsen »

roenxi wrote: post #101
kqr wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Quality brands are economically incentivized to sell-out [...] because customers take some time to catch on, and short-term financials are too often more important That probably happens a lot, but there's another mechanism by which it could happen, that requires no malice: the brand gets a quality reputation, which increases demand for its products, and they are unable to produce quality products at the rate needed…

That sounds implausible. For a premium brand the marginal unit should be comfortably profitable, so they will have the resources to saturate the market at exponential speed purely from their unit economics. The somewhat theatrical lines outside the store aside, Apple has never had a strategic problem meeting the demand for Apple computers. It seems a lot more likely that you get executives who come in and believe tha…

For many, the most constraining resource is time. And you can't buy that. It takes years to spin up a new factory and production line and then transfer the implicit knowledge from your initial production line that provides the quality in the first place.

Re: Let's make quality the norm again

#124

Post by loloquwowndueo »

altern8 wrote: post #100
loloquwowndueo wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious where your entirely 100% not-made-in-china computer and/or smartphone come from. Taiwan perhaps?

Not sure, it's a Google Pixel. But a smartphone would probably fall into the "unless I have to" category. What's your point?

Wow defensive much? I was just curious to see if you’d found a non-Chinese phone and/or computer anywhere. Chill out man.

Re: Let's make quality the norm again

#125

Post by loloquwowndueo »

mschuster91 wrote: post #107
loloquwowndueo wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren’t newer cars more reliable than older ones? Back in the day it was a feat to get a 200000 km car and these days it’s like not that big a deal. I wouldn’t really know, I’ve only used car share for the past 10 years shrug

well, if you religiously maintain the car, it was easy even back then. The dirty secret is keeping rust out of the car - in the winter, regularly wash it to avoid salt ingress, and generally store it in a dry (both physical and humidity) garage, to routinely change engine and transmission fluids and to only run good quality fuel. Oh, and don't subject your car to constant short start-stop cycles (i.e. drives of less…

> Oh, and don't subject your car to constant short start-stop cycles (i.e. drives of less than half an hour)

So if my commute is only 20 minutes I shouldn’t own a car? :)

Re: Let's make quality the norm again

#126

Post by austin-cheney »

carlosjobim wrote: post #121
austin-cheney wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you misunderstand quality versus competition. The purpose of regulation is to impose a minimum baseline of quality. Software does not have regulation. In many areas of software we force shit quality on the users and just expect them to take it without complaint as a common practice. Then we as developers, like entitled children, completely rage the moment anyone casts light on this insanity.

It's because something is better than nothing when it comes to software. Which people always forget. Is eating spoiled food which gives you a disease better than not eating anything? No, it's worse, and therefore the minimum quality regulations make sense. Is having low quality software better than not having any software? Yes, in almost all cases it is better. So a minimum quality regulation doesn't make sense. When…

> When people put quality requirements too high on software, we get situations where

This is a common trope of the unregulated: We can’t raise quality because we can barely deliver as it is. The real message there is that the user should suffer so that you won’t.

Re: Let's make quality the norm again

#127

Post by sfn42 »

carlosjobim wrote: post #104
kqr wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Quality brands are economically incentivized to sell-out [...] because customers take some time to catch on, and short-term financials are too often more important That probably happens a lot, but there's another mechanism by which it could happen, that requires no malice: the brand gets a quality reputation, which increases demand for its products, and they are unable to produce quality products at the rate needed…

Once they reach the limit of demand, then there's nothing more to be made in that price category, so they get more by selling out and lowering quality and price. We're going through massive global depopulation in the entire industrialized world. There are no new customers coming and sales will naturally trend down because of human extermination. Once everybody has an electric shaver, then you know that the next gener…

Or you could just be happy to have a profitable company that makes money consistently. Shavers don't last for ever and new people grow up every day. You could also just launch a new product line that's cheaper without compromising the existing ones.

But nooo we need infinite growth which is impossible so let's run the company into the ground for some more growth before our shit decisions catch up to us and stock price plummets.

Re: Let's make quality the norm again

#128

Post by throwaway383839 »

bluGill wrote: post #89
throwaway454664 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an old stereotype - between 1990 and 2010 or so, Chinese manufacturing was usually seen as of a lower quality. This was often unfair and incorrect even then, but it's clearly mad now. Chinese products run the gamut from the lowest to the highest ends in almost every consumer field. But some people hew to old stereotypes.

50 years ago when I was a kid... Japan and Taiwan were known for making cheap junk. They shook the reputation. Now I feel old - get off my lawn.

I'm honestly happy for Japan, Taiwan, and China. It's great that they make cool stuff.

I just wish we still did too.

Re: Let's make quality the norm again

#129

Post by joclhcjjjc »

sfn42 wrote: post #127
carlosjobim wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once they reach the limit of demand, then there's nothing more to be made in that price category, so they get more by selling out and lowering quality and price. We're going through massive global depopulation in the entire industrialized world. There are no new customers coming and sales will naturally trend down because of human extermination. Once everybody has an electric shaver, then you know that the next gener…

Or you could just be happy to have a profitable company that makes money consistently. Shavers don't last for ever and new people grow up every day. You could also just launch a new product line that's cheaper without compromising the existing ones. But nooo we need infinite growth which is impossible so let's run the company into the ground for some more growth before our shit decisions catch up to us and stock pric…

iF yOu ArEnT gRoWiNg YoUrE dYiNg

Re: Let's make quality the norm again

#130

Post by rramadass »

RicoElectrico wrote: post #13

There's an interesting paper about expectations of quality: The LL game: the curious preference for low quality and its norms https://diegogambetta.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/the_ll_...

This looks quite interesting; thanks for sharing.

A related concept is Jugaad - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jugaad Often interpreted as "good enough" with no connection to Quality at all. Even when the context/environment changes to afford better quality (both manufacturing and cost) quality is never pursued unless mandated by National/ISO standards etc.

One way to maybe understand this is through Robert Axelrod's books; The Evolution of Cooperation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation and The Complexity of Cooperation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Complexity_of_Cooperation

But the actors are never fully rational, there is always a clique which manipulates/influences and therefore there is never a "fair" market. Human motivations and behaviour are always the key and so you need Behavioral Game Theory - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_game_theory (see book of the same name by Colin Camerer)

Finally, Nassim Taleb's ideas are also very relevant here. Markets work on "Trial and Error" and "Chance", there is no "fair/efficient invisible guiding hand" but only a guiding hand by cliques which have no "skin in the game" when it comes to downsides and "asymmetric risk" benefiting corporate capitalism. But the system as a whole functions because it is somewhat "Antifragile" i.e. the chaotic interactions and successes/failures within the system somehow strengthens the whole.

Post reply on HN