General discussion


Quality, Pride and Loyalty...Where has it gone?

By Splash101 ·
I have noticed in the last 3 years that the quality of software products being released to the consumer/user market has DRAMATICALLY deminished. I just can't understand how it has become the "norm" to release "buggy, sloppy, un-tested and defective" applications and expect the user to be patient after paying $$$$ for something that will work properly. we're not in your R&amp dept or on your pay rolls. And in most cases, your acknowledgements are "we're working on that" leaving us the ones that pay for your stuff with sometimes DEAD space on our machines looking for other alternatives. But you're Prototype, Beta, Test, or even "idea that might work" is presented to be without defect. And for the repair we're expected to pay as "new Version" when all it really does is fix some of the stuff and then add new thoughts for betas and new buggs. WHY, Why are we doing this? The 10's or 100,000's of user pay these companies lotz $$$$ for broken stuff. DEMAND QUALITY. Have pride in what you present and stand by your stuff and be loyal to your clients. This will make your bottom line better as well as make you better as a company and persons. Sorry for the Rant. But...

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

You're preaching to the choir, here

by NickNielsen In reply to Quality, Pride and Loyalt ...

The primary cause, in case you hadn't figured it out yet, is the almighty dollar. "Why should we make it better when it's selling like hotcakes already?"

Collapse -

The Rolling Release

by mr_m_sween In reply to Quality, Pride and Loyalt ...

I heard the term "Rolling Release" mentioned once several years ago. This was in reference to game developers releasing patches to fix problems on PC games. Problems that frankly should not have gotten past the testing phase of the application. The idea was that the release version was incomplete or untested and would be completed later through patching or updating. I found the idea as repugnant then as I do now, but I do see the advantage of such a release from a profit-centric perspective.

The IT world moves fast, innovates fast, lives fast, and dies just as fast. By the time your current product is fully tested and completed it is likely already either "late to the party" or simply obsolete. By sacrificing the testing process you gain Early Market Presence, which is a huge factor when talking about any tech innovation. Secondly, you also base your support and updates on sales figures, that is to say that a popular product will recieve more after sale patching than a product that doesnt sell. Without this Rolling release all costs would be incurred upfront regardless of the success of the product. Cost cuts into profit, and I think you can see the flaw in that from a profit-centric perspective.

I've ranted on this model myself before but eventually I came to realize that there is nothing to be done. The genie is out of the bottle. As long as patching a product is possible, it will be used as a crutch against bug testing and fixing. I'm sorry for being the black cloud, I reall am.

Related Discussions

Related Forums