Good points. Personally I think quality is really hard, we don't do it nearly enough. And it will be increasingly important. There are firms who ship outstand

Good points. Personally I think quality is really hard, we don't do it nearly enough. And it will be increasingly important. There are firms who ship outstanding UX and tech. They will eat everyone's lunch if others don't manage to catch up. Reliability, consistency, responsiveness, performance... These things add up, because users apparently really like tools that are polished, just work reliably and perform well. So many horror stories have been piling up about just plain bad software and so much just doesn't work as it is supposed to work. There will be a turning point where we can't keep only throwing things at the wall and see what sticks. I think this kind of stuff will become one of the primary distinguishing features for products and services as expectations go up. People are getting tired of software that doesn't work and countless apps that crave for user attention and needs constant fixing. It's too expensive and useless. Useful, really well made stuff is going to dominate. That's not what you're criticizing directly here. But in my opinion this goes all the way down. Broken window theory and all that. Framing it as "developer productivity" seems wrong to me and perhaps reveals where the issues are. That's not what quality is primarily about I don't think. We're in midst of a revolution, but at some point we need to grow up, take more responsibility for what we make and be _actually sure_ that we can do that with confidence.