Software developers tend to think there's something special about our field, something inherently different. There isn't. Building products is hard. Building

Software developers tend to think there's something special about our field, something inherently different. There isn't. Building products is hard. Building complex products, like software tends to be, is incredibly hard. If you ever want to read about how terrible pretty much everything is when it comes to design, read "The Design of Everyday Things". It's a classic for a reason. It shows how so many products that people rely on every day are just terribly designed, even something as simple as a door or a remote control. Software isn't uniquely bad. It's just regular old bad. Incentives are, like in every field, to make money. Up to a certain level quality is hugely important, and after that level it isn't important (for making money). I mean, the question isn't actually would you want this or that bug fixed or not. It's would you give up other pieces of software that are important to you, so that some bug that most likely doesn't affect you is fixed. Because that's the tradeoff. More quality = less products, because to a large extent it's the same workforce. And btw, modern software is way better than most older software. Way more features, and largely more stable.