> Are the incentives given to developers so at odd with app quality? Yes. To expand, as others have said QA is a cost centre, and they often reported things i

> Are the incentives given to developers so at odd with app quality? Yes. To expand, as others have said QA is a cost centre, and they often reported things it wasn't clear that users would actually view as a problem. By cutting that out you get two theoretical benefits: 1. The people actually using your software will be the ones telling you where the problems are. This helps you prioritize work. 2. You don't spend as much money on QA people or dev time on fixes, which means more on feature work. Maybe a not so obvious side effect of agile development is that it sort of reorganized software development into feature-focused development, meaning developers' bonuses at a lot of companies are often tied to the amount of new features they implement, and there's almost no focus on maintenance or fixes. The same thing happens in politics: The incentive is on shiny new things, rather than maintaining the old things everyone uses constantly and desperately need the repairs. It isn't until bridges start literally falling down that tunes change on this. Basically, if your performance is measured by how many new features you're able to deliver on time, to timelines set by a manager or executive who also has a bonus tied to how many new features or products their teams were able to deliver in a quarter, you're not going to think about QA at all if you can help it.