4 ms·

The top level structure of this argument is: the argument I gave above can only be correct if: all the companies producing software at the present typical quali

The top level structure of this argument is: the argument I gave above can only be correct if: all the companies producing software at the present typical quality level are operating as monopolies. You support that stance by saying the only way to account for the present level of software quality is if it were the case that no competition existed for the companies producing the software. So the argument would be invalidated if there were another way of accounting for it, which there is: it's possible that the present typical level of software quality is not bad enough for it to require that the companies producing it have no competitors. So to make this argument compelling you'd need something to establish that the typical level of quality actually is bad enough to create that circumstance. Otherwise the argument is more simply resolved by the possibility that your perception of where typical software quality is, may itself be incorrect.

tgbugs 4y ago
I think there is an additional possibility, which is that the software quality is bad enough, but there is no where else for users to go. Since proving that directly would require a viable competitor to already exist we are in a bind. However, we might be able to find some examples where there are viable competitors, or we might be able to find a population of users who have enough experience with similar pieces of software to be able to state which one has fewer bugs (at least for their usual workflows). One category of software that comes to mind for me would be 3d modelling and rendering software. Perhaps examining the impact that Blender has had on quality would be a place to start? edit: I do think that the activation energy (capital) required to get competitors off the ground at this stage is enormous, but that is in part because many of the alternatives have been allowed to die out or be acquired by their direct competitors. Had they been kept alive an independent there would not be a need for so much capital to get back in the game. Sadly, now, many years on, the remaining systems have acquired enough complexity that they can fend of most competition without much effort.

tgbugs 4y ago

I think there is an additional possibility, which is that the software quality is bad enough, but there is no where else for users to go. Since proving that directly would require a viable competitor to already exist we are in a bind. However, we might be able to find some examples where there are viable competitors, or we might be able to find a population of users who have enough experience with similar pieces of software to be able to state which one has fewer bugs (at least for their usual workflows). One category of software that comes to mind for me would be 3d modelling and rendering software. Perhaps examining the impact that Blender has had on quality would be a place to start? edit: I do think that the activation energy (capital) required to get competitors off the ground at this stage is enormous, but that is in part because many of the alternatives have been allowed to die out or be acquired by their direct competitors. Had they been kept alive an independent there would not be a need for so much capital to get back in the game. Sadly, now, many years on, the remaining systems have acquired enough complexity that they can fend of most competition without much effort.