I sometimes wonder what would cause software to be faster (or less buggy). Websites seem to often struggle with this despite overwhelming incentives for speed (

I sometimes wonder what would cause software to be faster (or less buggy). Websites seem to often struggle with this despite overwhelming incentives for speed (and if you browse without an ad blocker things are even slower!) where typically any internal study will show that increased speed improves key metrics. SaaS apps also seem to suffer from often being slow or buggy. I guess part of the reason is that switching is hard and performance problems may not be obvious until it’s too late. How do you even evaluate some product like Jura without using it a bunch? A demo is surely insufficient. I think people buying software are also more drawn to features than speed and maybe they are right or maybe they need to somehow be taught that they are undervaluing quality/speed, but how do you teach that? And how do you even asses software quality – how well it actually solves your problems and whether it is full of bugs – without a significant trial. Maybe there is an argument that the software is so valuable that even awful software that is not fun to use is valuable and quickly becomes hard to cut. One solution might be more heterogeneous services but then you might be paying more per-seat as you still have lots of overlap and it also sucks to have N bug trackers and M wiki/doc systems and so on. So maybe you then want services to be more interoperable but I think that may just force them all to suck.