4 ms·

Clearly these users aren't profitable. If people on the other platforms don't notice or care about these bugs, they're better customers.

AStrangeMorrow 3y ago
I would disagree. Windows users care about the bugs, but not about reporting them. How many times do I see reviews on steam like "great game but too many bug / game breaking bug X" so 2/10. Most users just experience the bugs, get mad about the game and move on. Being able to fix the bugs fast and early means less users will experience them in the long run, which in turns means a better gaming experience and very likely better player retention and higher review/player attraction
wardedVibe 3y ago
free QA seems pretty valuable
miningape 3y ago
> Clearly QA isn't profitable. If people using the software don't notice or care about these bugs, they're better customers. It's not that they don't care about the bug its that they don't care about you. Users will just use a competitor, spread bad word of mouth, and be hesitant to try again - all without telling you a thing about their decision.
smokel 3y ago
Perhaps you have not read the article? In your defense, the title is a bit misleading. The article states that the Linux users report more bugs, but these bugs affect other platforms as well. Hence, the Linux users are probably even more profitable, because they provide free QA.
account42 3y ago
And this attitude is why most software is mediocre and not fun to use.
indymike 3y ago
> If people on the other platforms don't notice or care about these bugs, they're better customers. Or they are experiencing the bug and are slowly but surely becoming ex-customers. > Clearly these users aren't profitable. This assumes facts not in evidence. Defect reporting can be ridiculously valuable, especially in situations where your product is delivered over the internet. For example, a user reports a "can't reset password" bug. It turns out to be a hack where the auth address is being redirected to a server that is collecting credentials.

AStrangeMorrow 3y ago

I would disagree. Windows users care about the bugs, but not about reporting them. How many times do I see reviews on steam like "great game but too many bug / game breaking bug X" so 2/10. Most users just experience the bugs, get mad about the game and move on. Being able to fix the bugs fast and early means less users will experience them in the long run, which in turns means a better gaming experience and very likely better player retention and higher review/player attraction

wardedVibe 3y ago

free QA seems pretty valuable

miningape 3y ago

> Clearly QA isn't profitable. If people using the software don't notice or care about these bugs, they're better customers. It's not that they don't care about the bug its that they don't care about you. Users will just use a competitor, spread bad word of mouth, and be hesitant to try again - all without telling you a thing about their decision.

smokel 3y ago

Perhaps you have not read the article? In your defense, the title is a bit misleading. The article states that the Linux users report more bugs, but these bugs affect other platforms as well. Hence, the Linux users are probably even more profitable, because they provide free QA.

account42 3y ago

And this attitude is why most software is mediocre and not fun to use.

indymike 3y ago

> If people on the other platforms don't notice or care about these bugs, they're better customers. Or they are experiencing the bug and are slowly but surely becoming ex-customers. > Clearly these users aren't profitable. This assumes facts not in evidence. Defect reporting can be ridiculously valuable, especially in situations where your product is delivered over the internet. For example, a user reports a "can't reset password" bug. It turns out to be a hack where the auth address is being redirected to a server that is collecting credentials.