I'll be more blunt. Almost nobody in (big) tech cares about quality. All of the telemetry collected is about "crashes" and "what user does". Nobody cares about

I'll be more blunt. Almost nobody in (big) tech cares about quality. All of the telemetry collected is about "crashes" and "what user does". Nobody cares about reducing memory use, increasing speed, etc. unless they give a tangible boost, or more precisely, boosts their bottom line. There are stories from Microsoft engineers who are berated for improving Windows Kernel, because it works well enough, and being faster is not important. Again, there are stories from the same company saying that first finished implementation of a design among the competing ones is merged into the code. I have been in cases where I ordered to make it work, and to not care about anything else, and no, I won't have the time to make it better. Luckily, that's a past life now. All business cares is having "non-whiny" customers, and having tons of behavioral telemetry so they can make "informed decisions" about what to build next. So they can keep their customers paying. That's all. I made a bug report to a company about one of their features. They acknowledged it, gave me a timeline (very nice, isn't it). After two weeks, I got a mail saying that my bug report is demoted to "wishlist/maybe someday". It was a small thing, but was important for me. So, I changed platforms. As long as money is flowing, customers are not revolting en-masse, and the product is not built by an "by engineers, for engineers" company, quality is not a concern. Only bottom line is. Regardless of you pay, or not. Also, Nobody Ever Gets Credit for Fixing Problems that Never Happened [0]. Because the lack of quality is not a problem to begin with. [0]: https://web.mit.edu/nelsonr/www/Repenning=Sterman_CMR_su01_.pdf https://web.mit.edu/nelsonr/www/Repenning=Sterman_CMR_su01_....