3 ms·

While it seems mostly about the individual level. The thing that always bugged me was that organizations seemed to fail to get a warranty on software. If you're

While it seems mostly about the individual level. The thing that always bugged me was that organizations seemed to fail to get a warranty on software. If you're going to be forking over millions of dollars like get a real warranty that it's going to work or spend that millions doing it yourself ... Of course, warranty still has the counter-party risk that they go out of business (probably because of all the lawsuits about a bad software ...).

actionfromafar 2y ago
Spending those millions doing it themselves may be much riskier. (Depending on a bunch of stuff.)
gonzo41 2y ago
You don't really get a warranty on heavy machinery either. Instead you get good support from the OEM. But at the end of the day you have the RTFM and deal with the muddy problem you're in. IMO, Software, and what we expect it to do is too complex to offer something like warranty.
- MichaelZuo 2y ago
  Huh? IBM offers literal written warranties on plenty of their software products. It’s just usually bundled with expensive hardware or consulting products too.
jasode 2y ago
>was that organizations seemed to fail to get a warranty on software. The corporate buyer paying millions didn't "fail to get a warranty". What happened is that the market equilibrium price for that transaction for that seller-and-buyer is one that does not come with a warranty. In other words, if the software seller doesn't provide a warranty AND still able to find willing buyers, then the market price becomes "software sold without a warranty". Likewise, SpaceX sells rocket launches for companies that need to get their payloads up into orbit. SpaceX does not reimburse or provide insurance for the monetary value of the payload (satellite, etc) if it blows up. Why would companies pay millions for launches if SpaceX won't cover damages to the payload (akin to FedEX/UPS insuring monetary value of packages) ?!? Because the competitors don't cover payload reimbursements either. If you really really want to get your satellite up into orbit, you have to eat the cost if the launch destroys your satellite. The market clearing price for launching satellites is a shared risk model between buyer and seller. Someday in the future when space missions become 99.99% reliable and routine, an aerospace company may be the first to offer payload insurance as a differentiating feature to attract customers. Until then, buyers get 3rd-party coverage or self-insure. >If you're going to be forking over millions of dollars like get a real warranty that it's going to work or spend that millions doing it yourself x = price of 3rd-party software without a warranty y = price of developing in-house software (which your employee programmers also code without warranties) if (x < y) : purchase(x)
- skybrian 2y ago
  Insurance is available for satellite launches. It’s up to the company to decide how much to buy. https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/guides/satellite-insurance--an-introductory-guide-174465.aspx https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/guides/satellite-ins...
- aredox 2y ago
  As others will point out, satellites are insured against the risk of destruction during launches - just not by launch companies, but by third-party insurers, which factor in the success rate of launch companies. So no, it is not a "market equilibrium towards insuranceless products". Software is much more complicated, "brittle" to calculate risk associated with it. I may be biased but I think the real progress in the future of programming is not AI but formal methods. That's were long-term value is, and the even worse "brittleness" of AI will drive even more the point home in many domains (even if it is used to check and validate AI outputs).
tayo42 2y ago
Aren't SLAs pretty much the same thing. You get some kind of compensation when it's the sla is broken
- lesuorac 2y ago
  Assuming you got one sure. Although make sure to read the fine print because most SLAs only refund your payment at best so if something like Crowdstrike happened to you then you're still out a lot of money from their mistake.
skybrian 2y ago
The results of this sort of contract negotiation can be absurd. When I was at Google, legal insisted on pretty strict terms before paying for IntelliJ licenses, but meanwhile, engineers were using Eclipse with no warranty whatsoever because it’s open source.

actionfromafar 2y ago

Spending those millions doing it themselves may be much riskier. (Depending on a bunch of stuff.)

gonzo41 2y ago

You don't really get a warranty on heavy machinery either. Instead you get good support from the OEM. But at the end of the day you have the RTFM and deal with the muddy problem you're in. IMO, Software, and what we expect it to do is too complex to offer something like warranty.

MichaelZuo 2y ago
Huh? IBM offers literal written warranties on plenty of their software products. It’s just usually bundled with expensive hardware or consulting products too.

jasode 2y ago

>was that organizations seemed to fail to get a warranty on software. The corporate buyer paying millions didn't "fail to get a warranty". What happened is that the market equilibrium price for that transaction for that seller-and-buyer is one that does not come with a warranty. In other words, if the software seller doesn't provide a warranty AND still able to find willing buyers, then the market price becomes "software sold without a warranty". Likewise, SpaceX sells rocket launches for companies that need to get their payloads up into orbit. SpaceX does not reimburse or provide insurance for the monetary value of the payload (satellite, etc) if it blows up. Why would companies pay millions for launches if SpaceX won't cover damages to the payload (akin to FedEX/UPS insuring monetary value of packages) ?!? Because the competitors don't cover payload reimbursements either. If you really really want to get your satellite up into orbit, you have to eat the cost if the launch destroys your satellite. The market clearing price for launching satellites is a shared risk model between buyer and seller. Someday in the future when space missions become 99.99% reliable and routine, an aerospace company may be the first to offer payload insurance as a differentiating feature to attract customers. Until then, buyers get 3rd-party coverage or self-insure. >If you're going to be forking over millions of dollars like get a real warranty that it's going to work or spend that millions doing it yourself x = price of 3rd-party software without a warranty y = price of developing in-house software (which your employee programmers also code without warranties) if (x < y) : purchase(x)

skybrian 2y ago
Insurance is available for satellite launches. It’s up to the company to decide how much to buy. https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/guides/satellite-insurance--an-introductory-guide-174465.aspx https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/guides/satellite-ins...
aredox 2y ago
As others will point out, satellites are insured against the risk of destruction during launches - just not by launch companies, but by third-party insurers, which factor in the success rate of launch companies. So no, it is not a "market equilibrium towards insuranceless products". Software is much more complicated, "brittle" to calculate risk associated with it. I may be biased but I think the real progress in the future of programming is not AI but formal methods. That's were long-term value is, and the even worse "brittleness" of AI will drive even more the point home in many domains (even if it is used to check and validate AI outputs).

tayo42 2y ago

Aren't SLAs pretty much the same thing. You get some kind of compensation when it's the sla is broken

lesuorac 2y ago
Assuming you got one sure. Although make sure to read the fine print because most SLAs only refund your payment at best so if something like Crowdstrike happened to you then you're still out a lot of money from their mistake.

skybrian 2y ago

The results of this sort of contract negotiation can be absurd. When I was at Google, legal insisted on pretty strict terms before paying for IntelliJ licenses, but meanwhile, engineers were using Eclipse with no warranty whatsoever because it’s open source.