Gregory's Server@uncanny_kate
I'm not disagreeing with the need, but if it's done at a quarter of the pace, why wouldn't it cost four times as much?
|
Top-level
 17 comments
@tob @brouhaha @uncanny_kate I don't see how that makes it any cheaper unless people are earning 1/4 as much?  @bhearsum @brouhaha @uncanny_kate it doesn't make it cheaper. It makes space for devs to be human beings. @tob @bhearsum @brouhaha @uncanny_kate 4x the price, Kate said. It still ends up being cheaper in the long run. One exploit which is the fault of the producer spawns X lawsuits… @amgine @tob @brouhaha @uncanny_kate Did I misunderstand? The original post says "same price", but maybe some nuance was lost on me. @uncanny_kate @bhearsum @tob @brouhaha Same wage, 4x the time, 4x price to company, x unknown level of keystone to the purchaser. The problem, as @DocBohn points out, is time frame. The target market may have a focus on quality, and if quality is objectively measurable will pay relative to their risk. The target market may have a focus on budget, in which case they will pay 50-90% the price of the objectively measured 'best quality', despite the liability being far greater. @uncanny_kate @amgine @tob @brouhaha ah, I see! Thanks for the clarification 🙏🙏. I wholeheartedly agree!  @brouhaha @uncanny_kate less churn, less triage, less bug fixing, easier modification, easier handoff to new team members @brouhaha @uncanny_kate plenty of reasons. Most importantly, work efficiency is not static. Say in 8 hours of work per day you get 8 units of work done. Then it's pretty safe to assume that working 10 hours would not yield 10 units, but less. And at some point, additional work hours might cause negative units BC. of errors due to overworking/attrition, ... @ang_mo_uncle @uncanny_kate It's been shown that the value of additional work beyond 8 hours goes negative very quickly. If you do it rarely, the value might actually be nine or more, but when done frequently... It would not cost four times as much because people would be willing to pay full price for a stable 25% instead of an unstable 100%. But that's why this would be a "movement". It requires multiple involved parties to change their expectations of each other. To agree to different terms. It's also why this hasn't really happened. Most people want to pay $0 for software and services. Full price, 25% of price, ... All irrelevant if people think the value is $0. @brouhaha @uncanny_kate Low quality software ends up taking longer as bugfixes for production interrupt the flow of new features. Fast software is often tactically designed and needs progressively more time for rework in order to make additions and changes. It's a false economy. |
@brouhaha @uncanny_kate presumably because part of the longer time scale is ample amounts of free time.