Good != Successful.

I assume that's why they wrote good and not successful.

It's an average software product with incredible scaling behind it and a lot of elbow grease to keep it chumming along, but it's not great software by the definition of "bugs actually get dealt with"

▲

jascha_eng 3 hours ago | parent [-]

It's great software in the sense that it makes a shit ton of money though. In the end software that doesn't get used and doesn't make any money but has no bugs is not valuable either.

Not saying that this is the trade off you have to make but if you have a working mode in place that achieves usage and money somewhat consistently i can understand being hesitant about changing it to optimize for less bugs instead.

	▲	estaroc 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The only people for whom it makes sense to define "great" as "makes money" are the people who produce and sell said product. Similarly, most people don't put much stock in the salesmen of a product describing their own product as great. Stop debasing all of quality to profitability.
	▲	ori_b 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Surely the Therac would have made more money if they had covered up the deaths instead of fixing the bugs and owning up to them. Why do you think they would compromise how good their software is merely to save lives?
	▲	OtomotO 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That's just two different scales. Weapons are a great product for weapon dealers and manufacturers as well, just not so much for the people killed by them (or their families, or survivors) So sure, if making a shitload of money is the metric, YouTube is a great product. That wasn't the point of the person you answered to though.