I don't buy your list. For example, higher quality doesn't require third part certification. Reputation (and warranties) can work without third parties.

I do agree that third party certification is one possible avenue.

▲

pknomad 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

How so?

Any sort of profession that warrants high quality service requires certifications (bar exam, USMLE, PE, etc)

Same goes for products too. It’s not a reasonable solution for the consumers to perform an exhaustive research to get high quality guarantee.

I don’t find non official third party all that compelling. See Amazon marketplace as an example.

▲

eru 13 hours ago | parent [-]

My local coffee shop makes excellent coffee. They don't need get a third party certification for me to to believe that.

Similarly for eg a local carpenter. Or my tailor.

The bar exam merely tells you that someone is legally allowed to be a lawyer or some such. They don't tell you, if she's any good. I don't know what USMLE or PE are.

> Same goes for products too. It’s not a reasonable solution for the consumers to perform an exhaustive research to get high quality guarantee.

That's for the consumer to decide, isn't it? And consumer can use third party certification, if they want to, sure. (Or if they are required to do so by regulation.)

▲

austin-cheney 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Actually they do. Local coffee shops fall under the regulation of local food inspectors just like restaurants.

▲

carlosjobim 11 hours ago | parent [-]

That doesn't say anything about quality, except for "should not kill you or give you a disease". What shopper would be satisfied with the bare minimum of the minimum, no matter what they are buying?

▲

austin-cheney 11 hours ago | parent [-]

I think you misunderstand quality versus competition. The purpose of regulation is to impose a minimum baseline of quality.

Software does not have regulation. In many areas of software we force shit quality on the users and just expect them to take it without complaint as a common practice. Then we as developers, like entitled children, completely rage the moment anyone casts light on this insanity.

▲

carlosjobim 10 hours ago | parent [-]

It's because something is better than nothing when it comes to software. Which people always forget.

Is eating spoiled food which gives you a disease better than not eating anything? No, it's worse, and therefore the minimum quality regulations make sense.

Is having low quality software better than not having any software? Yes, in almost all cases it is better. So a minimum quality regulation doesn't make sense.

When people put quality requirements too high on software, we get situations where for example public transport information and tickets aren't available digitally because the government is taking 15 or more years to make the "perfect" platform. The public is better served by a shitty solution the first years, an OK solution after that, and hopefully a good solution later on.

Delivering fast has a very important value when it comes to software, because you can replace it with improved versions at no physical cost. Delivering a vehicle which will kill you or food which will make you sick is very different. In those cases nothing is better than anything.

▲

austin-cheney 10 hours ago | parent [-]

> When people put quality requirements too high on software, we get situations where

This is a common trope of the unregulated: We can’t raise quality because we can barely deliver as it is. The real message there is that the user should suffer so that you won’t.

	▲	carlosjobim 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'm a consumer of software, not a developer. And I can tell you that as a consumer I always prefer something over nothing. If you can do it better, you have a golden opportunity, which you should take, to deliver something better to the market. Otherwise, you haven't much reason to complain that other people are doing at least something.

▲

Saline9515 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't know how it is in your country but carpenters are required to be trained and to insure their works for a decade in France, for instance.

▲

Paul_Clayton 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think reputation and warranties are insufficient. While building a reputation may be expensive, destroying a reputation can be profitable (in the short term). Warranties can also be made less effective by making the buyer spend excessive time and effort to enforce the warranty. The company sets the terms and effectively their interpretation, so after two years of waiting, nudging, waiting, complaining, waiting, threatening, and waiting one finally gets an "equivalent value" replacement (and the warranty clock was running during that time).

The company might also go bankrupt with much of its profits having gone to owners and decision makers who are not bound to honor the warranty.