That is probably true, but a zero vision is a very nice goal to aspire to (and perhaps not too unrealistic, who knows the potential of languages, hardware and new developments?).
In any case, tying quality to some tangible, bold measurement like refunds is not a bad idea.
Not necessarily a refund, but some sort of compensation could be in order. “A reboot has occurred. For this inconvenience, we have credited the CC associated with your AppleID $2, (or $5 Applebucks or a free coffee).” Design out the potential for gaming the system for infinite coffees.
If you impose a cost on a user, you compensate the user for that cost. I think that is the basic idea behind tort law. To keep lawyers and associated expense out of the system, do it voluntarily.
But if voluntary compensation of users is being ignored, a change in liability doctrine for software might be in order. Start with the biggest players who can afford the legal costs to resolve the doctrinal issues.
In any case, tying quality to some tangible, bold measurement like refunds is not a bad idea.