I had a weird kind of epiphany when I was watching the fireworks over Sydney last night.
The harbour bridge has lights on it.
For what financial benefit?
The fireworks display itself, I can't understand where the financial benefit is and it costs millions of dollars. ($7 million as far as I'm aware)
---
I think that you could make a financial motivation statement for making good software (it makes it less likely for people to switch, for example), but my broader point is: why does everything have to be financially motivated?
Because, a lot of stuff that we enjoy doesn't seem to be primarily financial in nature.
Same for the Opera House. Imagine all of those stock photos of Sydney. Now narrow those down to the nighttime shots of Sydney. Imagine those without lights on the bridge or opera house. For that matter, any of the lights on any of the buildings. What do you have left? A really boring photo. Nobody wants to visit a city with really boring photos. What's the financial benefit of that?
Better lit structures make photos of them look better. Tourists choose destinations to spend money at based on how good the photos of the destinations look.
that doesn't answer my question, i was asking why the tourist selects like that. How does selecting based on how well lit photos are create a financial benefit for the tourist? ;-)
You're such a troll. The benefits of tourists to the tourist for visiting a city can come in many forms, and financial benefit is rarely one of them. In fact, it typically comes at great financial cost.
A lot of things about humans is based on desire, not on logical conclusion or requirement. Humans do things because they want to, not because they need to or it's the logical or rational thing to do.
So taking this whole comment chain into consideration, why are Windows 11 and Teams going out of their way to be awful to use?
We agree that the Free Market(tm) incentives are to maximise desire even at an up-front loss (Fireworks, Lighting the bridge) but the parent said that it's free market economics that prevent Teams and Windows from being desirable to use.
Is someone wrong or am I misunderstanding something?
Is there more profit in awful things? Why does the Harbour bridge have lights then?
Why are we even trying to equate the 2 things? The harbor bridge has a very pleasant look and people want to accentuate that, so they have decided to put lights on it so that it can be enjoyed at night. There is a very pleasing affect from things being lit at night. Why why why is this hard/difficult to grasp?
That is so so so different from a group of engineers building a product and totally not grasping that while it technically works, it is not pleasant for the end users. It takes a certain level of asshattery to assume that the devs are going out of their way to make it this way.
It doesn't have to be, but our economy is structured to name it one of the primary ways to justify something's existence, Ave basically the only way to make something sustainable.
The incentive structures are built to make financial incentives take precedence with most things
A lot of people and companies take pride in their work. Saying that people are only in it for a buck is a tired old cliche that is easily disproven through even casual observation.
