Tuesday, May 30, 2017

Ancient Software and A Small Value of "Works"

I'm not sold about this argument at all.

The "constant replacement" issue has two sides to it. If you follow the thread, there's a certain amount of (appropriate) bashing of the acquisitiveness that -- when exploited ruthlessly -- is a damning indictment of capitalism. There's a lot of value in recognizing the core capitalistic "buy more stuff" part of this.

But there's more.

One problem with this tweet is the threshold for "things that work."

Consumer software tends to be rather complex. It's often fat with features. If the feature you use aren't obviously broken, then you can say the software "works." But it's heavily qualified. Your interesting feature set may be rather small when compared to the whole.

Also, the technology stack tends to be quite tall. Your consumer software sits on top of a consumer OS and consumer-friendly libraries. All of which have to "work" to claim that your software "works."

As with the app, you're only using a subset of OS and runtime library features. This wraps the threshold for "works" in more and more layers of qualification. Smaller and smaller percentages of the code are involved in "works."

I'd suggest there's no other context where things are quite so complex and interdependent as software. The narrow feature set that appears to "work" may be adjacent to numerous security flaws and bugs and unintended consequences. The constant replacement may be necessary bug fixes.

There's more.

Part of the "constant replacement" situation stems from the cost and complexity of innovation. I think that some companies have a rentier mind-set. Once the software is written, they hope to derive ongoing revenue from the software. This doesn't happen because other companies innovate, the product becomes obsolete. So they scramble around trying to make money without doing too much real work.

There are three scenarios where ancient software gets replaced:
  • A new version include bug fixes. See above; the previous version didn't really "work" for large values of work. Blame for using ancient software is deserved. Keeping the old security flaws is not a virtue.
  • A new version is incremental feature creep. This is (potentially) rampant capitalism. Add a little something and sell the product as "new and improved." Keeping the old software because the new features aren't helpful makes sense.
  • Some businesses have a rentier mind-set. They want an ongoing revenue stream. There aren't any material improvements. Keep the old software. Make these people do real work.
Traditional manufacturing business models rely on things wearing out. In the world of atoms, things need to be replaced. A good product has a long future because of parts. And Service. Possibly even customization. I lived on a sailboat made in 1982. I've been carefully rebuilding and replacing pieces all over the boat.

A software "platform" (e.g. OS, database, etc.) can have good long-term value. A software product, however, lives in a hyper-competitive marketplace where improvements appear constantly. The lazy route of non-innovative upgrades is tempting.

I think that there is a place to blame people for having too low a threshold for "works."

No comments:

Post a Comment