> Moving fast is the right thing sometimes. But overall, quality is the way.
There must be some sweet spot between poor and perfect where (a) the quality is good enough to prevent greater than expected churn and (b) increasing quality anymore is so expensive that the additional profit isn't worth it.
When NASA sends a rover to mars, the launch/space travel costs are so high that they can justify investing heavily in quality. That balloons the price of course, and that limits the number of projects they can do. The goal then is to make higher quality cheaper, or to make higher quality unnecessary (e.g. through cheaper launch/space travel costs).
I can't imagine it is much different for the software industry (where quality requirements are not as high as aerospace).
Toyota is the example everyone uses when talking quality. Honda is not far behind but the German brands are far lower quality instead opting for higher complexity. Obviously the Italian brands have never even heard of the word.
You and ChrisMarshallNY might be referring to different types of quality.
You might be referring to longevity and ease of maintenance quality, and ChrisMarshallNY might be referring to 0 to 60 or some other nebulous driving performance/style/fit and finish related quality.
Price/status signaling/size/speed/longevity/etc, lots of different parameters to optimize for and lots of tradeoffs and lots of customers who optimize for different qualities.
For basic dependability, there are a ton of good manufacturers, these days. The whole industry has advanced, quite a ways.
But the "fit and finish" Quality (or the car is so fast, you get three speeding tickets when you buy it Quality) are ones that can add serious price to the sticker.
I have a few friends that drive BMWs. They are really nice cars, with a lot of things that I consider "frou-frou," but would definitely like, if I had the money they do (so buying a Beemer isn't a big deal to them). They can afford the premium, so they spend it.
I worked for one of the top camera manufacturers in the world. Their kit cost a lot more than many, and their main Quality axes were Image Quality, and Dependability. Major-league shooters based their entire [successful] careers on our kit. Their skill was the main determinant, but our kit allowed them to do what they do best.
If certain types of Quality are important, then the extra premium is worth it.
There must be some sweet spot between poor and perfect where (a) the quality is good enough to prevent greater than expected churn and (b) increasing quality anymore is so expensive that the additional profit isn't worth it.
When NASA sends a rover to mars, the launch/space travel costs are so high that they can justify investing heavily in quality. That balloons the price of course, and that limits the number of projects they can do. The goal then is to make higher quality cheaper, or to make higher quality unnecessary (e.g. through cheaper launch/space travel costs).
I can't imagine it is much different for the software industry (where quality requirements are not as high as aerospace).