[hedora]

As a customer, if I find a competitor that does not do this, then I will switch to it.

For example, I cancelled my netflix subscription because they are unable to reliably operate microservices, and the UI was always in some semi-broken state. As a software engineer, this stressed me out during my relaxing TV time.

Even if continuous delivery is somehow reliably delivered, if the changes are customer visible, then they break my muscle memory, and increase my cognitive load -- I have to re-learn the damned UI every fucking time I log in. If the changes are not customer visible, then what business value to they deliver?

[scott_w]

And yet the numbers show that companies that continuously delivery updates massively outperform those that don’t. You claim to make decisions based on a company’s engineering practices but I can guarantee that you have no idea about the engineering practices of any companies that you do support actually are.

[deely3]

Wait, can I see these numbers grouped by industries if possible? Please?

[igetspam]

Yes. Read Accelerate and read the State of DevOps reports from 2017 through 2022. The reports have the data and explain their methodologies for evaluating said data. It's all there for you to consume.

[deely3]

Oh, so these reports are just surveys.. I was hoping for some hard analysis/statistic..

[scott_w]

Is there anything that will satisfy you or will anything that anyone presents be dismissed? I could spend days hunting out the evidence and you'd start question whether it's peer reviewed, or if the peer review was stringent enough, etc.

Meanwhile the rest of the world is moving forward without you.

[scott_w]

Read any book on the subject, they’ve done the research for you. The Phoenix Project, The State of DevOps Report.

Spend some time in companies that move slow vs fast and you’ll see the difference in their success first hand. You’ll see the metrics on their incidents and severity and customer satisfaction with them.

Oh, and the fact two companies mentioned (Google and Facebook) are two of the most successful companies on earth.

[Scubabear68]

See my comment elsewhere taking “people are the product” out of this conversation.

Facebook and Google and like companies do not care if they piss users off. They churn features constantly, break people’s flows on a regular basis, A-B test features so different people get different experiences.

They get away with this because the “users” aren’t users, they and their data are the product. You pay nothing to use their services, and you get what you pay for.

[scott_w]

Good thing my argument didn’t hinge on them, then. Mind picking up on anything else?

[Scubabear68]

You used them as exemplars.

Can you point out specifically where someone says releasing up to 20x a day into production for a paid platform is a good thing?

I am not talking about the capability. I grant being able to release quickly and often is desirable. I question the wisdom of actually releasing multiple times a day into production as a best practice. In my mind it is highly inefficient and offers too much churn for users (eg exactly my experience with Facebook, a chaotic broken product that changes hourly and makes people feel like the product t is gas lighting them).

[deely3]

Look, you not convincing at all.

1. Should I skip books that do not confirm your point of view?

2. What if I already spent time in these companies and found no big difference?

3. So, why companies that use different approach still exists and even (mamma-mia) profitable?