[DangitBobby]

I'm much more interested in a realistic bang for your buck discussion about software value for effort and diminishing returns rather than a conversation about whether it's possible to build great software.

Also notable that not up for discussion was any second order effects about user interaction with software; software always must serve its user in the immediate first order. Why? I suppose it's because if you attempt to examine nth order effects the proposition completely falls apart because the world is much more complicated than "software must serve the end user".

Finally, the purpose of software isn't determined by the end user, nor necessarily its author. A user can have their goals, the author(s) theirs, the funding body theirs, and so on. The "purpose" is diffused in this way until what's left is what it does. Saying it _must_ serve the user is a principled stance reflecting a world view, but it's just that. That are other coherent worldviews where software has more than one master. Or no master.

[hahahaa]

In a struggle for a gun the gun serves it's user.

[nvme0n1p1]

Yeah, I generally agree with him but there are plenty of fun counterexamples:

1. You go to the DMV to renew your driver's license at a kiosk there. There's a warrant for your arrest. Should the kiosk serve the user directly interacting with it and print out a new license anyway?

2. Grocery store: should a self-checkout serve the user and give them free groceries?

3. ATM: does the user get free money?

[flumpcakes]

I think you are concentrating on 'free' too much here.

It's not about giving away resources, it's about serving the user.

1. No, a kiosk shouldn't be hooked up to some crime database, it should function exactly as expected in situ.

2. A self-service checkout machine shouldn't 'give away' free stuff, it should however let you pay and leave.

3. An ATM should give the user money from their account - without added charge for the convienance.

I think 2 and 3 are bad examples because they actually already exist in the way that Andrew is saying things should exist. If they didn't (for example, they played a 30 second advert before you could checkout) then people would never have started using them.

Software/SaaS/startups are much more inclined to use dark patterns and attempt to bleed the users dry (either their cash or their attention) - established conveniences like self checkout and ATMs on the whole just do their job - the general public would NOT accept it any other way. It's a shame the general public don't share the same sentiment when it comes to more glamorous technology.