I would like to answer the question "Why is software so frequently disappointing and flawed? "
As a developer, there is nothing I would like better than to turn out the highest quality software, as long as I could be compensated for it.
Does anyone really think that the millions of lines of code that went into Windows is worth the piddling $100+ the consumer pays for it?
Let's start with a basic premise: quality is worth money. I'm sure we agree that a Hyundai (or whatever passes for a cheap car in your neighbourhood) costs less than a Porsche or BMW because the Porsche is better designed and better built. Better design means more experienced and brilliant engineers, more talented designers; better built means more skilled and dedicated assembly-line workers. All these people demand more money. Hence the Porsche company commands a higher price for their Carreras, 911s, whatever.
The same should be true of software. If a company invests great care in desiging a better operating system, or a better word processor, that never crash, and always have helpful help and meaningful error messages, how much do you think that would be worth? I'll give you a hint: the military do in fact get top-quality software for their jets and rockets. They get software that almost never fails, and does exactly what it is designed to do.
Do you know how much this software costs? $50 per line of code.
Translating into everyday terms, a bullet-proof operating system would cost you, at a rough guess, $5,000 per copy.
Now I have no doubt some people would be happy to pay $5,000 for a stable OS. However, there are many people who couldn't afford this amount.
So what would happen? In any other field (automobiles, stereos, TVs, restaurant meals, housing) people who can't afford quality just put up with less and shut up.
But in the software field... well, they just make a copy of someone else's software, and enjoy the full benefit of top-of-the-line quality, without paying for it. I wager even you couldn't resist obtaining a $5,000 OS for free.
How long do you think a software company would last if their product cost millions to make, and they only sold a few copies at $5,000? Why they would go broke, of course.
This is the crux of the software dilemna: except in a few specialized cases (commercial or embedded software), the maximum price for software is the monetary equivalent of the nuisance value of duplicating it.
In consumer software, this is in the range of $19-$29.
The digital world turns the economics of quality upside-down: in traditional models where quality is supported by price, the market pays the price if it wants the quality.
In the digital model, a perfect copy of the merchandise costs virtually nothing, and undercuts the legitimate market, putting a cap on the maximum that can be charged for a product.
There is a built-in limit to how much time, effort and expense a company can invest into a mass-produced product. This cap is equivalent to the "nuisance value" defined above. It is not reasonable for the consumer to expect warranties and liabilities that go way beyond what the manufacturer receives from sales of the product.
The music and movie industry are wrestling with the consequences of easy digital duplication. They have taken a different route to protecting their intellectual property.
I challenge anyone to come up with a business model where the software developer that invests great expense in building a quality product, can obtain full compensation from the market segment that values his quality.
Whose fault is it anyway? Simple: it's the consumer who copies and pirates software that forces the price down and therefore the quality to remain low. Any analysis that does not take this into account is simplistic.
It is naïve to think that most developers are not struggling to make ends meet and stay in business (Microsoft notwithstanding).
The advent of Web- and subscription-based software models promises to turn things around by making it impractical to copy software. Time will tell.