Which is worse?

Yesterday night, while tucking my little girl in bed, my husband and I got into a debate about the governance and the unethical undercurrents of how some technology companies seem to be doing business.

It was a simplistic argument, and a general one at best, but it was interesting.

Now which is worse – Selling seemingly stable software that is next to impossible to use without paying high prices for consultancy or services, or providing software with similar functions that you can train anyone to use despite its complicated functions, but the software itself is faulty that you need to patch all the time, or opt for an upgrade the next time one comes around.

You can see where I’m going with this.

I’ve always felt that SOME IT companies seem to be either deliberately making complex software to capitalise on their deployment/services/consultancy business, or not providing enough R&D to simplify the use of such software towards the same effect. Their priorities seem to be

1. make/buy/sell good software

2. don’t bother if it’s easy to use, we have consultants and our partners have engineers for that

Versus the ‘policies’ of companies that work to create software that you can easily train users for:

1. make okay software, don’t bother if it’s perfect when we sell it because we can always patch it later

2. make sure it’s so easy to use, your grandma can learn to use it

What do you think?