Sometimes I’ll run into a baffling issue with a tech product — be it headphones, Google apps like maps or its search features, Apple products, Spotify, other apps, and so on — and when I look for solutions online I sometimes discover this has been an issue for years. Sometimes for many many years.

These tech companies are sometimes ENORMOUS. How is it that these issues persist? Why do some things end up being so inefficient, unintuitive, or clunky? Why do I catch myself saying “oh my dear fucking lord” under my breath so often when I use tech?

Are there no employees who check forums? Does the architecture become so huge and messy that something seemingly simple is actually super hard to fix? Do these companies not have teams that test this stuff?

Why is it so pervasive? And why does some of it seem to be ignored for literal years? Sometimes even a decade!

Is it all due to enshittification? Do they trap us in as users and then stop giving a shit? Or is there more to it than that?

  • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    57 minutes ago

    Tech companies only care about making money. If people continue to buy their half-effort products, then they’ll keep making it.

    On the other hand, open-source (hardware or software) is designed for maximum longevity.

    Unfortunately, the wrong people have unlimited resources when it comes to making our tech products.

  • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    31 minutes ago

    There’s the compounding issue that something that seems simple on the surface, say, pairing a pair of bluetooth headphones, is a convoluted mess of super-complicated shit on a technical level.

    And to even handle that, the engineer making the app that handles these does not know about how to sync an L and an R headpiece. And the person who knows about that does not know how to establish contact via bluetooth. Etc. It’s layers upon layers upon layers of tricky technical stuff. Each of which has the ability to propagate buggy behavior both up and down the layers. And each engineer probably cannot easily fix the other layers (they’re not theirs), so they work around the bugs. Over time this adds an insane amount of complexity to the code as hundreds of these tiny adjustments are spread everywhere.

  • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 hour ago

    Leveraging technology is a lever of power. Whenever you use technology, you are acting in a submissive manner and that will be used to exploit you.

  • a4ng3l@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    We tend to forget that all of that is to support people. Tech shouldn’t be an end goal, merely one of the ways to achieve it. And not always the best one at that.

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Sometimes it’s a solution in search of a problem. Usually that’ll be some startup that really wants Google (or somebody) to either buy them out or shovel millions of venture capital money at them. VC that would be better used for anything that housing homeless people, feeding the hungry, or hell just burning to stay warm.

  • Ephera@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Speaking as a software engineer, it’s usually a combination of things.

    The root of all evil is that yes, fixing that thing doesn’t just take one hour, as it should, but rather a few days. This is mostly preventable by having sufficient automated tests, high code quality and frequent releases, but it’s a lot of work to keep up with. And you really need management to not pressure early feature delivery, because then devs will skip doing necessary work to keep up this high feature-delivery velocity.

    Well, and as soon as such a small fix has a chance of taking more than a day or so, then you kind of need to talk to management, whether this should be done.
    Which means probably another day or so of just talking about it, and a good chance of them saying we’ll do it after we’ve delivered this extremely important feature, which usually means ‘never’, because there is always another extremely important feature.

    • ILikeTraaaains@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      40 minutes ago

      This. Worked at a consulting firm doing e-commerce for a client. The client always pushed making changes on banners or promotional texts rather than fixing bugs.

      There was an issue with the address validator in the checkout (why and how is irrelevant) and it was raised by the QAs, but we were told to fix it in the future, they didn’t see it as a priority, they preferred a checkout that worked most of the time an focus on adding a promo banner.

      Now I work in a better place, working on product with stakeholders who don’t prioritise new things over fixing stuff, but we still need to fight to have time allocated for technical improvements that the benefits are not directly evident in the final product.

  • Goat@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    6 hours ago

    It’s a young field and we’re still entrenched in the consequences of the sort of mistakes that, in a few hundred years, will become “those silly things people used to do because they didn’t know better”.

    Daily reminder that the web is a mess of corpo bullshit piled on top of 90s tech and most OSes currently in use are culturally from the early 80s.

  • 2xsaiko@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Apple

    I’ve submitted at least 8 bug reports to them since Oct 2023 (and also many suggestions) through their feedback app. No response to any of them until now. The only closed bugs I closed myself because the problem went away in an update.

    I’m pretty sure they don’t have any bug triager whatsoever.

    I’ll keep doing it out of spite and because it’s what I do for open-source as well, but I’m really not sure if it has any effect at all.

  • andrewta@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Arrogance. They’re attitude is basically “we built it, so it’s golden. If you can’t understand why we did it this way, then put the device down and flip burgers”.

    I saw this starting around the year 2005. I spoke out about it and told people stop buying /using products that aren’t logical and easy to use. If it takes a Google search and a YouTube video to figure out how to use it, then it was built wrong. Return the product and get a better one. No one listened to me. We have what we have.

    It sucks and it will only get worse. People will not change. People will keep buying shit products, then removed that the products suck. Instead of returning the crap, they will keep it. Because they keep it the companies have zero reason to change.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 hours ago

      LOL, those last three sentences wrap up lemmy’s capitalism hate perfectly.

      “We keep spending money on bullshit and kept getting fed worse bullshit!”

      “Have you considered not spending money on bullshit?”

      “We HAVE to!!!”

  • Christopher Masto@lemmy.masto.community
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    83
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    I worked at Google for over a decade. The issue isn’t that the engineers are unaware or unable. Time and time and time again there would be some new product or feature released for internal testing, it would be a complete disaster, bugs would be filed with tens of thousands of votes begging not to release it, and Memegen would go nuts. And all the feedback would be ignored and it would ship anyway.

    Upper management just doesn’t care. Reputational damage isn’t something they understand. The company is run by professional management consultants whose main expertise is gaslighting. And the layers and layers of people in the middle who don’t actually contribute any value have to constantly generate something to go into the constant cycle of performance reviews and promotion attempts, so they mess with everything, re-org, cancel projects, move teams around, duplicate work, compete with each other, and generally make life hell for everyone under them. It’s surprising anything gets done at all, but what does moves at a snail’s pace compared to the outside world. Not for lack of effort, the whole system is designed so you have to work 100 times harder than necessary and it feels like an accomplishment when you’ve spent a year adding a single checkbox to a UI.

    I may have gone on a slight tangent there.

    • Che Banana@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 hours ago

      A corporate analogy/strategy is to block your competition from the market share.

      For example, a company I used to work for would open accounts in non-viable/non-profitable locations so that our competition would not have the chance to get more market share.

      Big corps don’t give a shit if it works or not, as long as they are the biggest they can squeeze out anyone else, so they will launch whatever is trending (meta/threads) and bullshit thier way into another piece of the pie.

    • InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Reputational damage isn’t something they understand

      Is this really the case? I feel like they might, but are deciding that its “worth the cost of business”

  • darklamer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Why is it so pervasive? And why does some of it seem to be ignored for literal years?

    Considering that you know that these problems have not yet been fixed, you must still be using these products despite these problems not yet being fixed and there’s your answer: What would the motivation be to fix problems that aren’t severe enough to make you stop using the product?

  • flashgnash@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Programmers don’t get given the leeway to make the work they do of good quality if it doesn’t directly lead to more profit

  • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    73
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    The difficulty of keeping something working scales exponentially as its complexity grows. Something of 1x complexity take 1y effort, but 2x complex is 10y effort, 3x complex is 100y, on and on.

    Phones/computers/apps are at hilarious levels of complex now, and even 100k people running flat out can barely maintain the illusion that they “just work.” Add enshittification heaping its intentionally garbage experience onto the unintentional garbage experience that is modern computing, and it’s just gotten stupid.

    • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      Seriously. Millions of things have to go right for your consumer electronics or software experience work seemingly flawlessly. Think about the compounding probabilities of it. It’s a monument to human achievement that they work as well as they do.

      • shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Been saying that about the internet for 30 years. It’s a damned miracle it works at all and people whine and cry about every little hitch.

      • tomkatt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        It’s a monument to human achievement that they work as well as they do at all.

        FTFY.

      • mycodesucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        10 hours ago

        It doesn’t help that every new generation adds a new blackbox abstraction layer with little to no end-user benefit, the possibility of duplicated functionality and poor implementation, security concerns, poor support, and requiring a flashy new CPU with system crashing speed tricks to maintain a responsive environment through 12 levels of interpreters.