I’ve seen that argument a few times, yet no one has ever been able to point to any tangible proof. Anecdotally, I see people significantly more frustrated by things working poorly than a lack of imagined features no one asked for.
> Unsurprisingly, new features come with new bugs... these new bugs may be way nastier than the so-called "unimportant" bugs that have been well-known for a while. Which fix should the team focus on?
They should first focus on the bugs to old features that the new features caused. Adding new functionality should never cause a regression to what already exists, but when it happens, those should be prioritised.
> I’ve seen that argument a few times, yet no one has ever been able to point to any tangible proof.
The tangible proof you're looking for is the current market/state of software as it is developed and released in general across the commercial industry.
> Adding new functionality should never cause a regression to what already exists, but when it happens, those should be prioritized.
The general audience and attention cycles pay attention and/or act in response to things like new features, not old bug fixes. Even if fixing old bugs is a #1 priority for you, it does not change that the average consumer accepts the current arrangement with very little complaint.
> The tangible proof you're looking for is the current market/state of software as it is developed and released in general across the commercial industry.
When every company does the same thing, that tells you nothing about what the public wants. There is simply no choice. By your logic, every authoritarian thing governments do is what people want, but all of those are highly contentious. Pointing at the current state of things is seldom an accurate barometer of desire. If that were the case, nothing would ever change.
> with very little complaint.
Clearly you haven’t been closely following the release of macOS Tahoe. Don’t conflate the general public with “influencers” whose only job is to hype anything new.
> When every company does the same thing, that tells you nothing about what the public wants.
Widespread adoption across an industry is a classic market response to satisfying demand.
> By your logic, every authoritarian thing governments do is what people want, but all of those are highly contentious
Discussing software feedback forums and jumping to how I would respond to a conversation about a authoritarian "thing" governments do is irrelevant and didn't go anywhere
> Clearly you haven’t been closely following the release of macOS Tahoe.
You have jumped to an entirely incorrect conclusion here. I have made dozens of comments and been involved in the beta testing of Tahoe.
It is generally best in a conversation to try and engage with the information others post.
I’ve seen that argument a few times, yet no one has ever been able to point to any tangible proof. Anecdotally, I see people significantly more frustrated by things working poorly than a lack of imagined features no one asked for.
> Unsurprisingly, new features come with new bugs... these new bugs may be way nastier than the so-called "unimportant" bugs that have been well-known for a while. Which fix should the team focus on?
They should first focus on the bugs to old features that the new features caused. Adding new functionality should never cause a regression to what already exists, but when it happens, those should be prioritised.