Comment by AshamedCaptain 7 hours ago
I wish there was an actual thriving business model like this -- just fixing most annoying bugs, for a price, of commonly used desktop software. Why proprietary software companies cannot or do not want to provide this service is over me. Perhaps I'm too much used to consulting.
For many large companies or even teams, there exists a class of bugs / issues / features where dropping 5-10k on a bounty is extremely cost efficient compared to working around the issue or internal development. That might not fund development outright, but at worst it would point out the features people want and serve to inform what to work on next. I think there are a couple reasons why that is not prevalent. Most important one is that highly compensated enterprise teams that would benefit the most from placing bounties tend to avoid software that is lacking features or has bugs. Secondary is not implemented here ego and general disconnect between people in the trenches that know what needs to be done and people controlling ability to place bounties.
Imagine FAANG assigning $500 per engineer per year to allocate to feature / bug bounties.
Most larger companies would probably find it way easier and more sensible to contract with some outside consultancy to work on these issues than just posting a random bounty, even if the latter might potentially be cheaper. See Google Summer of Code projects for a very practical example of how "just pay randos to work on issue X for cheap" can quite often end up in failure.
> See Google Summer of Code projects for a very practical example of how "just pay randos to work on issue X for cheap" can quite often end up in failure.
That potential for failure is there for any "subcontractors". I wonder if anyone has any stats on this.
Eh, I think you're underestimating some people perseverance.
You generally only need multiple people for timely action, and it usually even slows you down (from the perspective of total hours spent)
Like 2k bug bounty? I guarantee you some people would be willing to spend a lot of time for that. But yeah, people which are gainfully employed and have a decent salary - likely not.
Why not? In much of the world, working on one of those a month would provide a comfortable living.
This $1900 bug bounty is quite an outlier, you generally won’t find one per month. An additional challenge is that it’s hard to predict how much work something will take, or whether there are any showstoppers. Also, if you don’t live in the same country as the client, it will be more difficult to get legal assurance that you’ll receive your money (or for the client that they won’t lose their money).
lt could become some sort of leetcode final boss and/or something that you can put on your resume.
Did you realize that you didn't include 'open source' in your statement? This is exactly what the desktop OS makers -Microsoft and Apple- do every single day. Their prices are mostly B2B and therefore hidden, but there is a steady income for each person involved in making the fix.
The economics for something like MS teams is not what you'd expect.
It has to be good enough that other options are not worth the hassle to switch over to, for enterprise customers. The quality doesn't matter in the slightest, because making it 5-10% better would cost double or triple.
Where quality does matter for these customers, backward compatibility, Microsoft does pretty well.
it's the management structure that's broken. Plenty of decent engineers around microsoft who could fix it, plenty of customer and enterprises willing to pay, but they are not allowed to work on it because of prioritization bullshit, allegedly they could get more money elsewhere
That's literally the issue, management by KPI frameworks
I think it has more to do with bundling reducing the need to compete to zero. Change that and the economics of competition would take over and the changes would get prioritized but nobody at Teams needs to sell a single license, so the priorities become the bs like internal status and visibility and not product success.
How many companies have Teams for basically free with their 365 license but still pay for Slack? The marginal value of Teams is nearly zero.
There is also a matter of selective effort by staff senior enough to make their own choices. Many SDE3 (or whatever MS equivalent is) wouldn’t want to be associated with a dumpster fire product like Teams.
I have used it every day for past 3-4 years. What bugs? I don’t love it but I don’t hate it either. I don’t understand the Teams hate
If you had made the same complaint about Win11 and you wouldn't be so far off. Microsoft is great at driver support which is the subject at hand.
It is, but it's amazing how cheap kernel expertise is relative to comparable experience in other specialties like frontend.
there are a lot more kernel programmers than kernel work
"Lots" is a relative term, but the overwhelming majority of kernel developers are employed and usually do kernel work as part of their job (usually at least ~80% but it could be argued as high as 97% depending on how you interpret the breakdown done by LWN of each release[1]).
And I would guess that most of the kernel devs who are "working for free" are doing the stuff they personally enjoy and find satisfaction in working on, because it's a hobby -- so many of them are probably not interested in fixing random bugs for cash either.
For small stuff, the cost is just going to be too much for people to want to pay it. This bug had a $1900 bounty attached. Let's put the cost of one software engineer (salary plus overheads) at $200,000 a year, which I think is an underestimate. That's $3850 a week, so unless your bug can definitely be fixed (including getting any necessary hardware, investigation, fixing, code review overhead, etc) in two or three days it doesn't pay. And if it could obviously be done in two days then it's likely somebody would have already done that.
The above back of envelope maths ignores the overheads of interacting with the people who posted the bounties to get them to agree to pay up, and of the cost overruns on the class of bugs that look like two day fixes but take two weeks.
I assumed the commonly cited 2x markup, so that would be a $100k salary, which is less than various websites say is the average US software dev salary. You could probably find cheaper elsewhere in the world, but even if you cut the salary in half that's still "bug must be doable in a week", which isn't going to cover many of the bugs people will care about.
Paying for software developers is really weird. State governments for example struggle to pay for a FTE that makes $140k. But they can pay me over $200/hour for consulting services for multiple years. The technical FTE employees that they have generally aren't qualified to evaluate their consulting needs so you get multi-million dollar contracts with very little actual oversight. I was really impressed with the folks I was working with at this particular state government and looked into what it would look like if I joined them full time as a FTE technology leader. I would have to take almost a 50% pay cut. The top senior IT position that oversees all of the state resources makes 70% of what I do. It's crazy. Unless you're working in medicine or sports, government pay sucks.
I've seen similar but less extreme examples play out in the private sector. 16 year senior architect making less than freshly hired software dev that was just an intern within the same company. Software developer pay is largely based on what you're demanding. In a lot of companies, there is a wide range of pay for folks doing literally the same job. They will hire a dev at $180k because that dev wouldn't go lower and turn around and push back to get another dev at $120k for the same level of unproven experience.
200k is a fairly high salaried software eng in expensive markets, a bounty program like this would be open worldwide and many people would be willing to work for a fraction of that, quality control is another concern but take a look at prices on sites like upwork and bids for this type of work and realize 200k is nowhere near the lower baseline.
$200k is on the extreme high-end of software engineers. For example in eastern europe $30k is normal. And that's not even the floor. You can go to india or africa to get even cheaper. The problem with this bug bounty though is that it requires pretty rare expertise. It's not a "throw any developer at it" type of thing.
It looks like these laptops are usually sold with Windows; are you saying that every manufacturer should be obligated to develop drivers for every software which is theoretically compatible with it? Or are you just saying that we need even more caveats in the interminable EULAs we all just click through?
Given that “fixing this issue required weeks of intensive work from multiple people”, the price would have to be prohibitively high.
More generally, software is really, really expensive to produce and maintain. The economics only work at scale, in particular for B2C. (Maybe AI will change that, if it becomes more reliable.)