It's laughable only if you think that the only reasonable metric is "consistent and reliable".
The parent says "it typically doesn't matter that the product is worse if it's cheap enough". And that seems valid to me: the average quality of software today seems to be worse than 10 years ago. We do worse but cheaper.
> And that seems valid to me: the average quality of software today seems to be worse than 10 years ago.
You don't remember Windows Vista? Windows ME?
I think you have that view because of survivor's bias. Only the good old software is still around today. There was plenty of garbage that barely worked being shipped 10 years ago.
