And even though the points raised are mostly valid I think there is a lot of nuance to this. If you write control software for medical devices this is simply not true. Same goes if you handle incredibly sensitive data or critical infrastructure or assistance systems for air travel and you can probably come up with a a bunch more cases where bugs are not ok. And also I think this sentence

> Where high quality is nice to have, but is not the be-all-and-end-all.

while being mostly true in all other cases I don't think it does it justice what mediocrity actually means for everyone involved. I have seen very varying levels of quality requirements/enforcement, testing, delivery speed and eventual bugs at different costs at different companies. And I in general found that higher quality software and less bugs were associated with much happier and more productive developers. And I would make the argument that less happy developers => more turnover => more second order costs. So while it might not make or break the company it certainly has a negative impact on profits downstream. And for customers too. Vendor lock in is a great thing for a company to profit from but if you really make a shitty product it opens up a lot of venues for competitors to eventually canibalize your market or from users to jump ship the next time they can. Take MS Teams for example. Lots of lock in but trust me the second better competitors are on the table I vigorously fight to switch. It's a slow burn but a burn nonetheless.