Hacker News Reader

Comment by giancarlostoro | Hacker News Reader

Is it FOMO if for $100 a month you can build things that takes months, and then refine them and polish them, test them, and have them more stable than most non-AI code has been for the last decade plus? I blame Marketing Driven development for why software has gone downhill. Look at Windows as a great example. "We can fix that later" is a lie, but not with a coding agent. You can fix it now.

View on HN

> Is it FOMO if for $100 a month you can build things that takes months

It is the very definition of FOMO if there is an entire cult of people telling you that for a year, and yet after a year of hearing about how "everything has changed", there is still not a single example of amazing vibe-coded software capable of replacing any of the real-world software people use on a daily basis. Meanwhile Microsoft is shipping more critical bugs and performance regressions in updates than ever while boasting about 40% of their code being LLM-generated. It is especially strange to cite "Windows as a great example" when 2025 was perhaps one of the worst years I can remember for Windows updates despite, or perhaps because of, LLM adoption.

For MS, it's currently eroding through every single one of their products.

Azure, Office, Visual Studio, VS Code, Windows are all shipping faster than ever, but so much stuff is unfinished, buggy, incompatible to existing things, etc.

You misunderstood what I meant about Microsoft as a great example ;) I meant a great example of a bloated piece of software driven by marketing, you telling me all the ads on Microsoft was not the marketing / business department?

"We can fix it later" is not the staple of Marketing Driven Development. It's not why Windows has been getting more user-hostile and invasive, why its user experience has been getting worse and worse.

Enshittification is not primarily caused by "we can fix it later", because "we can fix it later" implies that there's something to fix. The changes we've seen in Windows and Google Search and many other products and services are there because that's what makes profit for Microsoft and Google and such, regardless of whether it's good for their users or not.

You won't fix that with AI. Hell, you couldn't even fix Windows with AI. Just because the company is making greedy, user-hostile decisions, it doesn't mean that their software is simple to develop. If you think Windows will somehow get better because of AI, then you're oversimplifying to an astonishing degree.

Every place where the marketing types are making us take on dev workloads has always deprioritized bugs. The only place I ever worked at where I felt like I could get things done, and done correctly, all the managers were former devs, including the director, and didn't waste any time taking crap from anyone if the dev needed time to make sure he got something done and done correctly. That didn't mean a license to waste time by any means, but it meant we knew we could get things done correctly. Some of our products were completely off the grid once published and might not see updates for months, years, or ever again.

> Every place where the marketing types are making us take on dev workloads has always deprioritized bugs.

My point is that they will continue to do so no matter how easy it is to fix bugs. It's a people problem, not a tech problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com