"In some industry markets, high quality can be tied to making more money, but I am sure by now all of us know the computer industry is not like that"

Theo de Raadt’s observation reveals a disconnect between product quality and financial success that is particularly pronounced in the computer industry. In traditional markets, higher quality products often command higher prices and lead to greater profitability. Consumers might pay a premium for a car known for reliability or for kitchen appliances with superior craftsmanship. The logic is straightforward: if you build better products, you attract buyers willing to invest in durability, performance, or prestige.

However, the computer industry defies these conventions. The relationship between quality and profit is neither direct nor consistently positive. In software, for example, products with evident flaws or security vulnerabilities can still dominate the market if they have established user bases, strong network effects, or aggressive marketing. Companies may prioritize release schedules, compatibility with legacy systems, or shiny new features over the pursuit of robustness or stability. Users often tolerate glitches or unfinished features in return for convenience, compatibility, or brand loyalty. As a result, market forces sometimes reward factors like speed to market, aggressive pricing, or effective promotion more than responsible engineering.

Open source projects, a field where de Raadt is a leading figure, offer a startling contrast. These projects are often crafted with painstaking attention to correctness, security, and long-term maintainability, yet they may struggle for funding or mainstream adoption. Conversely, proprietary solutions that sacrifice safety or code clarity can achieve broad commercial success simply by capturing market share early or by locking customers into their ecosystems.

The computer industry’s peculiar dynamics mean companies can thrive even when cutting corners. This phenomenon is exacerbated by the complexity of the field, the opacity of software quality to non-technical buyers, and the inertia created by standards and compatibility requirements. Ultimately, financial rewards often accrue to those who master distribution and marketing rather than those who uphold best practices in product engineering, challenging the intuitive link between quality and commercial success.