Given the costs involved in making for real high reliability software (think planes, pacemakers, Mars rovers), profits don't factor into it at all-- we're looking at 10x the costs at a minimum. Nobody pays for that level of reliability without an excellent reason.
I'm not talking about making all software as reliable as is needed for planes, pacemakers, etc.
I'm talking about making all software as reliable and secure as appropriate for it's context. I think there's a general opinion amongst many (esp software engineers), that most currently deployed software is not as high quality as it should be, thus the concern on "What are we doing wrong, do we not know how to make quality software?"
Of course, the context and the consensus expectations for reliability/security can change, which is part of what's happened, as software has become more integral to the society and economy.
Well, I think I mostly agree. The only distinction I would draw is "good enough for its context" is synonymous in my mind for "as good as I'm willing to pay for." Everybody wants to pay for hamburger and eat caviar, but that ain't how the world works.
For all the increased whinging about software reliability, I have not seen a corresponding increase in what people are willing to pay for software. This indicates to me that we've achieved a level of rough market equilibrium.
But I would be thrilled to be wrong about that. I have a whole laundry list of refactors I'd love to take on. Cleaning up after myself is a luxury I am ill afforded.
