>was that organizations seemed to fail to get a warranty on software.
The corporate buyer paying millions didn't "fail to get a warranty". What happened is that the market equilibrium price for that transaction for that seller-and-buyer is one that does not come with a warranty. In other words, if the software seller doesn't provide a warranty AND still able to find willing buyers, then the market price becomes "software sold without a warranty".
Likewise, SpaceX sells rocket launches for companies that need to get their payloads up into orbit. SpaceX does not reimburse or provide insurance for the monetary value of the payload (satellite, etc) if it blows up.
Why would companies pay millions for launches if SpaceX won't cover damages to the payload (akin to FedEX/UPS insuring monetary value of packages) ?!? Because the competitors don't cover payload reimbursements either. If you really really want to get your satellite up into orbit, you have to eat the cost if the launch destroys your satellite. The market clearing price for launching satellites is a shared risk model between buyer and seller. Someday in the future when space missions become 99.99% reliable and routine, an aerospace company may be the first to offer payload insurance as a differentiating feature to attract customers. Until then, buyers get 3rd-party coverage or self-insure.
>If you're going to be forking over millions of dollars like get a real warranty that it's going to work or spend that millions doing it yourself
x = price of 3rd-party software without a warranty
y = price of developing in-house software (which your employee programmers also code without warranties)
if (x < y) : purchase(x)
As others will point out, satellites are insured against the risk of destruction during launches - just not by launch companies, but by third-party insurers, which factor in the success rate of launch companies. So no, it is not a "market equilibrium towards insuranceless products".
Software is much more complicated, "brittle" to calculate risk associated with it. I may be biased but I think the real progress in the future of programming is not AI but formal methods. That's were long-term value is, and the even worse "brittleness" of AI will drive even more the point home in many domains (even if it is used to check and validate AI outputs).
The corporate buyer paying millions didn't "fail to get a warranty". What happened is that the market equilibrium price for that transaction for that seller-and-buyer is one that does not come with a warranty. In other words, if the software seller doesn't provide a warranty AND still able to find willing buyers, then the market price becomes "software sold without a warranty".
Likewise, SpaceX sells rocket launches for companies that need to get their payloads up into orbit. SpaceX does not reimburse or provide insurance for the monetary value of the payload (satellite, etc) if it blows up.
Why would companies pay millions for launches if SpaceX won't cover damages to the payload (akin to FedEX/UPS insuring monetary value of packages) ?!? Because the competitors don't cover payload reimbursements either. If you really really want to get your satellite up into orbit, you have to eat the cost if the launch destroys your satellite. The market clearing price for launching satellites is a shared risk model between buyer and seller. Someday in the future when space missions become 99.99% reliable and routine, an aerospace company may be the first to offer payload insurance as a differentiating feature to attract customers. Until then, buyers get 3rd-party coverage or self-insure.
>If you're going to be forking over millions of dollars like get a real warranty that it's going to work or spend that millions doing it yourself