This holds true in all areas of software development—nay, in business in general. To the point where I’m not really sure why people do expect large players to do a good job, because they just about never do.
Large organisations are very close to incapable of producing good results—their software will be clunky and slow, their translations present but bad, their customer support painful. Small organisations are more likely to be able to produce good results. Notwithstanding this, small enterprises are often unable to match large for certain resource availability (including time!), which acts as a balancing factor so that small is not often uniformly superior to large, though it’s much more likely to be superior in a certain subset of fields; and this is the case with i18n/l10n.
I think this actually stands to very simple reason when examined numerically: have enough mass and you’ll produce average results (regression to the mean); be small and you’re more likely to deviate from the mean, whether for good or for bad, and if for bad you’re more likely to fail, so you’ll tend to end up with more above-average small players.
This holds true in all areas of software development—nay, in business in general. To the point where I’m not really sure why people do expect large players to do a good job, because they just about never do.
Large organisations are very close to incapable of producing good results—their software will be clunky and slow, their translations present but bad, their customer support painful. Small organisations are more likely to be able to produce good results. Notwithstanding this, small enterprises are often unable to match large for certain resource availability (including time!), which acts as a balancing factor so that small is not often uniformly superior to large, though it’s much more likely to be superior in a certain subset of fields; and this is the case with i18n/l10n.
I think this actually stands to very simple reason when examined numerically: have enough mass and you’ll produce average results (regression to the mean); be small and you’re more likely to deviate from the mean, whether for good or for bad, and if for bad you’re more likely to fail, so you’ll tend to end up with more above-average small players.