I really do hope that user's demand more reliability from their computers (and various computing devices). However I believe that since the birth of the PC we've been training user's to tolerate a much higher rate of failure and a massive backlash is unlikely.
People have varying tolerance levels depending on what they're using. We have an insanely low tolerance level for jet failure (the safety checks and expense that goes into airfare is extremely high) due to the public nature of the failures. We have higher tolerance level for car failures even though they claim the lives of far more people every year. We have an extremely high tolerance level for personal computer failure.
I'd like to be wrong. Contrary to your statement, I find myself, as a techy, to be far more critical of computer failure than the average user. I will discontinue use of poorly written software much quicker than my non-techy family or friends.
The high tolerance for PC failure is practical and logical. Failure doesn't generally cost a whole lot compared to cars and jet planes, and the upside to being tolerant of failure is a greatly accelerated pace of development.
It's just another classic risk/reward tradeoff. End users tolerate more risk from computers in exchange for the benefits.
People have varying tolerance levels depending on what they're using. We have an insanely low tolerance level for jet failure (the safety checks and expense that goes into airfare is extremely high) due to the public nature of the failures. We have higher tolerance level for car failures even though they claim the lives of far more people every year. We have an extremely high tolerance level for personal computer failure.
I'd like to be wrong. Contrary to your statement, I find myself, as a techy, to be far more critical of computer failure than the average user. I will discontinue use of poorly written software much quicker than my non-techy family or friends.