Hardly. It's more a case of lack of proper software development and QC processes. All which cost money, but people want 'cheap' so obviously corners are cut. As someone else said, you get what you pay for.
Software doesn't have to be shit, you know?
Yes it mostly does at the moment. It's not about cost, but about process and tooling, neither of which cost solves which is something people seem to avoid. We've had at least a couple of hundred years of engineering development yet the software development industry is very new.
No, software doesn't have to be shit, and there are enough examples where it isn't.
And software isn't new, really, in fact the idea of programming is quite old (>100yrs), and commercial software development has been a thing at least since the '60s. Also, pretty much every quality control and manufacturing process has originated this side of 1900.
People are still playing with methodologies and technology with virtually no established non-volatile best practices. I've run several large software projects ranging from tightly process controlled military to financial and there is nothing on the table that doesn't produce a turd at some level. It's a log curve on cost vs quality at the moment.
That sounds truly horrible.
Places I work with seem to do software development pretty well, as well as they do hardware. They use well established concepts and processes to keep quality under control, and that includes testing. At the end there will be a certain amount of minor bugs in the product (bug-free software is an illusion anyways) but if the end result were something even close to a 'turd' then heads would roll, literally, the first one being the person responsible for managing the project.
Bad software is as unacceptable as bad hardware. Again, this isn't the '80s, software development isn't new, and has been done for decades without necessarily producing 'turds'
Sounds like you might want to have a serious look at the processes, training and available skill level in your projects.
Not really, unless you want to forego pretty much all of the advances in scopes made in the last three decades, as well as a wide range of basic features like storage, measurements or persistence that can be found in any DSO these days.
Applying the Pareto principle, 80% is good enough. For the average person the investment for the remaining 20% might not have the return they expect.
Just that in regard of analog scopes we're talking about 20% (at best) what you get and 80% what you miss. It's the equivalent of measuring voltage with a light bulb instead of a DVM.
In addition, there's the simple fact that keeping a museum piece (which is what most analog scopes are today) alive can be pretty challenging, and requires a second (working) scope when the primary one fails.
Unless you get the analog banger for free or very little money (say $50) then it's pretty much money flushed down the drain. Even Dave (who I think is a more traditional engineer) has stated he wouldn't recommend beginners to get an analog scope any more.
Good luck with Tek, you'll very likely find out why these days Tek is pretty much bottom-of-the-barrel amongst the big brands, with outdated scope models that are slow like wading through molasses, like to lock up when they are under load and in some cases tend to crash.
These days if you want a good reliable scopes you buy Keysight, LeCroy and R&S.
Fair points although for most companies the rationale for spending cash on a brand item is to get support, not for the product.
Well, bad luck then that Tek support has taken a nose dive as well.