Has anyone ever observed any trend in the ratio of software maintenance time versus the number of users of your software?
So, for example, did you notice a big difference in the volume of support requests for software used by 1,000 users versus 50? Or is it more to do with how robust the software actually is? It's almost like calculating how valuable the extra time is to us to make the software the right way, so that it would be nice to sell the management to the right guys?
source to share
It depends a little on the software. If it is intended to fill a very specific niche, then it can be well designed and keep most users happy. If it's highly customizable and can easily be extended to millions of destinations, there is more room for user feedback. And of course, bulletproof software gets far fewer reports than transparent software.
Typically a limited number of kernel requests you receive from users (although the limit can be large for a complex program). Once you hit a certain number of users, you tend to start getting duplicate requests rather than new issues, so the request speed tends to flatten out or stabilize as your user base grows.
Another effect is that early in the lifecycle you tend to get more feedback, and as the product matures, the feedback rate tends to decrease as you nail bugs and get "missing" features.
My direct experience is only suitable for hundreds of thousands of copies, however - when going to millions + different rules may appear.
source to share