Yep, lately more and more, I think the root problem is that actually creating high-quality software is so expensive that few can afford to do it, but they need software anyway.

I think it's actually a big societal problem, not just a contractor-client-relations problem. Our lives are full of crappy software, and the economy probably literally could not bear the cost to fill them with high quality software instead. Software cost savings are a lie formed out of crappy software.

High-quality software isn't expensive - it has a high initial cost, but the difference between a successful product and a crappy product you can't sell and need to hire hundreds of people to bugfix is more than enough to cover this.

Some people tend to want cheap. They don't see what software developers, testers, UX guys and so on bring to the party. Unfortunately they don't really have a choice - they pay now or pay later.

Yes, but you are forgeting a very important decision, usually how these things go, the person doing the decision for now and the person doing the decision later aren't the same one.

So companies keep doing this, because whoever does the "cheap" decision gets his/her bonus for reaching the target and moves on.

High quality, mostly-custom software is expensive.

That's why I thinking bringing everyone as close together produces the best results. Yes, the designer wants X, but is Y acceptable if it's doable in a tenth of the time?

Start focusing on "What's best for the team / product?" rather than only on {whatever hat the asker is wearing}.

It's expensive as f*ck I'd say, but you are right.

You pay now or you pay later for a worse result.

High-quality software is a documented way to reduce costs. The evidence is filling books, while there is none that shows that low quality leads anywhere.