I don't think this will have much of an effect on the quality of the products, they will be as good or as bad as they were going to be regardless of the branding. Branding is done by marketing people and coding is done by the programmers, the marketing people need something to do and other than a search and replace on the names won't slow down the programmers much.
Do remember that its the sales people who drive development, not so much customers. If a sales person can get a NEW customer by adding feature X, that will get more dev cycles than fixing issues A, B, and C combined because of new revenue.
So if I am the only person in the thread not carrying the torches and pitchforks I'm going to have my opinions directly criticized by other members? My understanding was that this thread was about the change in the NAME of the products, not about who is steering the ship.
And your statement is contradictory, in your scenario the sales person is getting a feature to please a customer, so really it is the customer driving the development is it not? I hear this fallacy spread around every time someone is upset about a bug and the company came out with a new version or a new feature before that bug was fixed, "those devs should work on fixing bugs instead of adding new features!". This is not the reality of how development is done in larger companies. The teams that are out front of the current release, the Drews, Gregs, and Scotts, that are developing new technologies to add features that the majority of current users DO WANT like much more functionality in the probe/network monitoring have nothing to do with the maintenance releases and bugfixes that come out later, this is why branched development exists.
Bugs do exist in labtech, they existed before 11 or the new features and will continue to exist for as long as the product is around just as there has always been bugs in every piece of software made by any company. Any software business has to continually innovate and add new features or risk becoming blackberry. Should they hire some more people to fix bugs? maybe. Should they delay a release when the code is just not ready? probably. Should they continue modernizing the look and feel of the product and adding new features? yes.
I'm not a labtech evangelist and I had plenty of critiques in my post and even some likely outside the scope of the topic of this thread, I'm just saying I'm not going to run around screaming the sky is falling because they changed the name of the product. This too, shall pass.