3 ms·
It's slightly different when a product is supposed to be significantly more reliable than consumer entertainment. And even in that space, where there are multi
by forgottenpass 11y ago
It's slightly different when a product is supposed to be significantly more reliable than consumer entertainment. And even in that space, where there are multiple similar options, it's not crazy to use the "I've had [good/bad] luck with brand X" as one of many shopping evaluation metrics.
A single unexplained false positive is rightly enough to ruin an end user's confidence in a smoke detector. And the rate I hear about Nest Protect failures is enough to shake my confidence in the product even without experiencing it first hand.
- DanBC 11y ago> single unexplained false positive is rightly enough to ruin an end user's confidence in a smoke detector. Wait what? You want false positives. You definitely don't want false negatives.
- bionsuba 11y ago> You want false positives Absolutely, 100%, no. This is terribly wrong. I work for a company that manufactures smoke detectors, and false positives are almost as dangerous as false negatives. False positives encourage people to disregard the alarm as "just a false alarm", and ignore it, which can, and has, led to people die needlessly. Also, if one of our products woke people up in the middle of the night because of a false alarm and they were unable to silence it, I would join them in calling it crap.
- erkl 11y agoI agree, but in this case we're not talking about reasonable false positives (e.g. toast burning or candles being blown out). I wouldn't put up with a £10 smoke detector waking me up in the middle of the night for no discernible reason, much less one I paid £89 + shipping for.