11 ms·

> the backoffice engineers would make a build that fixed only those bugs Makes perfect business sense! Those customers didn't pay to get those bugs fixed, so w

> the backoffice engineers would make a build that fixed only those bugs Makes perfect business sense! Those customers didn't pay to get those bugs fixed, so why should they get the fixes??? /s Holy moly.

usmannk 8y ago
I think a reasonable explanation may be that other customers possibly have come to unknowingly rely on some of the bugs. Shipping a fix of all the bugs could actually break their code!
- emeraldd 8y ago
  Or their hardware, some of the impact of those bugs could be built into the physical hardware. By that point. Edit:fixed a typo.
  - ethbro 8y ago
    Add in qualification of specific hardware inside specific operating conditions. The "move stuff and break stuff" crowd forgets there's a market for "move slow and rarely break stuff" too. So if you have qualified hardware w/ a certain driver version, you don't just ship a bunch of code fixes to a customer, you ship the bare minimum change set required to fix any specific issues they experience. Because you're sure as hell not recertifying every part revision with every driver version.
    - civilitty 8y ago
      I am definitely not one of those "move fast and break stuff" people, especially since I often have only a few months to design something that is expected to be in service until oxidation is a legitimate concern. My personal ventures are largely web based so I've also become rather too personally acquainted with the other extreme - the madness that is node_modules/, implicit *.d.ts imports, and browser impedance mismatches. The problem in the hardware industry is far more insidious. Unlike with software dev, there is no concept of "full stack" or "devops" in manufacturing. The entire field is so hyperspecialized that youve got people dedicated to tuning reflow temperatures to +-5C depending on humidity and local weather. No one person can have a proper big picture view of the situation so the entire industry is dominated by silos each with their own micro-incentives and employees competing with each other for notoriety.
- gricardo99 8y ago
  That’s absolutely true. Once you’ve delivered hardware with certain bugs that can be worked around by firmware/software, often that means the firmware/software teams don’t need or even want those bugs fixed. Fixing the bug means they’d have to go back and change their workarounds, which not only costs time/money, but adds risk that their may be unintended consequences and new issues.
  - civilitty 8y ago
    Yep, there is a method to the madness. Something complex like making an electronic product is bound to have tons of pitfalls and most of these behaviors have rational (albeit twisted by economic incentive) reasons for why the things are the way they are. We were, however, an established client of Qualcomm and working on a new design so we explicitly asked for all bug fixes and they refused except for the ones we could name. We got "lucky" in that no other client had needed both bug fixes at the same time and when the build system broke, the one guy responsible for it was MIA so we got the whole source dump (they didn't even test their fixes together until a client found problems). I've used other Qualcomm products with different engineering support teams that are much better at source control, testing, and even devops but it's a very rare sight within the industry.
extralego 8y ago
Seems very similar to how Restaurants and grocery stores throw food out instead of giving it to shelters and homeless people. It’s a common corporate policy in the US. The only justification seems to be that if they gave it away, they might miss out on some otherwise potential sales.
- taneq 8y ago
  I think there's also liability issues, like if they give away food and someone gets salmonella poisoning or has an allergic reaction or something then they could get sued. It sucks but it's not completely arbitrary.
  - fjsolwmv 8y ago
    That's a myth. Good Samaritan laws exempt that
    - eximius 8y ago
      Doesn't get rid of bad press.
    - ben_w 8y ago
      In addition to possible bad press, it’s also common for people to not know the law. And as I read news stories asking if the reader knew the difference between “best before”, “sell by”, and “use by”, I would also expect some to destroy the produce out of a misguided but kind desire to avoid harming those who they could legally and effectively help.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- squarefoot 8y ago
  Throwing away food is a common practice also in production factories to keep prices fixed. If a resource supply becomes too much available compared to its demand, the price lowers, and we aren't anymore at the "get an apple from a tree and sell it" level: if the price lowers too much entire production or distribution companies can go bankrupt. It stinks badly, but is a sad reality.
fjsolwmv 8y ago
It's "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
- louithethrid 8y ago
  Shenzens informal sharing culture starting to eat away on fabless Designs by now says its broken.
eurg 8y ago
This decision was likely not made to rip-off some more moneys, but because of bad quality. If any bugfix might as well introduce two new issues, you don't deliver the fix if it isn't needed. The whole "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" saying has some of its roots in that environment, maybe even all. This approach is wrong on many levels, but fixing the real cause is often a bit more work than "a hundred junior dev hours". In the meantime, you have to deliver to customers.

usmannk 8y ago

I think a reasonable explanation may be that other customers possibly have come to unknowingly rely on some of the bugs. Shipping a fix of all the bugs could actually break their code!

emeraldd 8y ago
Or their hardware, some of the impact of those bugs could be built into the physical hardware. By that point. Edit:fixed a typo.
- ethbro 8y ago
  Add in qualification of specific hardware inside specific operating conditions. The "move stuff and break stuff" crowd forgets there's a market for "move slow and rarely break stuff" too. So if you have qualified hardware w/ a certain driver version, you don't just ship a bunch of code fixes to a customer, you ship the bare minimum change set required to fix any specific issues they experience. Because you're sure as hell not recertifying every part revision with every driver version.
  - civilitty 8y ago
    I am definitely not one of those "move fast and break stuff" people, especially since I often have only a few months to design something that is expected to be in service until oxidation is a legitimate concern. My personal ventures are largely web based so I've also become rather too personally acquainted with the other extreme - the madness that is node_modules/, implicit *.d.ts imports, and browser impedance mismatches. The problem in the hardware industry is far more insidious. Unlike with software dev, there is no concept of "full stack" or "devops" in manufacturing. The entire field is so hyperspecialized that youve got people dedicated to tuning reflow temperatures to +-5C depending on humidity and local weather. No one person can have a proper big picture view of the situation so the entire industry is dominated by silos each with their own micro-incentives and employees competing with each other for notoriety.
gricardo99 8y ago
That’s absolutely true. Once you’ve delivered hardware with certain bugs that can be worked around by firmware/software, often that means the firmware/software teams don’t need or even want those bugs fixed. Fixing the bug means they’d have to go back and change their workarounds, which not only costs time/money, but adds risk that their may be unintended consequences and new issues.
- civilitty 8y ago
  Yep, there is a method to the madness. Something complex like making an electronic product is bound to have tons of pitfalls and most of these behaviors have rational (albeit twisted by economic incentive) reasons for why the things are the way they are. We were, however, an established client of Qualcomm and working on a new design so we explicitly asked for all bug fixes and they refused except for the ones we could name. We got "lucky" in that no other client had needed both bug fixes at the same time and when the build system broke, the one guy responsible for it was MIA so we got the whole source dump (they didn't even test their fixes together until a client found problems). I've used other Qualcomm products with different engineering support teams that are much better at source control, testing, and even devops but it's a very rare sight within the industry.

extralego 8y ago

Seems very similar to how Restaurants and grocery stores throw food out instead of giving it to shelters and homeless people. It’s a common corporate policy in the US. The only justification seems to be that if they gave it away, they might miss out on some otherwise potential sales.

taneq 8y ago
I think there's also liability issues, like if they give away food and someone gets salmonella poisoning or has an allergic reaction or something then they could get sued. It sucks but it's not completely arbitrary.
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  That's a myth. Good Samaritan laws exempt that
  - eximius 8y ago
    Doesn't get rid of bad press.
  - ben_w 8y ago
    In addition to possible bad press, it’s also common for people to not know the law. And as I read news stories asking if the reader knew the difference between “best before”, “sell by”, and “use by”, I would also expect some to destroy the produce out of a misguided but kind desire to avoid harming those who they could legally and effectively help.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
squarefoot 8y ago
Throwing away food is a common practice also in production factories to keep prices fixed. If a resource supply becomes too much available compared to its demand, the price lowers, and we aren't anymore at the "get an apple from a tree and sell it" level: if the price lowers too much entire production or distribution companies can go bankrupt. It stinks badly, but is a sad reality.

fjsolwmv 8y ago

It's "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

louithethrid 8y ago
Shenzens informal sharing culture starting to eat away on fabless Designs by now says its broken.

eurg 8y ago

This decision was likely not made to rip-off some more moneys, but because of bad quality. If any bugfix might as well introduce two new issues, you don't deliver the fix if it isn't needed. The whole "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" saying has some of its roots in that environment, maybe even all. This approach is wrong on many levels, but fixing the real cause is often a bit more work than "a hundred junior dev hours". In the meantime, you have to deliver to customers.