4 ms·
A little unfair. A lot more could be going wrong (it could be bricking every phone, for example). And to be honest, while the article seems to think the firs
by zmmmmm 16y ago
A little unfair. A lot more could be going wrong (it could be bricking every phone, for example). And to be honest, while the article seems to think the first update should be the least likely to have a problem, for me the first update is where I will cut them some slack - this is a massive distributed update process that has never been tried before in the wild. Any of us real developers know that it's incredibly hard to actually test a process like this completely....
- kaze1 16y agoAm an embedded systems developer, and have dealt with similar updates before. I think the author is fair in expecting proper testing since there weren't too many variations to handle. Firmware upgrades aren't too complex, especially when you have h/w spec lock-downs. You just need to build in the right safe guards, and build a culture of thorough testing. This looks like a typical bureaucratically executed project with time+cost deadlines to meet, and narrow-minded bosses to please.
- forgotAgain 16y agoSorry but I can't agree. First they are late to market. They then have an underwhelming product introduction despite spending who knows how much money. Then they flub things the first time they touch the user's phone. From an embedded engineer's point of view it may be acceptable but from a product marketing viewpoint it is ridiculously bad.