3 ms·
This explains the cost, but why are they supposed to be more buggy? Should you have time to test those individually if there's just a small number of them?
by chmod775 6y ago
This explains the cost, but why are they supposed to be more buggy? Should you have time to test those individually if there's just a small number of them?
- pdpi 6y agoIf scale is small enough you have to tackle the problem from both ends: cut costs and raise prices.
- bryanlarsen 6y agoIn low volume you don't set up automated tests, nor do you test the tests.
- dvdbloc 6y agoNor do you ever actually even run all the tests... at least that's how it has appeared to me from my experience!
- zrobotics 6y agoIn college I worked as an inspector at a plant that made aerospace boards. Each board was tested multiple times, there were inspectors after almost every step, to the point that each board was inspected at least 4 times during assembly, and then 2 separate full tests were done on every board. No sampling, each and every board was tested. Speaking to the engineers, our projected defect rate was <1%, and we achieved that. However, for rough numbers, this 1.6K board would likely cost >10K to achieve that level of reliability.