3 ms·

If in your opinion the set up process was that disastrous, take it back? It sounds like you encountered a few minor issues during setup that was resolved with a

by bb123 6y ago

If in your opinion the set up process was that disastrous, take it back? It sounds like you encountered a few minor issues during setup that was resolved with a restart. Not exactly the end of the world, nor unique to Apple devices. The process seems a little bit error prone but it’s still miles ahead of any competitor out there.

londons_explore 6y ago
In my view, a manufacturer should work on software quality until they can state on the box "If there is ever one glitchy weird thing that requires a reboot to fix, we'll give you a full refund". Error dialogs should say "An error occurred. Do you want the refund for your phone to be sent to the credit card you purchased it on? [Yes] [No]"
- bb123 6y ago
  For me as a consumer, it feels like it would be far less effort to just reboot the device and get on with my life.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  > In my view, a manufacturer should work on software quality until they can state on the box "If there is ever one glitchy weird thing that requires a reboot to fix, we'll give you a full refund". As a developer, I fall very near the total perfectionist end of the spectrum in my preferences, but what you’re asking for would probably mean ~nothing ever ships. It’s not that provably correct code is impossible, it’s that the economies of software (even free/open/labors of love) and physics (time) impose tradeoffs for the vast vast majority of software people write outside a research context. I too wish software quality was substantially better. I put a lot of effort into not only making it better, but making it easier to make better software in the first place. But the level of perfection you’re describing is unrealistic.
  - e_proxus 6y ago
    That is probably true, but a zero vision is a very nice goal to aspire to (and perhaps not too unrealistic, who knows the potential of languages, hardware and new developments?). In any case, tying quality to some tangible, bold measurement like refunds is not a bad idea.
    - onecommentman 6y ago
      Not necessarily a refund, but some sort of compensation could be in order. “A reboot has occurred. For this inconvenience, we have credited the CC associated with your AppleID $2, (or $5 Applebucks or a free coffee).” Design out the potential for gaming the system for infinite coffees. If you impose a cost on a user, you compensate the user for that cost. I think that is the basic idea behind tort law. To keep lawyers and associated expense out of the system, do it voluntarily. But if voluntary compensation of users is being ignored, a change in liability doctrine for software might be in order. Start with the biggest players who can afford the legal costs to resolve the doctrinal issues.
    - londons_explore 6y ago
      The target isn't zero errors. It's low enough that offering a refund to any user who sees one is financially viable. You already offer a refund to users where the hardware fails. Why not the same for the software?
  - londons_explore 6y ago
    There are plenty of other branches of engineering with similar reliability goals. When I eat my lunch with a fork, I expect the prongs of the fork not to fall off... And so far, in my whole life of using forks, the prongs have never fallen off. The fork has been 100% reliable. It has always worked. And before you say a fork is unrealistically simple, a metal fork is still the result of centuries of metalworking, casting, mining, etc. I'm sure some early forks did fall apart. But now, we have it refined, and they're close enough to bug-free. I think the way to achieve it is to have a fixed feature set that you never add to.

by bb123 6y ago

londons_explore 6y ago

In my view, a manufacturer should work on software quality until they can state on the box "If there is ever one glitchy weird thing that requires a reboot to fix, we'll give you a full refund". Error dialogs should say "An error occurred. Do you want the refund for your phone to be sent to the credit card you purchased it on? [Yes] [No]"

bb123 6y ago
For me as a consumer, it feels like it would be far less effort to just reboot the device and get on with my life.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
eyelidlessness 6y ago
> In my view, a manufacturer should work on software quality until they can state on the box "If there is ever one glitchy weird thing that requires a reboot to fix, we'll give you a full refund". As a developer, I fall very near the total perfectionist end of the spectrum in my preferences, but what you’re asking for would probably mean ~nothing ever ships. It’s not that provably correct code is impossible, it’s that the economies of software (even free/open/labors of love) and physics (time) impose tradeoffs for the vast vast majority of software people write outside a research context. I too wish software quality was substantially better. I put a lot of effort into not only making it better, but making it easier to make better software in the first place. But the level of perfection you’re describing is unrealistic.
- e_proxus 6y ago
  That is probably true, but a zero vision is a very nice goal to aspire to (and perhaps not too unrealistic, who knows the potential of languages, hardware and new developments?). In any case, tying quality to some tangible, bold measurement like refunds is not a bad idea.
  - onecommentman 6y ago
    Not necessarily a refund, but some sort of compensation could be in order. “A reboot has occurred. For this inconvenience, we have credited the CC associated with your AppleID $2, (or $5 Applebucks or a free coffee).” Design out the potential for gaming the system for infinite coffees. If you impose a cost on a user, you compensate the user for that cost. I think that is the basic idea behind tort law. To keep lawyers and associated expense out of the system, do it voluntarily. But if voluntary compensation of users is being ignored, a change in liability doctrine for software might be in order. Start with the biggest players who can afford the legal costs to resolve the doctrinal issues.
  - londons_explore 6y ago
    The target isn't zero errors. It's low enough that offering a refund to any user who sees one is financially viable. You already offer a refund to users where the hardware fails. Why not the same for the software?
- londons_explore 6y ago
  There are plenty of other branches of engineering with similar reliability goals. When I eat my lunch with a fork, I expect the prongs of the fork not to fall off... And so far, in my whole life of using forks, the prongs have never fallen off. The fork has been 100% reliable. It has always worked. And before you say a fork is unrealistically simple, a metal fork is still the result of centuries of metalworking, casting, mining, etc. I'm sure some early forks did fall apart. But now, we have it refined, and they're close enough to bug-free. I think the way to achieve it is to have a fixed feature set that you never add to.