3 ms·

Things that were once unknown unknowns are always easy to point out in hindsight...

• lovemenot 13y ago
  That is true in general. But in this case, what new information arose in the intervening months? There were no reported cases. Presumably the only thing that changed was that Nest's QA team eventually got around to doing what they were likely too busy to do before release. So this appears to be a classic case of trade-off between safety and time to market. I don't presume to correctly judge what would be the right values to plug into that equation, but I think it is fair to raise the question.
  • uptown 13y ago
    It could also be that their international expansion imposes different requirements, or doing it all under the supervision of Google's attorneys influenced the change.
  • trothoun 13y ago
    If you think QA is ever complete, then it is clear you have never worked on a QA team. You can always come up with new ideas on how to break things.
    • lovemenot 13y ago
      I quite agree that one can always come up with new tests. But the pertinent question is whether in this case Nests's QA would have anticipated, yet not tested for, this particular error condition. I believe that on balance the answer is yes, probably they did. A question which follows then is, assuming I am right, what is a reasonable amount of blame for failing to test prior to release?