Are Unfinished Products Now the Norm?

Paul asks: "Long ago when digital synthesizers first became commonly available, I recall a reviewer lamenting how he was getting more and more products to test whose software was unfinished and buggy and would require updates and fixes (this, before the internet allowed easy downloads, would have meant a journey to a specialist repair center). The review also commented how this common problem with computer software was spreading (this was before Windows 95 was out), and asked if it was going to become the norm. These days it seems ubiquitous, with PDAs, digital cameras, PVRs and all manner of complex goods needing after-market firmware fixes often simply to make them have the features promised in the adverts, let alone add enhancements. Are we seeing this spread beyond computers and computer-based products; jokes apart, will we be booting our cars up and installing flash updates every week to prevent computer viruses getting into the control systems? Can anyone comment on any recent purchases where they've been badly let down by missing features, or are still waiting for promised updates even whilst a new model is now on the shelves? How can we make the manufacturers take better responsibility? Apart from reading every review possible before making a purchase, what strategy do you have, or propose, for not being caught out?"

Re:Software approaching the complexity of the orga

[iPaul]

I won't disagree with you on that. A Garmin GPS unit is a couple of hundred bucks. A garmin navigational unit for an airplane is several thousand - all because it has to be certified for use in aircraft. You make a valid point that it's expensive. I was trying to make the point that we can make quality stuff. My gripe is that even "high-end" stuff suffers this phenomena. Even more so in some cases.

Re:A phillips DVD recorder

[iPaul]

Yes, there are [eff.org] DMCA restrictions on security testing. I'm a little foggy on the rules, bou have to get an express agreement from the author/manufacturer that you are allowed to perform security testing. An example [chillingeffects.org] Of course I'm one of those EFF supporting lefties. Say it's a spam firewall you're reviewing, so you want to run a set of attack scripts against it to see if it actually does it's job, securely. The attack scripts are illegal under the DMCA as well as the act of running them against the firewall.

Well, you _could_ wait until the product has been out long enough for someone (such as Consumer's Union) to have purchased a sample off the shelf, tested it, and published a report. But then you wouldn't be on the leading edge! You'd be buying "obsolete" stuff! Intolerable!

Okay, so you read the review in Consumer's Union, or Consumer Reports or whatever. Only the review is 8 months old at that point. Maybe you could get it on eBay, but you will probably find BestBuy doesn't carry it any more. I repeatedly have this problem with Linux and Solaris hardware. By the time it's certified or tested, it's no longer the current, in-stock product. And while I have no problem with a little trial and error on my home machine, clients are much less tolerant of "well, it should work and it should be covered under RedHat support."