|Originally posted by jgrevan
I don't agree about the release with bugs. I have invested a lot of money in this piece (The Balanced version) and I resent the fact that the unit does not perform to it's stated potential. In the meantime the manufacturer is using my money to fund the fixes. I don't want them to take more time to get it right. I wanted it right when I opened the box. The fact that other manufacturers do it too is not a valid reason. It's wrong and we should not tolerate it!
When has a software product EVER lived up to its promises without bugs, especially on a 1st release (or 2nd, or 3rd for that matter)?
Frankly, what you mention here is the standard software development process. Nobody intentionally codes to include defects in the software but no matter what, they exist. A decent Q/A process will not allow a product to go into release with any severe or high priority defects but medium and low priority defects typically will not hold up a product release. Severe and high priority defects are ones that prevent any level of usability of a product... and if I had to guess, your Lexicon is a useable product.
If you think Lexicon is making money off of your defects, you are sadly mistaken. Every bug they have to fix comes out of their bottom line and inhibits innovation/new feature release. Bug fixing greatly slows down new feature because it often times derails key engineers, something you don't want to have to do more than you have to.
People seem to take for granted that building software and managing the process is a complex tast. If we didn't tolerate what you find intolerable, you would never have any software or at a minimum, you could never afford it. Lets just say that if the Lexicon needed to pass military or NASA software testing and release standards, your $8K Lexicon would cost you $80K and you might be lucky to have it in your system in 4 years. This is the price you pay for software innovation.