Boeing has standards to verify that it is safe.. softwares dont... for thetime being.... And the fact that the public wants a perfect product out of a beta... i dont know what to say.. that makes me angry lol
I think the point that we're finding disagreement on, is what is acceptable as late versus early beta. I would say that Google's product, as is, should have been considered early beta and limited to closed testing. They should have had a legion of either paid employees or informed volunteers, trial the thing for a year or so, before even letting the public get its hands on it. Or let me ask you this, when you bring your baby to the hospital, do you want your medical care to be perfect, or will you settle for beta?
To me, i use whatever is available beta or release, but i make sure i understand all the risks involved, whether its beta or release.... I do not hold the makers responsible if it is an error on my part in terms of not correctly judging the risks because it is my own fault if i misjudge.
See, that's exactly what I'm talking about. You're thinking like a responsible intelligent individual, but allow me to give you the perspective of a concerned parent. When you become the proud owner of a stupid as shit two year old, then perhaps you might appreciate what it means to have to idiot proof things because your child may kill himself. After having three kids and face palming thousands of times at their stupidity, I've come to appreciate the fact that not everyone in the world is as smart or as intelligent as me. That doesn't mean that I'm overly bright, but rather, that there are a hell of a lot of other people on the planet that are simply a lot dumber than me and as dense as stone. This is what is meant by consumer product safety; good designs have inherent safety features built in to prevent catastrophic injury to users who haven't two intact neurons to rub together. While you may know better, not everyone does. So when one designs consumer products, one has to realize that things need to be a idiot proof as possible or else they will wind up hurting a lot of people.
sometimes i dont know whether that person no common sense or just dont use brain. It is hard to teach or even talk to this kind of people most of the time just wish dont talk to this kind of people.
Hey Ralph.. I've been spending some time to think about this issue about product engineering, and to be honest, I'm still not fully convinced.. I see what you are saying, but the thing is I do not believe that the disclaimer put forth by Google is a way for Google to remove blame on themselves, should something happen (like this unfortunate lady's scenario). The disclaimer is served as a warning.. Google (in fact, all software companies who adopt open beta concepts) take steps to provide its users with ample warnings, and allow the users to make their own decisions, EDUCATED decisions. These warnings are used to deter a user from making the dangerous decision (like this lady did). However, once educated, if the user continues to make the wrong decision, then the negligence falls upon the decision maker (the user). With that said, this does not conflict with Google's culture in any way, because it has been determined that the user is at fault for negligence, despite ample, and clear warnings, and an attempt to educate the user to help the user make the proper decision.. This, to me, shows that Google cares, because if Google didn't care, they wouldn't have warned the user AT ALL. Now I know that my argument can be refuted by the following scenario: If a knife is left on a table, with signs saying "DO NOT TOUCH" or "DANGEROUS", a child could still grab the knife regardless, and fatally injure itself... Okay, I am not a parent yet, so I do not know how it is to be a parent. But the thing is, it is rudimentary that it is the parents' responsibility to educate their children, to tell them that a knife is dangerous and should not be used to play with. If the parents did not make an attempt to educate their children, then the parents are at fault. Okay, say the child is an adult (because the lady in question is an adult, and can think for herself *see note at end of post*), and the child continues to misuse the knife and fatally injures itself.. The parents may feel they are at fault; but the thing is, the child is an adult and can think for itself. The child is at fault. Google played the parent role and has educated its user about the dangers of using their Beta software... The lady is now an educated lady, and is adult enough to think for herself. If Google kept its softwares closed until the perfect release is available, that's like waiting for the knife blacksmith to come out with a bladeless knife.. which is pointless... If a developer is to assume that its users are stupid, unable to think for themselves, and need to play in a Fisher Price environment, then why develop software at all? As developers, we give the benefit of the doubt, and assume that the user has at least a decent level of common sense. We provide warnings to help individuals with lower than average level of common sense, because it is impossible to make a fail proof application. If users want a real fail proof application, developers might as well not develop applications at all. Furthermore, unlike airplanes, which can be tested internally, web applications can run into unsuspecting issues once published, issues that cannot be foreseen in internal labs. If users want a truly fail proof application, then the developer MUST test ALL POSSIBLE scenarios, INCLUDING after it has been published to the public. Unlike planes, softwares go through revisions to make sure that it is always up-to-date, implementing new technologies to make sure that it is at the safest level it can be. Planes go through refits once in a while. Applications go through refits once every few days. Now if you ask me, I find applications to be safer than planes. Pardon my language but nothing is stupid proof, fail proof, fool proof and retard proof. Not even toys made for kids (look at the recent lead issue with toys). Absolutely nothing (Please let me know if I'm wrong). However I believe that version iterations allow for software development to be as safe as it can be, as soon as it can possibly be, more so compared to any other product engineering, like planes or food. *note*: i did not mention minors under the legal age, because it is the parent's responsibility to keep these dangers away... you wouldn't want to keep a 5 year old child near a knife anyways. edit: an image to use as analogy:
Forgive me Dan, I am in no way trying to be argumentative just for the sake of it. But let's focus on your emphasis of the word "EDUCATED" regarding the decision making process: In the health care arena, that is akin to the concept of "informed consent" before an operation. The term informed modifies the term consent to mean that the consent was given by a patient, only after that patient was fully informed of the risks and dangers that a procedure may have. Similarly, in the case of Google, your defense of their product as is; I would ask you if they allowed the user a realistic opportunity at making an informed or, in your words, "educated" decision? What education did they impart upon the user, other than provide an afterthought of a warning. I think that's the crux of the debate; you feel that the woman could have made an educated decision with the information at hand, whilst I can clearly see that she did not have enough "education" by Google. Mind you, on that same page (at the link) that described the incident, the author asked Google how to walk to Japan, and Google's software eagerly instructed him to Kayak several thousand miles across the Pacific. The correct response should have been "That is not possible." What next? Is Google going to list subway tunnels, sewers, and rivers as potential access routes to pedestrians too, and seek injury redress protection by appending a "you may die if you follow these routes" somewhere on their site? Plainly put, their maps are NOT ready for prime time, and frankly, a few lawsuits would actually help them to refine their product. Their problem is, they only have programmers working on their product, when they need a lot more people from other fields of endeavor who can input broader perspectives. Your illustrated commentary points are well taken, but need I remind you of the political power of the tobacco industry. Unless of course, you're also claiming that Google should buy off government oversight like the tobacco lobby has been doing for years? But I do agree with you 100% that nothing is stupid proof, and it seems that there is an abundance of it at Google's map making division.
lol, I don't mean to sound like I'm picking a fight.. I find these debates informational, and helps me to understand the user's and the legal side of such app programming...
