[teakettle42]

God forbid they release a product that works right the first time, with the features it’s supposed to have, and thus not have to ship an update every two weeks for a piece of bicycle kit, with customers losing an advertised product feature from their $400 cycle computer because of a license being revoked after their purchase.

[teakettle42]

The downvotes without comment have me curious. My assumption is that these are coming from people who do the same thing with their own product, and don’t appreciate the cost their customers pay for this development methodology.

Meanwhile, my Sonos system’s audio has been dropping out repeatedly for the past month because they keep shipping buggy updates I don’t need, but am forced to install.

[nradov]

Your assumption would be wrong. These bike computers have become complex general purpose computing devices with extensive functionality for training, safety, navigation, and even running third-party apps. Manufacturers keep individual hardware models in production for years and add new features through software updates all the time. Customers like me want those enhancements, although it rankles when updates introduce regression defects or (occasionally) remove features.

If you want a simple bike computer that doesn't have updatable firmware, well those are still widely available.

[teakettle42]

Wouldn’t you rather have a product that was fit for purpose from the day it was released, and without constant bug regressions (and outright removal of features you’ve paid for, as in this case)?

I’m certainly not seeing anything here that justifies the churn: https://www.hammerhead.io/blogs/change-logs

[nradov]

I would rather have new products available sooner (as long as the core functionality works reasonably well) instead of waiting for something perfectly polished. The quality issues are annoying, but as customers we have to be realistic. You can't expect too much in a relatively cheap, low-volume device.

[teakettle42]

> You can't expect too much in a relatively cheap, low-volume device.

We certainly used to be able to expect that baseline level of workmanship.

[aliswe]

developing software doesn't work like that, and the companies that do develop software like that are technologically stagnant.

[teakettle42]

Developing software absolutely can work like that if you don’t accept that shoddy workmanship is an acceptable cost to levy on your customers.

I work on operating systems for a FANG company; I’m not unfamiliar with what “developing software” works like.

It’s a choice to move fast and break things, not a requirement.