[crabbone]

Well, let me take this seriously for a moment. I believe that companies which don't have dedicated testers today are the same companies which didn't have dedicated testers before.

We really use the language of "users doing the testing" jokingly. No software is written w/o testing, not even very trivial programs would run firs time. So, we just mean that there wasn't enough testing, when we say that.

There is a process, however, that is meant to decrease the number of testers employed. The more testing can be automated, the fewer testers would be necessary... but that hinges on the premise that prior number of testers was somehow sufficient for the amount of testing that was necessary. I believe though that the number of testers hired was a function of budget more than anything else. There's never enough testing, and, in principle, it's hard to see how testing can be exhaustive. So, hopefully, with more automation, it's possible to test more, but, I believe that the number of testers will remain more or less the function of budget.