@Max this would be good to discuss on Friday? It's almost an issue of augmented reality?
I find this information alarming and amusing at the same time.
I have designed and installed fire detection equipment for a great number of years.
The funny thing is that the detector, to get to market, probably had to pass a whole host of EMC tests.
The alarming thing is where was the safety critical assesment tests for usage?
Just from reading the article, it looks like the software teams got thier silence and isolation issues mixed up.
If I designed a software strategy like this then it would only be a silence option and then only for a limited time interval, such as allowing the detector to clear smoke after burning toast. I do not think I would even do a gesture silence for Carbon Monoxide.
The beauty of a connected device is that the problematic feature can be disabled by a remote software update without requiring the user to rip the device off the wall and send it back to the manufacturer.
I find this hilarious. Google just paid through this nose to get this company and now a basic feature of the device is considered a flaw. When I first read the specs and saw the video on how to use the device I laughed out loud. What would keep it from shutting down when your four year old goes twirling across the floor underneath the device? Bad product design is bad product design. No marketing BS can overcome that. Goggle purchased a big smoking pile of dung. Not the first waste of money for them and surely not the last. I can only hope I'm on the receiving end of their idiotic purchase plans.
As we are running a small design company we only may send out our invoice *only* if we have delivered something that *works*. Firmware included (!)
Therefore I am very frustrated about the fact that lots of companies really do sell products that are simply *not* finished. OK, be able to do firmware updates is fine, but only for new options, handy new features, fulfillment of customer requests and such, but not for 'fixing' the damned thing because it simply did not work properly out of the box.
To non-techies I often give the example of operation of my car v.s. Micro$oft. In my memory they were the first to do this business-model... Shame... shame...
I was an assurance engineer of a very large mass transit buyer of electronics and firmware and the problems I had with large manufacture and supply companies was getting them to tell me that they had a problem.
Most often as not, it was me as the intelligent client finding out I had a problem that made them own up to their design faults and failures. Most times they knew about the problems and did not warn their customers about them.
It was why much to the annoyance of the purchasing department, I dealt with smaller companies like yours. I could get a good working relatonship where trust and excellent engineering could be produced.
Keep up with your strategy, there are others like me who appreciate having it working without faults first time to market.
I'm somewhat surprised that they didn't take the more conservative approach in the first place -- don't allow the alarm to be silenced until it goes off. This would have basically eliminated the possibility of false negatives. That's what my more modern "dumb" smoke alarm does.
Yes, it's convenient to be able to stifle the thing before you think that it's going to go off (pets everywhere are shaking their heads "yes" right now), but you do so at the (risk * cost) of being wrong when you don't get it right.
But then again, I know I don't (over)value form/cute nearly (by a longshot) as much as the average consumer.
The lesson learned from this kind of incidents - do not get tempted to buy a new gadget immediately it is out, Wait for some time and buy once it is out in the field for some time and no problems reported / no recall happened!!! ;) Even if I am getting the money back, the frustration is too much expensive...isn't it?