Market: How will situations of product failure be handled after a build update ? - page 2
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Disabling auto-refresh is kind of upside down.
Disabled - so what? Are we waiting for feedback that everything works in the new build?
Rollback, in principle, is an option, but again, this has to come from the server side.
This is the only option/offer at the moment. And it's not the most convenient/best.
So my suspicion is confirmed. Based on this particular"option", it appears that it is the seller who is taking on the role of scapegoat. - That's good, you've dotted the I's and crossed the T's.
About the "uniqueness" of the option is debatable. The most elementary way is when the seller will write in large letters in the advert of their product something like this: "The seller is not responsible for the operation of the product on builds released after the so-and-so date".
So my suspicion is confirmed. Based on this particular"option", it appears that it is the seller who is taking on the role of scapegoat. - That's good, you've dotted the I's and crossed the T's.
About the "uniqueness" of the option is debatable. The most elementary way is when the seller will write in large letters in the advertisement of his product something like this: "The seller does not bear any responsibility for the operation of the product on builds released after the date".
And who would buy anything from such a vendor?
You came to the market, and there at the tent , "Arshin letters written, I am not responsible for anything," although in fact, and now so (at the moment the seller is not responsible for the fact that his cat drained, or rather responsible only indirectly, through bad reviews and a decrease in sales), but if you spelled it as a slogan, then you can not sell anything at all.
You came to the market, and on the tent there is "in Russian letters, I am not responsible for anything," although in fact, even now (as at the moment, the seller is responsible for the fact that his owls plummet? no, rather, only indirectly, through bad reviews and a decrease in sales), but if you spelled it as a slogan, then you'll never sell anything at all.
Don't generalize :) "Not responsible for anything at all" and "not responsible for certain things" are two big differences. The seller is responsible for the performance of the product at the time of sale and cannot predict future bugs in the terminal.
You would not argue that if the voltage jumps by 5-6 times, causing damage to the computer, the seller of the computer should still be responsible?
However, if a particular seller, being responsible only for himself and not for everyone else, takes all the responsibility - the flag in his hands, as they say :) Here I agree :)
Disabling auto-refresh is kind of upside down.
Disabled - so what? Waiting for feedback that everything works in the new build? ....
So my suspicion is confirmed. Based on this particular"option", it appears that it is the seller who is taking on the role of scapegoat. - That's good, you've dotted the I's and crossed the T's.
About the "uniqueness" of the option is debatable. The most elementary way is when the seller will write something like this in huge letters in advertising of his product: "The seller does not bear any responsibility for the operation of the product on builds released after so-and-so date".
You misunderstood about the "uniqueness" of the version. It was the only one at the time I wrote about it. Now there is already a modified and even other variants. The "singularity" train has already left. :)
And I can't call the vendor a "scapegoat" in this case. This refers to product support. The work continues even after the product is placed on the Market. And it won't take long to check its functionality on the new build. But fixing the build in case of a bug that causes the product to malfunction or some of its functions may take from one week to one month. In this case, you don't have to explain to the user that the bug is not in the program he bought and we need something that will be optimal for all parties.
Don't generalise :) "Not responsible for anything at all" and "not responsible for certain things" are two big differences. The seller is responsible for the performance of the product at the time of sale, and cannot predict future bugs in the terminal.
You would not argue that if the voltage jumps by 5-6 times, causing damage to the computer, the seller of the computer should still be responsible?
However, if a particular seller, responsible only for himself and not for all others, takes all the responsibility - flies in his face, as they say :) Here I agree :)
I gave you an example of what the buyer will read if the sentence contains the words DO NOT RESPONSIBLE.
Just in case, let me remind you that human perception is selective. It's a known fact from cinematography: if the film hasn't interested the spectator in the first 20 minutes, further there can be anything, any puzzling tricks and in general it's heavenly beauty, but the cinema is already empty, there is nobody to appreciate this beauty.
The same is true for sales, the brand known in our country Zhiguli, in Italy had to be renamed Lada, because it is very reminiscent of Gigolo, well, what kind of sales can there be if the buyer comes, and he is offered "a very cool modern car" with the name Gigolo :) then how to ride on it that? I can imagine enthusiastic exclamations of Italians saying "Look, look, a gigolo!)
Disabling auto-refresh is kind of upside down.
The ability to disable auto-update contradicts the holistic product concept, so it does not make sense to consider such a possibility even theoretically.
However, the concept of integrity is not at odds with having a rollback backup function. We update, see that the new version of the program does not work, roll back to the old build.
The ability to disable auto-update is contrary to the holistic product concept, so it makes no sense to even theoretically consider such a possibility.
+1
If that's the concept, there's no point in waving your hands in the air.
The possibility of disabling auto-refresh is contrary to the holistic product concept, so it does not make sense to consider such a possibility even theoretically.
However, the concept of integrity is not contradicted by the backup function. We update, the program stops working in the new version, roll it back to the old build.
How will this work? Roll back, run - does not disable auto-update bring everything back to the last build? If it didn't, then it should be disable after all.