Skip to main content

Quality Assurance at Apple


For this week’s blog for quality assurance and testing, I decided to read an article from Wired Magazine that focused less on the testing process itself and more of how a company can benefit from it. The article I chose is a little less than a year old about Apple’s securities and vulnerabilities. The article confirms some of what I had hoped — that Apple still has a strong reputation for security. However, some vulnerabilities have damaged how the company is perceived by many. 

In High Sierra, all that you had to do to gain root access was type the word “root.” They fixed it impressively quickly. However, the article wonders if the security flaws like this are emblematic of deeper problems. There have been many more bugs and vulnerabilities found, such as wonky autocorrect on the iPhone. Although not every bug (like the autocorrect) is not always a security issue, it is incredibly irritating. 

One advantage that Apple has over its competitors is that most of its customers update as soon as there is an update. The advantage of this is that people will not be vulnerable using a software without the security fixes in the update. However, Apple might lose this edge if people are wary of updating if it seems like there are always too many bugs in every update.

One of the big problems these days is that it seems that everything seems rushed out. There is a big focus on new features, and not as much focus on fixing the bugs on the features that already exist. The article talked about a 2009 release of “Snow Leopard” which built on the previous release “Leopard.” It heavily focused on getting bugs fixed.

Another issue about perceptions is that even if the mistakes are fixed quite promptly, they are still remembered, with what is described as a pile-on effect. That is, a fixed security flaw won’t be “erased” from a customer’s mind.

The takeaway from all of this is how important quality assurance is to any product. It perhaps is more important than new features. If the old and new features are continuously full of bugs, it is hard for a customer to trust that company anymore. It is better to have solid core software than one with a million extra bells and whistles if it means there’s just as many bugs. Unfortunately, the article concluded that it seems like Apple is leaning towards the latter.

https://www.wired.com/story/apples-security-macos-high-sierra-ios-11/

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Shailesh Rao on Quality Assurance

In this episode (number 219) of “Test Talks,” I was able to hear Shailesh Rao’s insight into having quality software. He compared it to a “paper-free office” or a “stress-free life,” both worthy goals, but are hard to achieve. They can be strived towards, but it is near impossible to get it 100%. He brought up the issues that bad software can pose to potentially millions of users. Bad software can open the doors to hackers, who might be able to take down websites like Twitter or Reddit. Also, it might stop airlines from being able to function — an annoyance to most, but Mr. Rao asked, “what if there was time-sensitive and lifesaving medicine onboard?” I found this podcast brought up some aspects that I had not thought of before when if comes to quality assurance. I suppose that I’ve thought about the various things he brought up, but as a consumer and never as a creator of the software. A very thought-provoking topic brought up was the fickleness of consumers. They don’t have the...
Post a Comment
Read more

Testing: Like Destroying Sandcastles

https://joecolantonio.com/testtalks/223-testing-dream-journaling-smashing-sand-castles-with-noemi-ferrera/ In this blog for software quality assurance and testing, I decided to return to the “Test Talks” podcast, presented by Joe Colantonio, for another episode (#223). In it, he sat down with Noemi Ferrera, a software tester for a Chinese mobile gaming company to get her take on the subject. Noemi gave a few interesting metaphors that I appreciated for how to look at testing. In one, she gave the example of going to a movie where you had already read the book. It was different than how you imagined it while reading it, and testing is a way of making the “movie version” fit the way you envisioned it playing out.  The other metaphor for testing that she gave was, if you were children at the beach, the developers would be the ones building the sandcastles, whereas the testers would be the ones destroying them. I don’t know if that would be the most accurate way of lookin...
Post a Comment
Read more

Decorator Design Pattern

For this week's blog on Software Design, I decided to watch a short tutorial on one of the design patterns I didn't pick for a previous assignment. I picked Proxy Design pattern to cover before, and now I'm going back to learn about Decorator Design Pattern. It is only a thirteen minute video, so I won't be going as deep as I would had I picked it for the assignment. I am also going to talk about my reflections on it rather than create a tutorial, so I am not going to reteach it to the person reading this blog post. The tutorial I chose was made by Derek Banas on YouTube. He used an example of a pizza parlor to illustrate the wrong way to code it by using inheritance. He shows the problem with this because you would have to create a very large number of subclasses for all your objects (in this case pizzas). Composition, on the other hand, is a dynamic way of modifying objects. Instead of creating as many subclasses, you add functionality at run time. It has th...
Post a Comment
Read more