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:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Mark Richards on the Evolution of Software Architecture

For this week’s blog on Software Architecture, I listened to Episode 3 of the “Software Architecture Radio” Podcast, which featured Mark Richards, an independent software architect. He has 32 years in the industry, with more than twenty years as a software architect.  They mostly talked about the evolution of software architecture. Although some of the things they talked about went a little over my head, I was able to pick up on the majority of what they were talking about.  He divided up the evolution of architecture into five stages. He talked about evolution happening in vertical and horizontal slices, that is within each layer and one layer affecting those above and around it. The layers were (1) hardware, (2) software, (3) human interaction, (4) social interaction, and (5) the environment, such as the internet of things. He said one thing in particular, need, drives change the fastest. As an aside, he also said that that’s the best way of teaching something i...
1 comment
Read more

Sprint 5 Retrospective (Capstone)

It is a shame that we are so close to the end of the semester. We were gaining so much momentum. It took us a while for us to get off the ground, but once we did, we never stopped gaining speed. I feel we will be able to keep this up through this last sprint. My hopes at the beginning of the semester for what we could accomplish were unrealistically high, but I am not disappointed with what we accomplished. We have not completed a full working component quite yet, but we are very close. I think our efforts are best spent finishing the one we are currently working on and doing it right. If we divided our efforts into starting something new, we run the risk of not fully completing anything. In the sage words of Ron Swanson, “Never half-ass two things. Whole-ass one thing.” If we are able to get the tabs working beautifully, I will be happy with our effort. I have felt that our group has done a phenomenal job this sprint and every sprint before with our communication. We have a few ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Sprint 4 Retrospective (Capstone)

This sprint, in my mind, one of the most important things that I was able to figure out was getting connected to AMPATH team through the Zeplin app. It seems that someone, perhaps accidentally, disconnected me from the group. Once reconnected, I was able to connect the rest of my group. Although it hardly was a difficult task, it is hard to overstate how important it is to be on the same page as the team you are building the product for. It could have prevented a lot of wasted time on our end, and it makes it more likely that they get the end product they want. Probably the most important thing I did in terms of learning about the tools we will be using was creating a “spike.” It is a new term I’ve learned that I will add to my lexicon, meaning to build a prototype of a product, diving deep to learn as much as you can. I touched upon it in my last apprenticeship patterns blog post, on “breakable patterns.” I failed to make a successful working prototype that did everythin...
Post a Comment
Read more