You are of course correct, but it must be noted that the incidence of bugs in 'firmware' and personal computer software shouldn't be thought of as comparable. In the case of firmware, the platform is well known (the target hardware) as is the operating environment (no other software installed by users), whereas a large portion of the bugs in personal computer software stem from the diversity of hardware and other software that are involved. This also makes computer software testing much more of a challenge.

To use a case in point, when was the last time your cell phone or microwave needed a firmware update to fix a bug? Ever bring your fuel injection unit in for a bug fix? This sort of thing could happen, but it is very very rare.

Also, the complexity of the firmware of something like the 950, while not trivial, pales in comparison to any significant personal computing application.

Sorry, but in this case I agree - QA should have caught this one - this is one of the 'primary functions' that absolutely should have had a test case.

I always thought a beta test of 5 was incredibly small, too small to be really useful as anything more than a marketing test. The bugs found bear this out. Our last beta was ~2500 users over several months, and at the end the product is very solid, even though that was a small beta test IMO.

I'm glad someone decided to socket rather than solder the EPROM. I hope if opening the case is required (I imagine it will be) there is some provision for those who don't feel comfy doing that sort of thing.

One thing for sure - this has been an opportunity for Outlaw Audio to show what their customer support is made of, and IMO they have passed that test with flying colors.