Nest Wave was a problematic feature from the beginning. I am surprised Nest didnt see it as a risk.

 

Didnt Google buy Nest? Smooth move, seems like they've had nothing but problems with their devices.

How could a feature like this not be tested thoroughly the FIRST TIME in labs? Really, if you are selling safety devices isnt testing, and testing, and testing again an essential part of SAFETY?!?!

 

Google did no research at all on Nest and now their $3.2billion spent is looking like the best $3.2billion they could have ever spent.... Seriously how did google not know about this issue....

 

Trillionsin this is testing at its best, when making a feature you would have already thought out the pro's and con's, being a smoke detector one would think this was obvious that it could have been a problems. What I'm thinking is in their R&D they must have known it was a high risk but decided to keep it as it's a niche in the market! Now that they have made there money and don't won't sued if it does go wrong they are patching it not to work! Convenient then you have sold half a million units and made your money on it!!

 

The only thing that surprises me is the amount of smoke detectors they've sold. I wouldn't waste my time and money installing them in my spot but a mall, a place of mass gathering, mass transport etc. makes more sense.

 

"...due to an issue with a key feature."

Ladies, ladies....it's all about the "key" feature - ads!! Google can't have units out there not producing ads!

 

Anyone who buys a device that is both a smoke detector and carbon monoxide detector in one, is a fool to begin with. With it mounted on the ceiling, by the time the CO rises to the level of a ceiling mounted detector, you are dead from CO poisoning.

 

"It seems that your house is on fire. Here are some recommendations from our sponsors."

 

This is clearly not a recall, but a software bug. How about you use a little less incendiary language in the post title next time? People hear "recall" and they think, 1) major inconvenience having to send it back, and 2) a product that the company sees as unsafe in its current form.

This software issue has been disabled, as you mention, for some time now. So let's not go all huffington post on the tech world, eh?

 

Sounds like a requirements issue. Not software. They realized that a smoke alarm shouldn't be disabled so easily. Stop blaming the tester!

 

LOL, yeah, if one goes off you are suppose to get down on the floor where the clean air is suppose to be, but you know that in a building or home it's going to be all running around screaming, waving their arms.
Apparently the engineers didn't take THAT into account, huh.

 

"smoke and carbon monoxide detectors", are these 2 separate units? Otherwise one of those 2 is going to be extremely limited in its use since <fire> smoke generally rises and carbon monoxide sinks.