I'd like to add a few more examples of what we think when looking at a feature/web page:

- Here's a required field, if I post the form and omit the name-value pairs, does the application reject the call?
- Here's a date field, does it reject dates too far in the past or future (01/01/10000) and reject/convert dates that don't exist (02/29/2000 or 03/54/2012)
- Here's an input field that holds text that will be shown on other pages, what happens if I put HTML in there?
- Here's an input field, will it correctly handle new name-value pairs (&this=that&)?
- Here's a signin form, if I enter a bad username or password, will it provide hints that can be used to mine usernames?
- Here's a forgot password form, can it be used to mine valid email addresses?

But people also need to keep in mind that we're *assurance* and not *insurance*. While we can catch a lot of bugs before the end-users see them, it really is up to the developers to produce quality code in the first place. There are few things harder, more expensive, and time consuming than trying to test quality into code.

This is a myth. Android releases have always been backwards compatible. That is, Apps written for Android 1.0 will work just fine in Android 1.1 and any later release in the future. If you're writing an app that requires, say, Android 2.1, such as a Live Wallpaper, then any Android running version 2.1 and higher will work fine.

Um, that's forward compatibility, not backwards. And since so many Android devices never get updates, that means that developers have the choice of writing to the lowest widely used version, or taking advantage of new APIs, or writing two different versions.

Right you are... I'd completely forgotten about their being required to open up about some of their server apps. That said, I don't know if that and this are really and oranges-to-oranges comparison. It's not like the Nook is suffering in the market because it can't connect to SharePoint or some other horrific MS app.

MS and other companies are only obligated to license patents under F/RAND terms if those patents are incorporated into various standards. For nearly every other patent, the cost to license (if the holder decides to do so) it is completely up to the holder, and can indeed by arbitrary and exorbitant. Could be worse... they could simply refuse to license the patents at all.

How on Earth did this comment get modded to +4 Insightful?

I remember seeing this and thinking "YES!!!!!" http://www.cs.unm.edu/~dlchao/flake/doom/

Even the names of the old tools, Teardrop and Boink, would be suitable... good times

Who would own a car if you needed a mechanic to spend an hour a day performing maintainence on it for you and a driver to operate it? Not the ordinary person. Only rich folk and corporations would use them - as they once did in the early days.

hahahaha... you've clearly never owned an MG