I’ve often wondered why it is that the computer industry can get away with releasing such shoddy products. In other fields, critical failures are taken far more seriously. Still, in these fields, management sometimes allows dangerous products to ship even when engineers know of a defect. Management typically decides (with some actuarial assistance) that it is better to leave the defect in place because the cost of fixing the problem exceeds the expected cost (in the probabilistic sense) of liability incurred due to the defect.

A classic example is the Ford Pinto. I don’t think I can say it much better than Wikipedia:

Through early production of the model, it became a focus of a major scandal when it was alleged that the car’s design allowed its fuel tank to be easily damaged in the event of a rear-end collision which sometimes resulted in deadly fires and explosions. Critics argued that the vehicle’s lack of a true rear bumper as well as any reinforcing structure between the rear panel and the tank, meant that in certain collisions, the tank would be thrust forward into the differential, which had a number of protruding bolts that could puncture the tank. This, and the fact that the doors could potentially jam during an accident (due to poor reinforcing) made the car a potential deathtrap.

Ford was allegedly aware of this design flaw but refused to pay what was characterized as the minimal expense of a redesign. Instead, it was argued, Ford decided it would be cheaper to pay off possible lawsuits for resulting deaths. Mother Jones magazine obtained the cost-benefit analysis Ford had used to compare the cost of an $11 repair against the cost of paying off potential law suits. The characterization of Ford’s design decision as gross disregard for human lives in favor of profits led to major lawsuits, inconclusive criminal charges, and a costly recall of all affected Pintos. Ford lost several million dollars and gained a reputation for manufacturing “the barbecue that seats four.”

The scandal surrounding the Pinto led to some landmark judgements against Ford and an initial jury verdict of$125 million in punitive damages (quite a sum for that time). There is some controversy regarding how bad the Pinto problem really was (see Wikipedia), but it is still a notorious case of management disregarding safety in favor of small profits.

Recently, Dell and Sony users have experienced catastrophic battery failures in which the laptop actually explodes! Although there have been reports of computers catching fire in the past, I’ve never heard of an explosion like the one linked above. Basically, Dell has been shipping consumers time-bombs. Literally.

What makes this oh-so Pinto like is that, Dell and Sony apparently knew about the problem 10 months earlier. Sony and Dell discussed the issue of excess metal particles in their batteries puncturing delicate dividers, which could potentially lead to fires or explosions. Instead of recalling the product, Dell and Sony decided to wait and see if the laptops would actually catch fire or explode in practice before issuing the recall! In short, Sony and Dell knew that they could be shipping viable bombs to their customers, but decided to wait and see if the detonator would actually engage before notifying customers and recalling the product. To me, this seems exactly like the Pinto; Dell and Sony likely estimated that the expected cost of any liability was less than the cost of the recall, so they crossed their fingers and waited. The companies are lucky that no one has been seriously injured or killed because of this issue. Imagine if a laptop exploded in the passenger cabin of a commercial jet! At least we now know that the computer industry has no more of a conscience or concern for consumer safety than the 1970’s car industry.