counter-point : the companies that are most famous for A/B testing routinely are also the ones with the most notoriously non-existent customer service departments globally, facebook/google/amazon/ebay. Groups that harbor dissatisfied customers by essentially being 'the only show in town.'.

so, what i'm saying is : I think a lot of companies align themselves with the cash first and then measure whether or not the negative image/user impact is manageable .

(in fact I know they operate this way.)

A lot of decisions made with A/B testing are also made with insufficient relevant data, but it's less obvious since it's easy to think the A/B results cover everything.

> So you're saying software should never change

Generally, yes. Make your software better first before releasing it and you won't need to make changes to it.

Want a new feature that you didn't have before? That's a new software product.

> or you're happy with A testing, but not A/B testing

I'm happy with testing when the user has explicitly opted-in for it.

no its not.

> Depends entirely on the stakes and whether personal data is involved

Sure. Let me just A/B test whether or not you'll respond positively or negatively to having your news delivered via push notification or delayed by 10 minutes.

I'm sure you would appreciate being tested on without your consent, just so that I can make an extra quick buck at your expense. Nothing amoral or unethical about it.