SNIP
>
>For retail software this is either a) not a good ROI or b) the code was not written defensively enough to include code that simply cannot be reached. Probably a good dose of both. I would maintain that it's probably true for custom apps as well.
>
SNIP

Your point (a) is basically a philosophical one (is there a place for ROI in software QUALITY (accuracy)) and I simply cannot agree that ROI has any place in this (testing). It is the beginning of a slippery slope where even worse trade-offs will undoubtedly be made. I imagine the day that processor makers, HD makers, NIC makers, printer makers, etc. adopt the same approach and the "fun" that will then ensue. The argument that "retail software" is different doesn't hold, at least in my eyes.
Your point (b) I simply don't understand. Code that 'cannot be reached' CAN BE REMOVED without consequence. If you mean 'too lazy to reach into' then that is another story.