While the episode was meant to entertain, there's a good lesson to learn from it. Sometimes the products that hit the market don't receive the company's expected reception. I can only hope that the reason is that there was a lack of UX influence in the design.
In a real example, a wireless phone manufacturer notified it's user community of a navigation system update. The user was afforded the option to accept the update now or be reminded at a later date. When the user chose to update now, the UI transitioned to a browser window directing them to a support site. The site explained all the benefits of the update, included instructions to perform the update and it even estimated the time to complete the update. So what's the problem? Glad you asked. The update was automatic and blocked out any other use of the device. If the user received an incoming call during the update process, the user could not accept the call. The phone would ring but the user could not answer it. Additionally, the app offered no emergency exit from the update. So as not to corrupt the update, the app omitted any method to pause or cancel out of the update. Thoughtful idea, not so well thought out idea.
Usability 101 teaches us that you must always afford the user options and escape routes. Auto-update does take the burden off the user, but the UI failed to alert the user that the update would be automatic. It would seem the manufacturer failed to consider sufficient use cases or consider barriers to full use of the device during an update session, while still affording the user cues of other features, such as allowing the user to be notified of an incoming call but not permitting the user to accept the call. End result - a muffin top design - a great idea on the surface but the constraints were not worth the convenience.