You just described the nr. 1 reason why people hate fire alarms.

Even though we all agree they are prudent, you rarely meet people for whom checking battery health is part of the routine is they go on holiday. The audible chirp (and eventual full out false alarm) is just horrible user interface for not-so exceptional use case.

It's not just the batteries that need regular servicing, the pads do too. They expire on a similar timescale to the batteries but most AEDs don't alarm for expired pads.

It's not uncommon for AEDs to also need firmware updates, although this typically doesn't effect the usability of the device.

> but most AEDs don't alarm for expired pads.

There are prescription AEDs and non-prescription AEDs. In most of the non-prescription ones I've seen the pads are part of the self check and you will get an alert if they're out of tolerance or past expiration. All the Philips HeartStart AEDs, which is what we have in our offices, have this feature.

> AEDs to also need firmware updates

There's a set of release notes I'd very much like to read.

My point being requiring them to exist in every home doesn't guarantee they'll be available and usable where having them on the trucks and as part of a program they're more likely to be in decent shape. The other main thing I see is how often will people know where their required AED actually is in time to use it?

These same flaws exist in every safety device we deploy. In practice it's obvious that having a consistently deployed base mostly solves these issues. There are corner cases, to be sure, but how is the greatest amount of good served?

Having these on delivery trucks ferried by unskilled drivers in non emergency vehicles who might just happen to be close enough?

Or just having them in almost every house on the block even if some number of them fail to work on first use?

I strongly suspect the latter is the better choice. Just replace AED with fire extinguisher and we could literally repeat this entire conversation.