When outsourced, you either A) rely on someone in your org to tell them what to test and what the workflows are, ie use them as a warm body/monkey to click on things for you - this is what most people see QA as, which is silly - or B) you rely on the outsourced QA to know your product and know what is important or what all of the edge cases are.
If your product is non-trivial in size or scope, ie it is not a cookie-cutter solution, then the testing of your product will also be non-trivial if you want it to work and have a good reputation (including during those all-important live demos, poc's, etc).
QA does not mean "click on things and go through the happy path and everything is fine" - not saying you are implying that, but gosh the amount of companies that think it's child's play is crazy.
If your product is non-trivial in size or scope, ie it is not a cookie-cutter solution, then the testing of your product will also be non-trivial if you want it to work and have a good reputation (including during those all-important live demos, poc's, etc).
QA does not mean "click on things and go through the happy path and everything is fine" - not saying you are implying that, but gosh the amount of companies that think it's child's play is crazy.