Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
It really is time to move on to something else more productive...
Yes, I suggest you do.

it's just that a simple mistake (or typo) happened by an Apple team member.
That's life.

It seriously isnt a big deal.
I have agreed with this from the beginning. I do appreciate you and others holding your ground on the whole misuse of 'typo' though-- it shows real commitment to the cause.

Noone will be returning a device over this. But they could if they really wanted to.
They can try if they want to. I haven't seen any statements that Apple has officially extended their return window.
 
We never said we knew how a typo was made.
I didn't say you knew how a typo was made, I said you claimed to know how the wrong information was put into the document: you claim with high confidence that it was a simple typing error.

A typo is the end result. How a typo was made—whether it was an accidental push of buttons, a lack of knowledge on how to correctly put down the written language, or the longer editing process by multiple stakeholders was lacking—its all a separate matter.

The point is someone was supposed to have put the correct number down, but they didn’t, and multiple stakeholders did not catch it before it went to “print.” Thus, the end result is a typo.

Again, I’ll repeat, the end result is not the same thing as the process by which the end result came to be. So using the term for one does not mean we know what happened. Just like using the term murder does not give us automatic insight into how the murder happened.

"In this article, we will explore the difference between mistake and typo, and when to use each one."



A typo is not the end result, it is the process by which the mistake is made. Correct information -> typo -> incorrect information.

By your definition, if I told someone 2+2=5 and they wrote that down, it would be a typo. That is not a typo, they transcribed the information correctly. The mistake was the math error I made. Alternatively if I said 2+2=4 and they heard that correctly but accidentally typed 5 rather than 4, that would be a typo. The information was correct but the author made an error transcribing it to type.

Calling every mistake a typo just destroys the meaning of an otherwise perfectly good word.
 
Last edited:
You might find yourself much less frustrated if you stopped assuming every comment here had your name on it and stopped assuming everyone you're talking to is the same person with the same point of view.
I was responding to your comment where you literally used my name:

Who knows how it happened? You and @PaperMag purport to. I certainly don't.
 
I didn't say you knew how a typo was made, I said you claimed to know how the wrong information was put into the document: you claim with high confidence that it was a simple typing error.
Where did I claim to know with high confidence how the error was made? Do you know how to embed links? Point to where I said I have insight into the machinations and circumstances of this error. Do it!
 
I didn't say you knew how a typo was made, I said you claimed to know how the wrong information was put into the document: you claim with high confidence that it was a simple typing error.



"In this article, we will explore the difference between mistake and typo, and when to use each one."



A typo is not the end result, it is the process by which the mistake is made. Correct information -> typo -> incorrect information.

By your definition, if I told someone 2+2=5 and they wrote that down, it would be a typo. That is not a typo, they transcribed the information correctly. The mistake was the math error I made. Alternatively if I said 2+2=4 and they heard that correctly but accidentally typed 5 rather than 4, that would be a typo. The information was correct but the author made an error transcribing it to type.

Calling every mistake a typo just destroys the meaning of an otherwise perfectly good word.
I'm a designer and in the design field we use the word typo to mean "wrong information on the page."

So the tech specs page had a typo. It said 10 when it should have said 9.

Its not any deeper than that.

How that typo came to be was obviously through a series of inter-departmental errors, the specifics we will never know.

Either way, the entire flipping point was that the error was a typo on the tech specs page—not the landing page that "sells" the product—not the Apple event video—just the tech specs page. Which means this wasn't a company wide error where every facet of marketing and promotion were saying the wrong thing.

Do you get it now?

Also, learn what a strawman is. You're forcing us all to argue the most boring and pointless items that have veered away from the original argument. You're basically trolling at this point. You'll literally @ me, and then when I respond, tell me not every comment has my name on it when you literally put my name into the comment. I don't know what issues you're dealing with but you should go deal with them instead of making long comments trying to convince us that the tech specs page didn't have a typo.
 
Without any complaint and for the same cost?

I think you are trivializing an issue that has far reaching consequences. What else have they missed?

How can a 9 core GPU meet a 10 core Spec?

Why would it not matter if Apple would not accept a 9 core GPU for the same cost without demur? If they are accepting such products that do not meet the specs, what else have they been accepting and putting in their products?

They should have extended the return window. Period.

I'm not going to reply to each point individually because it is clear that there is no chance of changing your stance on the matter. I wanted to say that I feel you're taking this much too seriously.

I have no doubt that they would offer an extended return period if this were a legitimate issue, like if it was actually 10% slower than promised. The fact of the matter is that it meets their performance claims and requirements.

Apple is not perfect. The expectation that they need to be is ridiculous. As is the expectation that they offer an extended return period for a product that is not defective and performs as promised.

I'm sure they'd be panned anyways for "trying to save face" if they offered an extended return period just to please the MR nitpickers.
 
  • Love
Reactions: PaperMag
Either way, the entire flipping point was that the error was a typo on the tech specs page—not the landing page that "sells" the product—not the Apple event video—just the tech specs page. Which means this wasn't a company wide error where every facet of marketing and promotion were saying the wrong thing.
That's right. The error was on the specs page. The place that was supposed to have precise and measurable information was incorrect and the fluffy marketing pages can be argued to remain correct. I take Apple at their word that their benchmarking was done with the intended 9 core chip, and this was an internal miscommunication.

I'm a designer and in the design field we use the word typo to mean "wrong information on the page."

So if I type "the world is flat", you consider that a typo? It is factually wrong, I wrote it on purpose, but you can just classify it as an error of typography? Can I cleanse any mistake I make by simply writing it down and dismissing it as a typo? That's a great trick!

You and your friends here can keep repeating "typo" more and more often to try to make a point, but it still looks funny. It would be a similar situation if I kept referring to the iPad as a phone. Maybe I'm just wrong, or maybe I'm trying to insinuate something by selectively using an incorrect term, but in neither case is that factually true.

I was responding to your comment where you literally used my name:

Who knows how it happened? You and @PaperMag purport to. I certainly don't.
Where did I claim to know with high confidence how the error was made? Do you know how to embed links? Point to where I said I have insight into the machinations and circumstances of this error. Do it!
Also, learn what a strawman is. You're forcing us all to argue the most boring and pointless items that have veered away from the original argument. You're basically trolling at this point. You'll literally @ me, and then when I respond, tell me not every comment has my name on it when you literally put my name into the comment. I don't know what issues you're dealing with but you should go deal with them instead of making long comments trying to convince us that the tech specs page didn't have a typo.

I'm starting to see how so many "typos" slip through your review... Seriously-- read the transcript. Read it. Don't just scan it looking for points you can argue with, but read the full text.

I replied to you with a long list of links where you and citysnaps repeat over and over again that this is (not might be, but often emphatically is) a typo.

Citysnaps is replying to posts clearly not meant for them but where I quoted them at your request, then after multiple times explaining that they're responding to a post not meant for them I was forced to quote your post to show what I was replying to leading you to reply to a post clearly not directed to you but that you didn't read in full.

Seriously, if people would just read and stop being so quick to look for opportunities to argue...

I have never @'d you and then said you shouldn't reply to that comment.
 
That's right. The error was on the specs page. The place that was supposed to have precise and measurable information was incorrect and the fluffy marketing pages can be argued to remain correct. I take Apple at their word that their benchmarking was done with the intended 9 core chip, and this was an internal miscommunication.



So if I type "the world is flat", you consider that a typo? It is factually wrong, I wrote it on purpose, but you can just classify it as an error of typography? Can I cleanse any mistake I make by simply writing it down and dismissing it as a typo? That's a great trick!

You and your friends here can keep repeating "typo" more and more often to try to make a point, but it still looks funny. It would be a similar situation if I kept referring to the iPad as a phone. Maybe I'm just wrong, or maybe I'm trying to insinuate something by selectively using an incorrect term, but in neither case is that factually true.





I'm starting to see how so many "typos" slip through your review... Seriously-- read the transcript. Read it. Don't just scan it looking for points you can argue with, but read the full text.

I replied to you with a long list of links where you and citysnaps repeat over and over again that this is (not might be, but often emphatically is) a typo.

Citysnaps is replying to posts clearly not meant for them but where I quoted them at your request, then after multiple times explaining that they're responding to a post not meant for them I was forced to quote your post to show what I was replying to leading you to reply to a post clearly not directed to you but that you didn't read in full.

Seriously, if people would just read and stop being so quick to look for opportunities to argue...

I have never @'d you and then said you shouldn't reply to that comment.
You're detached but also you're kind of hilarious. Maybe not hilarious but silly.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: wbeasley
I went outside looking for anybody who cares. It's been hours and not one person knows what a core is. Gonna try the Apple Store, see if anybody there cares. I'll check in, in a few hours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wbeasley
I went outside looking for anybody who cares. It's been hours and not one person knows what a core is. Gonna try the Apple Store, see if anybody there cares. I'll check in, in a few hours.

We appreciate your diligence in regards to this matter. We will see to it that our top men assess the data you collect. Godspeed, PaperMag.
 
  • Love
Reactions: PaperMag
After 14 days, you are on your own in my country. They should extend the return window for these specific models and inform them that it is extended. After that, it depends on the individual.
As you said, it depends on the individual, and since you didn't answer my question as to whether you actually owned this model, I am now under the impression that you don't and are just complaining for the righteous indignation factor, instead of any real effect on you. As I said, I fully expect Apple would actually allow the return if anyone actually pressed the issue, as otherwise I feel they are opening themselves to some liability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wbeasley
Yes, I suggest you do.


I have agreed with this from the beginning. I do appreciate you and others holding your ground on the whole misuse of 'typo' though-- it shows real commitment to the cause.


They can try if they want to. I haven't seen any statements that Apple has officially extended their return window.
i wish there was a YAWN icon to respond...
 
Are you telling us that Apple does not do QC for its components or it does not have the expertise to do so? I am not asking why Apple made the mistake. I am asking, "What would Apple have done if they were sent a shipment of chips with 9 core GPUs when they had ordered chips with 10 core GPUs." Would they have ketp silent, would they have asked for compensation, or would they have rejected the shipment?
This is an error that they caught internally. How did they catch it so late? Why was it not caught when the first iPad was manufactured and tested? Were they not tested? If they were tested earlier but the error was not caught, what changes did they make that caught this error. Why did they change the test procedure leading to the discovery. Would any more changes lead to more basic errors in other products.
How can you say it does not have far reaching consequences? If I (or someone) had told you a month ago that the iPad Air had 9 cores instead of 10, would you have believed? Who knows what else is missing in other products and whether they will be caught at all?
I am saying that you are comparing non-equivalent things. It isn't like I am privy to Apple's vendor contracts, but since Apple is actually the chip designer and TSMC is the foundry, I believe that Apple DOES order all chips with 10 GPU cores and DOES accept those 8 and 9 core versions, because they are actually all the same chip that they ordered. Since ALL manufacturing involves some level of defect rate, those lower core count chips are actually the same chips, with those not meeting a specific performance metric having one or two cores disabled (and possibly some that DO meet all performance metrics, depending on whether Apple needs fewer of the high level chips than the lower level.)

You are completely confused as to the actual mistake. They didn't "discover" that they only had 9 cores and change the documentation. They used the 9 core version (as obvious from the benchmarks) and documented incorrectly. This is a dumb mistake, but a pretty obvious one. Thinking that they actually used chips they didn't intend to is stretching reality so far that you risk creating a black hole.

Considering that they took around 20 days to correct this documentation error and have not introduced a new model in the last 21 days, I would say your far reaching consequences are pretty safely passed. I do recommend that you personally no longer purchase a new Apple product in the first 21 days after introduction going forward, though, as this is obviously a huge concern for you.
 
As you said, it depends on the individual, and since you didn't answer my question as to whether you actually owned this model, I am now under the impression that you don't and are just complaining for the righteous indignation factor, instead of any real effect on you. As I said, I fully expect Apple would actually allow the return if anyone actually pressed the issue, as otherwise I feel they are opening themselves to some liability.
I own an iPad Pro M2 model. There is no mention whether there has been a similar snafu with that model. We will come to know after some time (when Apple gets to know), probably.
 
I own an iPad Pro M2 model. There is no mention whether there has been a similar snafu with that model. We will come to know after some time (when Apple gets to know), probably.
So a device youve owned without issue for ages ...

Stop making this a bigger deal than it is.

A typo. Corrected.
Not some nefarious company-wide evil intent to dupe gullible customers.

Stop making up stuff.
 
  • Love
Reactions: PaperMag
I own an iPad Pro M2 model. There is no mention whether there has been a similar snafu with that model. We will come to know after some time (when Apple gets to know), probably.
So you own an older model that you apparently thought was fine until you heard that the core count of a completely different model was incorrectly described by Apple for 3 weeks? Wow, my earlier video link was far more accurate than I realized:

 
So you own an older model that you apparently thought was fine until you heard that the core count of a completely different model was incorrectly described by Apple for 3 weeks? Wow, my earlier video link was far more accurate than I realized:

Ha Ha. I want Apple to confirm that all the specs of my iPad Pro are the right specs "after checking properly" this time :) Obviously, they can't count.
 
So a device youve owned without issue for ages ...

Stop making this a bigger deal than it is.

A typo. Corrected.
Not some nefarious company-wide evil intent to dupe gullible customers.

Stop making up stuff.
The only one who made the stuff up is Apple. They were the one who sold a 9 core GPU iPad Air as 10 core iPad Air.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: wbeasley
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.