Apple's Dan Riccio Says 2018 iPad Pro 'Meets or Exceeds' Quality Standards of Design and Precision, More Info to Come

[dk001]

EXACTLY what I have been saying (which has been falling on nothing but Apple-Hating deaf-ears).

There is a REASON that laboratory-standard "surface plates" are NEVER made out of wood.

A quick trip to your local lumber yard should provide the reason why...

If the table is that far out and assuming the iPad is straight ... then by alignment all other items in that picture are also out of true.
Doubt it.
The bend in that iPad is too great to blame the table.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

This tells me that Apple needs to improve their QA prior to packaging.

If indeed the bend comes from the manufacturing process AND they know that some products are bent beyond 400 microns, how did a iPad pro like the one shown in the photo get thru QA and get packaged and shipped?

It tells me that the so-called "tech press" needs to get some education of their own.

A wooden desk is in NO way a "flatness standard". Think about it.

Why is nearly NO ONE pointing that out???
[doublepost=1545849763][/doublepost]

If the table is that far out and assuming the iPad is straight ... then by alignment all other items in that picture are also out of true.
Doubt it.
The bend in that iPad is too great to blame the table.

What you said makes ZERO sense.

WHAT other items in that picture are being compared with the desktop?!?

 

[I7guy]

Power management is normal. Why couldn't Apple just point out that its a feature not present on Android and present on Ios as a selling point? An apology is issued when someone is caught in the wrong.

Who knows what the rational is for the way it went down. It ended up being a positive for iOS.

By shutting down, Android informs me of a problem which I go to the store to get ti fixed instead of slowing down my phone thereby forcing me to buy a new one

Sure, especially if you are about to make a 911 call on your android phone that just shut off.

Except here the fault is a result of Apple's cost-cutting. Not my fault so why should I pay for it? It came bent out of the box so its on Apple to fix any flaw which harises later on out of warranty because of the bend

You can’t really prove any cost cutting goes on. Apple a a company should know cost cutting comes back to bite on in the pocketbook.

Includes computers in that score, not just phones and unlike their competition they only sell high-end phones and computers so naturally a higher score. If Samsung sold only the S9 and Note 9, their score would be higher than what it is now

Multiple surveys say the same or equivalent thing. You can rationalize all you want.

Does the iPad Pro 2018 (unlike 2017) bend or not? Its a yes or no answer.

All devices bend and/or break.

The screen area of the X is factually smaller than the Plus

It’s factually longer and factually narrower. Close enough to be considered to be a replacement for the plus.

Then list some more. I don't recall any major flaws.

Oneplus 5t streaming recall
Hauwei mate 20 pro green screen etc
Https://phandroid.com/worst-android-phones/

Prove that that is NOT the case.

I'll wait...

The matrix has you.

 

[dk001]

It tells me that the so-called "tech press" needs to get some education of their own.

A wooden desk is in NO way a "flatness standard". Think about it.

Why is nearly NO ONE pointing that out???
[doublepost=1545849763][/doublepost]
What you said makes ZERO sense.

WHAT other items in that picture are being compared with the desktop?!?

Then you know little of engineering and photos.

Start with this; if the table is that far out of alignment to make the iPad look bent ... try geometry from that point.

 

[trifid]

Why is nearly NO ONE pointing that out???

Because who says the table is the only reference used to see if the iPad was bent or not?

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

They said their tolerance was 400 microns. Is this before or after making them? I can have a 100 micron tolerance while designing something, but the finished product is something completely different. I fail to believe that when the device is ready to go in the box that the final QC is using 0.4mm as the tolerance. Especially when they are coming out the box with 10x that amount of bend.

You wouldn't buy a car and accept a dented door for the sales person to say "do not affect the function of the device in any way". You would instantly cancel the purchase and go elsewhere. There are far too many Apple apologists here that accept this, and that is why they think they can get away with it.

That's a production tolerance. Meaning that when it comes off the assembly line and ready to go into the box, it should be no more than that much from "perfectly flat".

I would imagine they use a non-contact optical interferometer to perform the test automatically as the iPads pass by on the assembly-line. Those can detect very minute amounts of curvature/warp/non-flatness.
[doublepost=1545850087][/doublepost]

Because who says the table is the only reference used to see if the iPad was bent or not?

Who says it wasn't?

All we have is the picture. Prove me wrong on that.
[doublepost=1545850343][/doublepost]

Can't find 1. Not 1.

And even if you could, unless it is taken with the iPad sitting on a laboratory-grade "surface plate", it means exactly NOTHING.

But that IS interesting; especially considering I haven't seen any of the posters claiming "multiple pictures" actually POSTING any of them, either...

There really DOES appear to be some sort of coordinated smear campaign against Apple these days. I used to think it was just bored adolescents with nothing better to do but to be jealous of Apple; but I am beginning to think there is a more sinister effort afoot.
[doublepost=1545850552][/doublepost]

What do the mean by 400microms though? 400 microns over the entire length of ipad? Or 400 microns per 10mm of length? 400 over the whole length would be acceptable. Anything more is not.

They obviously mean over the maximum dimension of the product.

 

[trifid]

Who says it wasn't?

All we have is the picture. Prove me wrong on that.

1. Apple says there is bending, but it's "normal"

2. Also from The Verge:

"The response comes after some customers on social media and several on the MacRumorsforums have claimed their iPad Pros developed a small curve or bend without any mistreatment or abnormal stress being exerted on the metal casing. There are posts from people who believe it happened gradually over the course of normal, everyday use — or after transporting the iPad Pro in a backpack. And I’ve seen others from folks who are insistent their iPad came that way out of the box."

So it's not just 1 picture as proof, there are many reports.

3. Here's another photo for you:

Look honestly I don't know how severe or many are affected, but I think after everything we've seen there should be a healthy amount of skepticism, not denial.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

I hope apple gets sued over this bentgate.

I sure hope they sue the publications that are publishing this LIBELOUS CRAP!
[doublepost=1545850908][/doublepost]

1. Apple says there is bending, but it's "normal"

2. Also from The Verge:

"The response comes after some customers on social media and several on the MacRumorsforums have claimed their iPad Pros developed a small curve or bend without any mistreatment or abnormal stress being exerted on the metal casing. There are posts from people who believe it happened gradually over the course of normal, everyday use — or after transporting the iPad Pro in a backpack. And I’ve seen others from folks who are insistent their iPad came that way out of the box."

So it's not just 1 picture as proof, there are many reports.

3. Here's another photo for you:

Look honestly I don't know how severe or many are affected, but I think after everything we've seen there should be a healthy amount of skepticism, not denial.

Wow.

Another picture with no REFERENCE.

How utterly UNCONVINCING.

And combined with posts from people such as the one who (fraudulently) posted "Apple lost 400 Billioin in Market Cap"?

Yeah, like I believe THEM.

iPad shown taken out of the shrink-wrapped box then immediatelysitting on top of a laboratory-grade surface-plate or it just didn't happen.

Sorry. (Not sorry).

 

[trifid]

So let me add one more point to this:

When iPhone 6 came out and people were bending it left and right on Youtube and some users were also reporting the bends from normal use, I'd like to ask, those that dismissed the significance: why did Apple reinforce the frame in the next iPhone iteration (iPhone 6s)? It seems the concern was legitimate and Apple chose to address it, no? Why would they even bother if it wasn't a legitimate concern?

So we have a precedent.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

The bend in the photo of this article is a lot more than 400 microns, so the iPad should be replaced by Apple, no questions asked. The bend obviously exceeds their manufacturing tolerance.

The question going forward will be, how do Apple stores & other retailers measure & check if a bend is indeed beyond the "acceptable" 400 microns.

I guarantee that Apple's staff has been advised to replace any owner's iPad that is within the 14 day period no questions asked.

Why?

Because Apple will be able to easily un-bend it as part of their repair process.

Duh.
[doublepost=1545851244][/doublepost]

The table in that photo looks like plywood or some other mass produced product. Not a custom wooden desk. I hope we are not to the point believing that the sheet of hydraulically pressed plywood has a bend in it... lmao

I hope we're not to the point of believing that ANY wooden product is usable as ANY kind of "flatness" standard.

Or were you being sarcastic? I certainly hope so.

 

[dk001]

...
They obviously mean over the maximum dimension of the product.

Prove you are right and not just assuming.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

Nope. Revisionist history. Apple used to make amazing products, well worth paying more for. So called antenna-gate was growing pains in a field they were new to, graphics cards come from a third party. Not ideal, but not an intentional design flaw.

They also gave away cases to help the antenna problem, and FIXED thousands and thousands of laptops with video probs for years and years for free. They went above and beyond to make it right. They didn't say "graphic card failure is within tolerance"

Now Ive is just plain designing garbage, WAY fewer features in every release, WAY fewer ports, not upgradeable, not repairable, less usable, less quality... for 2x what they used to charge ( 4x what they used to charge for iPhones and iPads.) Jobs would have straight up fired somebody for publicly saying a bent ( or bendable ) iPad is "within tolerance". Or for suggesting a new model iPhone with a $1600 price tag.

They once were a tech company, now they think they are a fashion brand.

So how does the new iPad Pro's USB-C port square with your "less usable", or the Mac mini's DIMM-based RAM square with your "not upgradeable" accusations?

And the ports that Apple is gravitating-toward (USB-C and TB3) actually provide FAR MORE expadability, flexibility and utility than any other time in history.

You're just plain wrong.
[doublepost=1545851935][/doublepost]

Prove you are right and not just assuming.

Because it would have stated "x over y distance"; otherwise it is assumed to be over the entire product.

Actually, it most likely means that no point on the product will be out-of-"true" by more than 400 microns (.016 inches) (ten times THINNER than a soda-cracker).

Sorry, coming from an engineering-background like me, no other interpretation makes sense.
[doublepost=1545852226][/doublepost]

"400 microns" is a one-dimensional measure and cannot be a flatness specification. What's missing is the span. Without that qualification this is a meaningless statement. If it is meant as 400 microns diagonally across the 12.9" iPad Pro body then that would be a legitimate statement, and perhaps reasonable, but there's no way the iPad in the photo is 400 microns (0.4 mm) off the surface.

That means that no point on the iPad would deviate from perfectly-flat by more than 400 microns (.016"). That does NOT require a "span", and can be easily and quickly measured on a production-line basis with a no-contact optical interferometer.
[doublepost=1545852387][/doublepost]

Maybe MacRumors should add a disclaimer over their picture. This is misleading

Boy isn't THAT the truth!?!
[doublepost=1545852489][/doublepost]

Then you didn't look at the post on page one. There is 1 for you.

Now find ANOTHER one, and especially one that actually shows it sitting on a laboratory-grade "surface plate".

THEN we'll talk.

 

[dk001]

...
Because it would have stated "x over y distance"; otherwise it is assumed to be over the entire product.

Actually, it most likely means that no point on the product will be out-of-"true" by more than 400 microns (.016 inches) ...

You are assuming that would have been the statement.
Yet the many photos and posts have indicated it is far outside of that.

In truth all we know is the many complaints that exist AND that Riccio put out a general statement that really says nada.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

You are assuming that would have been the statement.
Yet the many photos and posts have indicated it is far outside of that.

In truth all we know is the many complaints that exist AND that Riccio put out a general statement that really says nada.

I see lots of POSTS, but only ONE picture (well, two; but they are equally noncompelling).
[doublepost=1545854650][/doublepost]

Respectfully, you need glasses if you think that gap is the thickness of 4 sheets of paper. It's obviously a wider gap than the tolerances quoted by Apple.

And has Apple stated that the iPad in the photo was in, or out, of tolerance?

Makes a BIG difference. Everyone around here is acting like Apple declared THAT iPad as "fine". Show me where they said that.

 

[Enclavean]

Jesus whats up with this guy

 

[dazz87]

From reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ipad/comme..._not_kidding_this_is/?st=JQ5I5HBS&sh=82a7f150

Apparently, Apple Store tried to give this out as a replacement

thats is just shot from a bad angle..................

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

This Riccio dude is a liar. 400 microns deviation per what? Entire length of the tablet or per inch? Their new standards may be higher but their actual results are definitely worse. Maybe their previous standards were lower (say 800nm) but the actual products deviated by just, say, 10nm. And now the actual products deviate by 400nm which meets Apple's new higher standards! PR sleazebags.

Did Apple say that that particular iPad was IN tolerance?

I would imagine they mean "absolute deviation". That is to say, if you laid the iPad face-down on a REALLY flat (laboratory-grade surface plate) surface, no single-point would be more than 400 microns (.016") off of the plate.

But a wooden desktop is NOT a "laboratory-grade surface plate". Far from it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_plate


I would imagine that Apple uses a non-contact optical interferometer, or, more likely, a laser-flatness-gauge to do this measurement on an assembly-line basis. Those, too, are MUCH more accurate than a wooden desktop. Check it out:

https://www.hamarlaser.com/index.ph...MIrPLS1qa-3wIVjI7ICh3sBABKEAAYASAAEgIQmfD_BwE

http://www.valleydesign.com/flatness-interferometer.htm

 

[Gilligan's last elephant]

What about standards of standards?

That picture is ZERO "proof". It uses a wooden desktop as reference, FFS!
[doublepost=1545844264][/doublepost]
Prove that the iPad is bent, instead of the desktop it is sitting on.

I dare you.
[doublepost=1545844339][/doublepost]
Show me proof that the desktop it is sitting on is anywhere NEAR "flat". Otherwise, the photo proves exactly NOTHING.
[doublepost=1545844705][/doublepost]
You mean the one where a "flatness standard" (surface plate) has to actually BE a "flatness standard".

Here is one that I would likely trust. Notice that it is not made of particleboard, unlike the desktop in the picture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_plate
[doublepost=1545844878][/doublepost]

This flatness standard:

Is flat.

This particleboard desktop:

Is likely not.

Get it?
[doublepost=1545845148][/doublepost]
Unless they are pictures taken on a laboratory-grade surface-plate, they are as meaningless as the original one accompanying in the article.

It takes two surfaces to determine flatness. One a reference-standard, the other is the unknown.

What all those other pictures show is TWO UNKNOWNS.

And just like "two wrongs don't make a right.", "two unknowns don't make a known."

Now, disprove THAT statement. I'll wait...

Are you seriously suggesting the table is bent? You can actaualy hold a rule against the ipad in the picture and see the bend.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

Are you seriously suggesting the table is bent? You can actaualy hold a rule against the ipad in the picture and see the bend.

I'm suggesting that, until two things happen, that picture tells us exactly NOTHING:

1. Apple claims that THAT iPad is IN Spec.

2. THAT iPad is photographed on top of a laboratory-grade surface plate.

And your "hold a ruler up" "test" means NOTHING. Ever heard of spherical abberation? EVERY lens has it to some extent. Since we don't know what camera/lens that photo was taken with, we AGAIN don't know anything!

 

[juannacho]

Bit confused about all this. Did the guy try to return it and get told “no” for the reasons Apple gave? Doesn’t sound like it!

Just sounds like a whole load of flapping because someone has found one product in a million that is clearly not produced correctly and simply needs returning.

Apple’s response seems to be a far bigger deal than the bent iPad by all accounts...

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

If your iPad is bent out of that 400 micron tolerance, which it seems many are, good luck at getting any potential future repairs done under warranty.

Just WHERE are these "many" you are STATING exist?

Apple could sue you for Libel, ya know.

 

[andreiru]

Lol. Unbelievable. No thank you.

 

[Gilligan's last elephant]

I'm suggesting that, until two things happen, that picture tells us exactly NOTHING:

1. Apple claims that THAT iPad is IN Spec.

2. THAT iPad is photographed on top of a laboratory-grade surface plate.

And your "hold a ruler up" "test" means NOTHING. Ever heard of spherical abberation? EVERY lens has it to some extent. Since we don't know what camera/lens that photo was taken with, we AGAIN don't know anything!

Thanks for the evening entertainment

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

400 microns looks huge. I guess 2 or 3 microns would not be noticeable but when you bend the iPad to 400 microns then people can see it across the room.

Use the Google machine.

400 microns (.01578") is 15 THOUSANDTHS of an inch. That is TEN TIMES THINNER than a soda-cracker (4000 microns, .1578"), FFS!

Soda cracker: 4mm (4000 microns). Don't believe me? look it up:

Now imagine TEN TIMES THINNER than that. THAT is 400 microns!!!


The gap in the article's photo is NOT supposed to represent 400 microns. That appears to be what people are THINKING is the case!
[doublepost=1545856960][/doublepost]

Thanks for the evening entertainment

Nothing entertaining about LIBEL.
[doublepost=1545857066][/doublepost]

400 microns looks huge. I guess 2 or 3 microns would not be noticeable but when you bend the iPad to 400 microns then people can see it across the room.

That photo does NOT represent 400 microns. More like 40,000.

And notice that NOWHERE does it state that Apple declared THAT iPad "In Spec".

Nowhere.

 

[trifid]

I'm suggesting that, until two things happen, that picture tells us exactly NOTHING:

1. Apple claims that THAT iPad is IN Spec.

2. THAT iPad is photographed on top of a laboratory-grade surface plate.

And your "hold a ruler up" "test" means NOTHING. Ever heard of spherical abberation? EVERY lens has it to some extent. Since we don't know what camera/lens that photo was taken with, we AGAIN don't know anything!

I'm just curious did you read The Verge article at all? It references several cases, this whole thing isn't just based off one photo. I'm not sure why you are so hung up on that.