Apple’s high-end devices

[zkap]

So, I’ve been thinking about this and I want to know what MacRumors has to say about it.

Are Apple’s high-end products worth it or are they too faulty for that price point? What I mean is, do they bring the bang for the buck, even if we ignore the Apple tax?

It seems to me like more often than not their most expensive products suffer from some shortcomings, bugs etc that shouldn’t be there.

The AirPods Pro release and people complaining about pain and pressure made me think back to this. Some other examples include the Macbook Pros with the butterfly keyboard, touchbar Macbook Pros having BridgeOS crashes, thermal throttling, XS and XS Max not charging while sleeping until a software update fixed it, iMac Pro not having a proper repair network (Linus Tech Tips’s video), iPad Pro 2018 bending or having touch sensitivity issues, XS and XS Max causing headaches and/or eye strain in some people due to Apple’s implementation of OLED, iPad Pro 2017’s white spot issue, iPad Pro 2018 pencil scratching the case... iOS 13 and iPad OS having so many bugs etc.

I realize some or many of these may be minor, some are just bugs, some are hardware defects, some are just the way things are (AirPods Pro not fitting everyone’s ears)... But should you suffer bugs or minor defects after purchasing an 1100 dollar iPhone? I’m not talking about wanting or expecting a perfect product or a perfect experience, but rather weighing the money you paid against the experience you receive.

Those of you who buy the high-end, are you happy with your purchases?

 

[HDFan]

hose of you who buy the high-end, are you happy with your purchases?

Yep.

But should you suffer bugs or minor defects after purchasing an 1100 dollar iPhone?

If you purchased a $100 pot vs a $1000 pot absolutely. But there is much more to an iPhone than just a lot of metal bonded together. You have metal, glass, electronics, battery all jammed into a very small case. On top of that you have software that runs the device. And then you have the ecosystem where that software interacts with your car, your watch, HomePod, etc. It is impossible to test every combination of conditions and setups, we're talking about millions of lines of complex code. So there will be bugs. Obviously we hope they have the procedures in place to do the best testing possible before release.

I must confess that this latest September release was the messiest that I have ever seen. Setting up my new phone was a nightmare due to the inability to do backup/restores. How many new OS releases did we have in such a short period of time? And not just for just one device.

Some other examples include the Macbook Pros with the butterfly keyboard, touchbar Macbook Pros having BridgeOS crashes, thermal throttling, XS and XS Max not charging while sleeping until a software update fixed it, iMac Pro not having a proper repair network (Linus Tech Tips’s video), iPad Pro 2018 bending or having touch sensitivity issues, XS and XS Max causing headaches and/or eye strain in some people due to Apple’s implementation of OLED, iPad Pro 2017’s white spot issue, iPad Pro 2018 pencil scratching the case... iOS 13 and iPad OS having so many bugs etc.

Many of these are decisions that Apple has made (repair network) that you may disagree with. Others (eye strain) relate to our incredible diversity as humans. You do your best, but on the bell curve there is likely someone, somewhere, that has some rare sensitivity that is aggravated by the device.

I am not saying that they can't do better, or that I agree with some of the decisions that they have made. But personally I am happy using the latest devices and features and am not willing to settle for what I could do with an iPhone 3. As such I accept that perfection is impossible.

 

[AppleHaterLover]

Here are the main issues with Apple's offerings:

Audio products: they sound like garbage. The ones that don't sound like products that cost 50% less.

MacBooks: less storage and RAM than competing brands for the same price. There are $1500 iMacs with spinning hard drives for ****'s sake

iPhones: more expensive than competing flagships (not so much this year)

Apple stuff has always been about trading specs for convenience. And it's been working for them, I haven't seen anyone standing 2 days in line at Samsung 5th Avenue for a Galaxy S10.

In 2017 I paid $1299 for my MBP with what I believe were $450 laptop specs for the time (dual core Core i5, 8GB, 128GB SSD), but I got a sturdy laptop with excellent display for the money. It's always been like this, people have always bitched about it and always will.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

So, I’ve been thinking about this and I want to know what MacRumors has to say about it.

Are Apple’s high-end products worth it or are they too faulty for that price point? What I mean is, do they bring the bang for the buck, even if we ignore the Apple tax?

It seems to me like more often than not their most expensive products suffer from some shortcomings, bugs etc that shouldn’t be there.

The AirPods Pro release and people complaining about pain and pressure made me think back to this. Some other examples include the Macbook Pros with the butterfly keyboard, touchbar Macbook Pros having BridgeOS crashes, thermal throttling, XS and XS Max not charging while sleeping until a software update fixed it, iMac Pro not having a proper repair network (Linus Tech Tips’s video), iPad Pro 2018 bending or having touch sensitivity issues, XS and XS Max causing headaches and/or eye strain in some people due to Apple’s implementation of OLED, iPad Pro 2017’s white spot issue, iPad Pro 2018 pencil scratching the case... iOS 13 and iPad OS having so many bugs etc.

I realize some or many of these may be minor, some are just bugs, some are hardware defects, some are just the way things are (AirPods Pro not fitting everyone’s ears)... But should you suffer bugs or minor defects after purchasing an 1100 dollar iPhone? I’m not talking about wanting or expecting a perfect product or a perfect experience, but rather weighing the money you paid against the experience you receive.

Those of you who buy the high-end, are you happy with your purchases?

Good thread, and good questions, but I think that there is a bit more to it than what you have raised when asking your questions and starting the thread.

Firstly, Apple used to be a niche, specialist company that focussed mainly on the manufacture of high-end computers, and an entire enclosed software system to run them.

So, firstly it was a specialist niche company - with a small market share but targeted at the prestige end of that market - and secondly, it focussed on computer design.

This meant that it could dedicate its research and development sections to producing the best possible computers, and systems to run these computers possible, and to do it in a way that fused form and function, creating something aesthetically stunning in the world of computing technology.

So, to answer your question - but with the caveat of time - namely, ten to fifteen years ago - yes, Apple's high-end products were worth it, because the design sensibility that informed them was superb, and focussed solely on the manufacture of producing high end (and superbly designed) computers.

However, things change and things have changed.

Since the development of the iPod (and later, the iPhone and everything that came after that, such as th transformation in the way music is marketed and sold and consumed, stuff such as iCloud), Apple firstly - ceased to be a niche company, secocnly, ceased to be a small specialist company, and thirdly, realised that most of its income no longer derived from - or needed to derive from - the manufacture of computers.

Therefore, to my mind, Apple is now a major international company which can afford to run its computing arm as a loss-leading hobby, and, as a consequence, is not nearly as massively technologically engaged with designing, and producing, and manufacturing the best computer possible.

So, to a certain extent, while Apple was never about "bang for buck" (they were always a premium and niche product, but, a decade or half a decade ago, they were also the best), quality control in the computing division is - I suspect - somewhat less important to Apple than it might have been a decade ago when that fusion of form and function was what defined Apple.

That means that while Apple was never about "bang for buck", it used to be about quality, but this is less evident now, as the computing division is less important to Apple's profits (and identity) than used to be the case.

 

[zkap]

Good thread, and good questions, but I think that there is a bit more to it than what you have raised when asking your questions and starting the thread.

Firstly, Apple used to be a niche, specialist company that focussed mainly on the manufacture of high-end computers, and an entire enclosed software system to run them.

So, firstly it was a specialist niche company - with a small market share but targeted at the prestige end of that market - and secondly, it focussed on computer design.

This meant that it could dedicate its research and development sections to producing the best possible computers, and systems to run these computers possible, and to do it in a way that fused form and function, creating something aesthetically stunning in the world of computing technology.

So, to answer your question - but with the caveat of time - namely, ten to fifteen years ago - yes, Apple's high-end products were worth it, because the design sensibility that informed them was superb, and focussed solely on the manufacture of producing high end (and superbly designed) computers.

However, things change and things have changed.

Since the development of the iPod (and later, the iPhone and everything that came after that, such as th transformation in the way music is marketed and sold and consumed, stuff such as iCloud), Apple firstly - ceased to be a niche company, secocnly, ceased to be a small specialist company, and thirdly, realised that most of its income no longer derived from - or needed to derive from - the manufacture of computers.

Therefore, to my mind, Apple is now a major international company which can afford to run its computing arm as a loss-leading hobby, and, as a consequence, is not nearly as massively technologically engaged with designing, and producing, and manufacturing the best computer possible.

So, to a certain extent, while Apple was never about "bang for buck" (they were always a premium and niche product, but, a decade or half a decade ago, they were also the best), quality control in the computing division is - I suspect - somewhat less important to Apple than it might have been a decade ago when that fusion of form and function was what defined Apple.

That means that while Apple was never about "bang for buck", it used to be about quality, but this is less evident now, as the computing division is less important to Apple's profits (and identity) than used to be the case.

Indeed, I would say the quality control aspect of things is on the more relaxed side at Apple. I can understand that, too, because Apple will focus on the things that will make them more money. If their cost-benefit analysis tells them they can spend less on QC, they will, and they’ll invest that money elsewhere, depending on what the strategic interest is. Whether that risks Apple’s position, well I suppose they know that better than we do.

However, I think I may not have explained myself well enough in the opening post. This seems to be the case when I read HDFan’s reply.

It is impossible to test every combination of conditions and setups, we're talking about millions of lines of complex code. So there will be bugs. I am not saying that they can't do better, or that I agree with some of the decisions that they have made. As such I accept that perfection is impossible.

I agree, but I wasn’t talking about imperfections. It’s clear there will always be bugs, some bigger, some less relevant to your usage. I don’t expect perfection just because the device is expensive.
What I was aiming at, and I hope this is a better expression, is comparative weakness. What I mean is, Apple’s products (at least it seems that way to me) have too many flaws for that price-point, compared to Apple’s products of a lower price point.

The example is my Macbook Air 2017. When I was buying my way into the Mac experience, I decided to get the cheapest Mac Apple was selling at that moment and this was it. I bought the last version before the design refresh. Result? I’m delighted, this is a rock solid machine and when I buy my next laptop or desktop, it’s going to be a Mac. I don’t really mind its sub-par display and the biggest annoyance I have is the laptop doesn’t sleep as it should if Find My Mac is on. That’s it. Everything else is great as far as I’m concerned. This is the lowest-end Mac that was officially sold when I bought it. Compare this to a Macbook Pro that has less ports, a faulty keyboard and BridgeOS crashes if you have the Touchbar version. For a lot more money. So, not expecting perfection, I have a great time with my laptop and I sometimes think to myself “Luckily I didn’t buy a Macbook Pro, look at all these problems people are complaining about.” It seems to be too many potential problems for that kind of money, because I actually spent less and I’m hassle-free with this machine. Someone else, though, bought their Macbook Pro for twice the money and had to bring it in for a keyboard replacement (and/or more than that). Really, it shouldn’t be like this.

Lower-end products seem to be having fewer problems somehow. This isn’t universal by any means and maybe it’s exaggerated, but still, people seem to have less complaints about the products that aren’t flagships. Of course the money you spend influences your expectations, but I think it’s more than that.

 

[Timothy Leo Crowley]

I wouldn't trade my Apple gear for anything else. I'm not hung up on specs, and find most of the complaints you read on forums are overblown and/or non-existent. From total usability, value and productivity standpoint, Apple products can't be beat. But that's just my experience.

 

[HDFan]

I agree, but I wasn’t talking about imperfections. It’s clear there will always be bugs, some bigger, some less relevant to your usage. I don’t expect perfection just because the device is expensive.
What I was aiming at, and I hope this is a better expression, is comparative weakness. What I mean is, Apple’s products (at least it seems that way to me) have too many flaws for that price-point, compared to Apple’s products of a lower price point.

Understand your point now. Not sure I agree. You can see in these forums how people latch onto a flaw and suffix it with "gate". Any publicity about failures is not something that a company that is known for its high prices and quality wants. Apple hates "-gates". As for the issues with the MacBooks the t2 chip was a corporate decision which applies across multiple product lines. I had the misfortune to experience the problem on my iMacPro. A higher priced product with more features (T2, ports, etc.) is going to have more components and more points of failure.

They made design choices for the keyboard, and the form factor of the cylinder MacPro. Obviously they chose wrong. It is certainly annoying that it has taken this long to address those issues.

I see no connection between design decisions and cost hierarchy/failure rates. It is too costly publicity wise, and recalls are expensive.

 

[Tech198]

You mean "the more the pay, the better it will be"?

Perhaps. If you pa $4,000 then your exceptions would be vastly different than someone who only paid $1,000, i should think.And when things go srewey, the more you'll get *** off as well.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

The question is, what's a "high end product?" An i9 CPU costs more than an i5 CPU, more RAM and Flash storage is simply more. That's not a matter of building the product better, it's a matter of what components go into the product. Same thing for the top-of-the-line iPhones. You're not buying better build quality, you're buying more cameras.

Discomfort complaints about the AirPod Pro? It's intrinsic to in-ear earphones - getting proper fit in an ear canal is not an easy thing, and stuffing that cavity can lead to air pressure equalization issues. That's why I never buy them. One brand will be comfortable to one person and uncomfortable to another. At most, careful design minimizes these issues. Again, this is not a matter of quality.

As others have noted, we also live in a social media/media environment where every flaw, in everything, is magnified. Was quality "higher" 15 years ago, or were the flaws not examined as obsessively? Everyone is a citizen journalist, everyone is looking for a "scoop" to gain eyeballs.

 

[Falhófnir]

With iPhones and iPads, I would say there's still some justification for the premium pricing. You're paying for vastly superior OS support, the development of the fastest ARM processors in any commercial product, access to probably the best (certainly most well optimised) catalogue of applications, and a nicely designed product, generally good, arguably the best, user experience.

For Macs, on the other hand, I think it's a lot harder for them to justify currently. Particularly the upper tier MacBook Pros are ludicrously out of touch with the market on pricing. You're often talking literally around the £1,000 mark over a competitively specced Windows rival. Unlike iOS, MacOS isn't supported a lot longer than Windows, maybe even the opposite is true. With Macs you have a pretty consistent 7 year support window and a couple of extra years security only support, it's good but Windows can easily match that and if you care to there's machines over a decade old that can run W10 no problem. Windows also has a vastly superior catalogue of programmes built for it. It will almost always be built for Windows first and foremost, if not exclusively. Games run better on Windows (even bootcamp Windows on a Mac!) outside of a handful of highly optimised and/or exclusive programmes (e.g. Final Cut) the Windows version will almost always ultimately be better, because that's the platform it was written and optimised for.

It's also worth considering the 'free' software you get with MacOS, iWork in place of office etc - this is certainly nice, and one of the strengths of the Mac platform, but does it really justify hundreds-thousands more for the product?

Of course also unlike iOS devices, the core hardware isn't inherently superior on a Mac either. It's either exactly the same (Intel core CPU) or even slightly worse (AMD Polaris (the only non BTO GPUs to be found in a Mac) are smoked by any Nvidia 10 series GPU). Retina is no longer a big selling point, other manufacturers can match or even go better with displays. In some cases Apple do use higher quality components than the market on average (particularly the SSD choices always seem to be bleeding edge fast) but again, it's certainly not enough to charge the sort of premium Apple is asking.

This is all before recent reliability issues on a number of fronts (Keyboard, display flex, speakers) and controversial design choices like ultra-low travel keys and USBC/TB3 only.

There are a couple of Macs which I think still offer reasonable value, the 2019 15W MacBook Pro is probably the sweet spot on price-performance in the current laptop lineup, and if you can look past the HDDs on iMacs they're also quite reasonable (less so as you equip SSDs and particularly large capacity ones) given the quality hardware you get (particularly the built in displays).