“Originally, I had never intended to write a follow-up to ‘Why First Generation Apple Products Suck‘. But after receiving exceptional feedback on my thoughts, I think I need to make few things clear. Many of you thought I was unfairly singling out Apple even though defective first generation products are a common occurrence across the technology sector – software or hardware. Just to be clear, let’s not mesh software and hardware together. Neither I nor anyone else should ever expect software to be perfect. On the opposite end, with hardware, it is possible to perfect the craft of developing tangible products, such as the iPod music player.”
I pause to wonder about the company that ships a $400 device without bothering to tell the user the battery is non-replaceable or the display is softer than butter and scratches more easily.
Of course it’s their attitude. They wanted to ship something that most users would love — and, by all accounts, they’ve succeeded. But of course there are design defects. That goes with shipping any product. The real test of attitude is whether they responded to customer complaints…
But of course there are design defects.
Proper designs do not have defects, the reason there is a design stage is to eliminate defects.
Design flaws. During the prototyping stage a vigorous testing program should be in place and should pick up most MAJOR design flaws – it cannot find every flaw.
It is a wrong statment to say “the reason there is a design stage is to eliminate defects.”
When a product initially begins production quality assurance testing helps to find design flaws and manufacturing defects. This helps eliminate most, again I say most design/manufacturing flaws.
Has anyone here ever dealt with overseas manufacturers? They’d know how difficult it is to be consistent and provide the level of quality that Apple currently has. It ain’t perfect, but they do address these problems. Maybe not to the liking of everyone, but everyone can never be truely and wholy satisfied.
Hey, it’s just my opinion based on real observations in the pro audio manufacturing market… the rules and results vary as much as there are people in this world.
Jb
Proper designs do not have defects, the reason there is a design stage is to eliminate defects.
The first part of that statement is silly. Can you name a single “proper design”? Or am I dense and missed the humor?
Only humour is it’s funny you should ask. A proper design would be the antomym of a horrible or poor design.
ie; If I do the design properly it should have no defects and function properly.
The design stage is also the cheapest point possible to eliminate said defects.
Actually, the iPod battery is replaceable and polycarbonate is one of the toughest plastics on Earth.
So the media and all those pissed off users must be a bunch of lying idiots with pockets full of diamonds who can’t figure out how to open the battery compartment door. How odd they all have the same story.
> Actually, the iPod battery is replaceable
At sone level the battery of every device is replacable. But the iPod battery is definitely not designed to be replaced by end users.
> and polycarbonate is one of the toughest plastics on Earth.
Polycarbonate is strong, but scratch-prone. Hint: guess what CDs and DVDs are made of?
“Polycarbonate is strong, but scratch-prone. Hint: guess what CDs and DVDs are made of?”
Ermm.. PVC?
Plexiglass, sold under another another name in Europe, aero glass or something like that I think.
> Plexiglass, sold under another another name in Europe, aero glass or something like that I think.
Polycarbonate.
http://www.roxio.com/en/support/discs/cdrmfg.html
That would explain why they are so easily trashed. Probably be tougher to dispose of, harder on the shredder if they used plexiglass too. Thanks.
I was going to mod you down, but I decided to reply to you instead. The iPod battery is NOW replaceable. When the first generation was released, a replacement battery was not available from apple, or as far as I know, anyone else. There was also no way to send it in to have the battery replaced. You were simply expected to replace your iPod when the battery was unsuitable.
As for polycarbonates. Alot of this discussion went around when the scratches were first noticed. Polycarbonate is indead a tough material. It can take alot of abuse and not break. One thing it is not, however, is a HARD material. The hardness of a material is determined by it’s ability to resist scratches, and polycarbonates are not known for there ability to resist scratches. From what I understand, Apple usually aplies a scratch resistant resin over the polycarbonate, and for some reason, the scratch resistant resin was not enough protection on many of the first generation Nanos.
Most organizations compromise something in order to get their Version 1.0 products out the door. And an argument could be made that, at least much of the time, it’s better to get something out into the market than hold something in development ad infinitum.
Most organizations compromise something in order to get their Version 1.0 products out the door. And an argument could be made that, at least much of the time, it’s better to get something out into the market than hold something in development ad infinitum.
While what you said is the worlds truth, there is one difference.
Every long time Apple customer will probably say the same (I know I can).
Older formula:
Apple==Quality
Nowadays
Apple!=Quality
Apples problem here is that their quality seriously dropped which is very visible. I still say that my G3 tower was the most satisfiying and perfect machine ever. People tend to expect more.
Companies like Dell produced (probably the same kind of quality as Apple now) non quality products trough all the history. People are used to expect less. It is like for example Windows synonym (how many users do you know that don’t know what Ctrl-Alt-Del is? I don’t know anyone. Which is really sad and says old Windows quality was not much. And the funniest part of all. People didn’t really cared how many times they had to press Ctrl-Alt-Del per one day. It is just how things are, press Ctrl-Alt-Del and start again)
Same quality, but different expectations. Well this would probably be the reason why Apple is being mentioned and (for example) Dell not.
Older formula:
Apple==Quality
As someone who has used Apple products since the Apple-II, I’m wondering when this formula applied.
Apple hardware has always been clever, but the quality has varied widely from the start.
Apple software has always been like sausage: tasty, but you really don’t want to look at it too closely.
As someone who has used Apple products since the Apple-II, I’m wondering when this formula applied.
Well all expensive but quality parts were more or less replaced with cheaper replacements. Like SCSI with IDE. There is one exepmtion though. Apple always used the lowest quality of CD drives.
Apple hardware has always been clever, but the quality has varied widely from the start.
I can’t say a single blaim on any older machine of mine. Well all after G3 tower were more or less dissapointing. And a lot of people thinks the same.
Apple software has always been like sausage: tasty, but you really don’t want to look at it too closely.
yep, on this one
Any company that has to break significant ground with new product releases is bound to have some problems with them. Apple was pretty much the only company producing portables and desktops with PowerPC processors. They lacked the benefit of all the engineering they get for free with Intel chips? I’m not trying to make an excuse for shipping faulty products, but Apple generally does a whole lot more work to design, build, and ship a product than many other computer builders. On top of that their userbase is probably an order of magnitude pickier, so I’d suggest they do a pretty fair job, considering.
That is a very good point. They’re not exactly working off the shelf there.
Engineering is about design tradeoffs and always has been.
It is also a discipline of uncertainty. Civil engineers design conservatively to compensate for uncertainty, and even they make mistakes. The consumer electronics market refuses to accept the consequence of conservative design, and so the mistakes are more obvious.
There’s a reason we call it the bleeding edge.
Still think you miss what these problems have in common. Making a design choice that favors looks over engineering. Aluminum case, low noise fans, very thin, no air space. Motive: you want the look. Result: it gets too hot. Too many of their problems have to do with heat, and are the result of form factor choices, for it to be a coincidence.
They don’t seem to realize as a culture that
(1) Design is not about how things look
(2) Quality is free.
Quality is more expensive, and can be considerably more expensive because “quality” and “better” go hand in hand. It takes more time to produce something better, it takes more engineers to produce something better.
Use an alpha program vs a gold master program for example. As a rule of thumb, a gold master program which has gone through all of it’s betas will be alot better. And it takes time to get all of that done.
Time = money, which is not free.
I’d argue that in regards to electronics(and software) that quality is a process. Just like security is a process.
And to stay on topic, Apple has one of the better quality(control) processes around. Minus the first generation of course. 😀
If you have first generation problems, you have a quality problem. Quality is free because its cheaper than the alternative, which is recalls, inspections, redesign, retesting, inventory writeoffs.
But there are people who don’t understand this still, and for them, quality is about component costs, process costs, and better quality costs more, you get what you pay for, etc.
Quality is free, because product costs are not the sum of the component cost plus manufacturing overhead.
I suspect Apple would agree with you however, which is why they have the problems they have. I suspect they also secretly believe that design is about how things look.
Quality is free, because product costs are not the sum of the component cost plus manufacturing overhead.
Quality is not free, because product costs include opportunity costs, and establishing quality impacts time to market.
But even in terms of build cost versus return rate, quality comes at a cost. Increasing the build cost to reduce the return rate is only effective if you can pass the build cost increase on to the consumer and the reduced return costs exceed the cost of lost sales due to higher price.
“Increasing the build cost to reduce the return rate is only effective if you can pass the build cost increase on to the consumer and the reduced return costs exceed the cost of lost sales due to higher price.”
No, this is very sadly wrong. Fewer defects does not mean higher costs and thus higher prices. It means lower costs. It is absolutely dreadful that 40 or 50 years after Deming there are still people who think this way. What is even sadder is that some of them are working in Product Management and Manufacturing, raising costs in the name of lowering them, and lowering profits in the name of raising them.
If you think like this, it is only because you have never established the real costs of poor quality in a company with quality problems. They always dwarf what it costs to do it right the first time with no recalls.
The approach suggested in the quote was a favourite in the British motorcycle industry 30 or 40 years ago. “The customer will never pay for it, its good enough for them”.
As the Japanese showed, they don’t have to pay more for it, and will indeed not. What they will do, is pay less for it.
You betray a very superficial understanding of Deming and of cost/benefit analysis.
You’re confusing manufacturing defect and production process quality, which was Deming’s main concern, with underlying product design quality.
The Japanese did not show that consumers don’t have to pay more for quality. What they did show was that assembly-introduced defects are very expensive to repair, compared to the cost of reducing the assembly defect rate. And they showed how, in Japan, it was possible to use social engineering to dramatically reduce the assembly-introduced defect rate.
What is more accurate in the computer industry is that 50 years after Deming, all of the lessons to be learned from his approach have been learned, the bar has been raised, and now, the dominant factor in the quality/cost equation has returned to being component/design quality rather than manufacturing quality.
For our current product, my company uses a Japanese ODM. Manufacturing quality is high, QA is good, and recalls are non-existent. But in our business, consumers care a lot about price, and there are two things I can control in the cost of the product: feature set and component quality. If I spec higher quality componets, the build cost (Bill of Materials, or BoM) goes up.
In consumer electronics, a business where a product has an average shelf life time (from first to last sale) of less than eighteen months, and a fifty percent turnover factor of twelve months, consumers are not going to pay for the quality that would make a device last ten years instead of two. (It was Sony, by the way, who taught the CE business that lesson.)
I like the double standard here. Hardware is always expected to be perfect imediatly upon release, where as software is and will always be flawed. What’s really strange is that this perception still seems to be held, even as the hardware is becoming cheaper than the software. Now I ask you, as more and more of the hardware is relying on software to operate (firmware, etc..) are we to continue expecting flawless hardware, or will we accept any problems as inevitable software issues and just live with it?
The double standard is that OS News felt it necessary to link to this article and thus single Apple out in the process… this despite the fact that Apple’s first generation products are typically better than the rest.
Apparently I’m the only one that considers this problematic.
Edited 2006-06-06 20:31
I like the double standard here. Hardware is always expected to be perfect imediatly upon release, where as software is and will always be flawed. What’s really strange is that this perception still seems to be held, even as the hardware is becoming cheaper than the software. Now I ask you, as more and more of the hardware is relying on software to operate (firmware, etc..) are we to continue expecting flawless hardware, or will we accept any problems as inevitable software issues and just live with it?
Well, as most programmers are “Microsoft” programmers,
then, you’re not going to get “Quality Software” on the Windows platform any time soon…
Look how Microsoft “teaches” class design.
Using PROPERTIES to load data into a class.
In other words,
you can load data, and the programmer says
“I have ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION of checking the quality of the data entering the class, NOT NOW, NOT EVER.”
With that kind of “Quality” approach you’re going to see crashing programs until Microsoft is unseated from the Lead position in Language Design.
( ER, the Lead COPY position( C# is a poor copy of Java ))
Look how Microsoft “teaches” class design.
Using PROPERTIES to load data into a class.
In other words,
you can load data, and the programmer says
“I have ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION of checking the quality of the data entering the class, NOT NOW, NOT EVER.”
Are you going to use constructors instead (complete with 27 overloads)? Call a method to fill a property? Thats what properties are anyway.
You can write entire methods in the get/set blocks in properties to verify data. They are already type-safe so you’re ok there.
But my Core Duo iMac would disagree completely :p
In more than 20 years of computing the high-quality, bulletproof piece of hardware I’ve ever seen has always been the safe-old-mature-technology stuff. Whenever you go for the innovative, dazzling, enthusiast gadget, mobo or graphic card you have to know you’re in for a rollercoaster ride. It happened with my first athlon 700, and it’s still happening now with my latest nforce4 motherboard. The more we push the limits, the more the things will break. You want a 1-inch notebook with aluminium shell and slot in drive? You’ll need to expect some shortcomings. (just as much as I do with my cheapo-chinese desktop replacement which comes with an ondulated keyboard by default (and it’s hot as hell))
I don’t know if I’m the only one but lately there are more and more Database related errors on OSNEWS.
I remember buying and using all generations of HP Jornada series PDA, and I can tell you that all the generations I have used suck real bad and now I no more invest in this technology. PDA prices were 250-450 $.
I never encountered a product like ipod so successful even with all its disadvantages. But what I don’t understand is the attack on such a successful company like apple from some authors with special agendas.
I wish you talk the same about this matter on PDAs, subnotebooks, MS OSs, Customer supports and many many more horrible stories from all major leaders rather than double concentrate about a truely innovative leader like Apple, which trys its best to please you the best even by risking its market share (lets say when they used Unix core in their OSX and the 2nd time when they switched to Intel CPUs).
Do you think computing will be better without Apple?!
People tend to read reviews and ideas about products before they buy them, and once they buy them and never discover things that you claimed then they will stop reading your columns, the same happened to me when I stopped reading “laptop magazine”, “PC magazine” and “PC World” after negative commentaries about a product I didn’t buy and a positive cone of a product I bought; at the same time I started reading “CPU=Computer Power User Magazine” because it reflect the truth about these products disadvantages.
I don’t disagree with reviewing apple products, but I disagree with the frequency you did it, because it falsely reflects that Apple is the only bother in the world and that they never learn and they never improve and that this is not their limits they really can reach.
Forgive me about this attack, because I think that Journalism is subject to criticism, and good luck next time.
Great response!
I’d mod you up if I had points to offer.
My new 15″ Macbook Pro has no issues.
You get a few people making a big deal out of it and it spreads, you only read about the people having problems, not the people who aren’t.
I’m not saying first Gen models are perfect, and yes some do have their flaws, but I’ve yet to have anything show stopping.
My new 15″ Macbook Pro has no issues.
You get a few people making a big deal out of it and it spreads, you only read about the people having problems, not the people who aren’t.
I’m not saying first Gen models are perfect, and yes some do have their flaws, but I’ve yet to have anything show stopping.
———-
Yes, including the fact that this “author” continues to ignore non-biased data from Consumer Reports that APPLE has the HIGHEST quality of product in it’s survey. So, you have to ask, what’s the motiviation. Is Apple taking away too much Linux mind share? Because, from an APPLE perspective, apple users have no problem with open source or Linux. But, the Linux people have a real bug up their *** about APPLE.
Here is my problem MIKE.
I bought a 15 inch macbook pro, the left speaker was bad, so I returned it. The next macbook had a blown speaker as well, however this time it was with in spec.
The machine operates at unreasonbly high temps and it emits a very annoying high pitched squeeling sound.
Then I bought the iMac core duo. First one had 7 dead pixels on the screen. Returned it, the second one had an unevenly lit LCD. Returned it and the third one has an unevenly lit screen, however, its not as bad as the second one. I am simply too tired to go through another return process.
I started that site with a buddy of mine who recently purchased a macbook with a slew of problems. It runs so hot it has damaged the finish on his desk. Apple informed him that in their fine print, that they will not accept a return of a custom-order machine (more ram). He is SOL. Apple has a history of duping people into paying full retail price to beta test. Its utter BS.
I grew up in an Apple household. In fact, my father worked there from 1984 to 1993. I have always enjoyed apple products. Their QA department has the combined intelligence of my left foot. The only goal of appledefects.com is to possibly urge the restoration of the original Apple QA policies.
WTF? If you dont like Apple products, dont buy them.
Yes, 98% of the WORLD is on Windows, but that only means CONSUMERS buy what they are told, and some of us do research, or learn something different other than the most sold or something with a cult like status.
I Love Apple products, because of my experience with them…not because of some lame Apple commercial said “We can do it better….”
Just buy what your life needs….
We are all going to feel pretty stupid when Microsoft merges with Apple, or there is a buy-out….and before you say no-way, think about why you can even run Windows on a Mac now…
Intel….was step one…..
Just a thought….
Edited 2006-06-06 23:10
Matter & anti-matter
Dvorak(Apple will switch to MS) & anti-Dvorak(Apple will buy MS)
But, after seeing Apple switch to intel, its probable.
MS is trying to gain better control of the hardware, and it looks like they may become like apple (tight control), only with lots of vendors building the systems.
MS is creating hardware concepts, platforms and prototypes, and letting others build it and sell it.
Probable is the word, I just hope it happens later than sooner….
I like Apple just the way it is…..
^_^
I can see it now.
“Hey they fixed this scratch surface!”
“Yeah! Now look how well this new material shatters on impact! At least it doesn’t have any scratches.”
Same quality, but different expectations. Well this would probably be the reason why Apple is being mentioned and (for example) Dell not.
True; I know Dell users who bitch like there is no tomorrow about the flimpsey keyboards used in the Dell laptops, the dodgy power supplies in some corporate desktops – we don’t hear about it, because, like you said, they have different expectations.
When something goes wrong in Apple land; the is a lynch mob formed to give Apple a good talking to; something goes wrong in PC land running Windows, and the general excuse is, “oh well, these things happen” as if they were to expect a monumental cockup by the system.
With that being said, one needs to divorce hardware faults from operating system faults; this machine I’m using right now, runs Windows XP bloody terribly, but with FreeBSD loaded on it, it has yet to skip a beat.
The first part of that statement is silly. Can you name a single “proper design”? Or am I dense and missed the humor?
Good question; there are two types of faults; design faults and Q&A faults; from what the article said, the issues with Apple seem to be more Q&A issues than design ones.
You mean QA rather than Q&A, right?
Yes, then again, we need some Q&A about that QA at APPL
http://www.appledefects.com/
If linux fails to put a dent in MacOS X then find something negative about Apple to talk about.
I am not even an Apple fan or even own any of their products, but they are taking this too far.
I don’t dislike Linux as I posted in another post.
My problem is from the Linux fanboys and Zealots.
Day by day they keep on their mission to post FUD, misinformation, misdirection and just outright lies about other OS platforms other than their own.
I see this every day on this forum and others. They try to brainwash people into believing their crap. It has to stop guys it really does.
I can see behind their agenda and I don’t like it one bit. Let linux sell linux, you don’t have to do anything if the product is good.
You’re delusional, please seek help. Linux is not a giant conspiracy. Listen to some of the other voices.
The problem is that people see “The Market” as this living breathing entity….it is not…
(The Market – refering to the computer technology portion)
People control this market, like all markets, rich, powerful individuals control it….this is why, so many people rely on Windows instead of trying an alternative OS like Linux, Mac OS X, people have become CONSUMERS, thats what “The Market” depends on….
So as long as people DO NOT educate themselves and explore something other than Windows, we will always have these debates about which OS is better, or has more bugs, or which plays games better…
People need choice, that is ONE reason Linux is better…with over 100 flavors, you have choice…
There is only ONE flavor of Windows, not much choice…
Same with Mac OS X, but they at least support open source….
Linux is a great conspiracy:
Take a look at the definition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspiracy
Etymology: Middle English conspiracie, from Latin conspirare
1 : the act of conspiring together
2 a : an agreement among conspirators b : a group of conspirators
People, got together and agreed to make something happen, that is NOT a crime….
Microsoft is also a conspiracy…..and they have the greatest market share over everyone…
still, no crime….
Linux/Unix -or- Windows
Its your choice…..maybe….
just a thought…..
^_^
First lets get this clear: there is NO ipod nano “scratch issue”. I am an owner of ipod nano and while it can get scratched it is no different than all other black plastic hardware I have in this respect (cameras, cellphone). Its hardly anything to worry about.
Every long time Apple customer will probably say the same (I know I can).
Older formula:
Apple==Quality
Nowadays
Apple!=Quality
I wonder what kind of “long time Apple customers” are those. Ever since the Apple II, Apple hardware has had its share of flaws. Remember the early powerbooks? Newton?
Fact is, the current Apple line of Computers is their most advanced ever in terms of features and design. Any problems are minor (whine noise and heat) and will be ironed out in the short term.
I got 2 nanos for my daughters. They are 7 and 9.
They both have rubber covers over their nanos, but there is a small open window for the screen.
In 6 months of use (carried everywhere, thrown in purses, thrown on the floor of the car… sorry I mean accidentally dropped, etc.) the only damage to the screen is from my 7 year old getting pissed at her sister and taking a key to it. Even those scratches were easily polished out with toothpaste.
My Macs are without doubt of better build quality than any of my PCs. The only one that comes closest is the Boxx workstation.
my 1st gen G4 Mini, eMac and Core-Duo Mini have had zero problems.
there are no scratches on my white Nano…then again, I keep the Nano in a protective hard case like any sensible person should.
I’m sorry but people have no reason to blame Apple if the screen on their iProduct should get a scratch…the scratch didn’t come from Apple, it came from the user!
I dont blame Apple that my Powerbook has case scratches, its called normal wear-and-tear, and it’s my fault that I did’t protect it properly when travelling.
I can’t speak for the whine/heat issues on the new MacBook/MacBook Pros as I dont have one.
what I do know is that you will always hear more from the unsatisfied than you will from the satisfied. when I purchased my latest Powerbook (15″ 1.67 HR) the Apple forums and other places were filled with people talking about sound loops, blotches on the screen, lower RAM slot failures, poor battery charges, etc. maybe I was one of the very few lucky people but mine had NONE of those problems, though you wouldnt think it was possible due to the noise in those forums…
“…with hardware, it is possible to perfect the craft of developing tangible products…”
This is begging the question. How does he come to the conclusion that software can be imperfect, but hardware can be perfect? I just don’t see any rational argument for this statement.
>in consumer electronics, a business where a product has >an average shelf life time (from first to last sale) of >less than eighteen months, and a fifty percent turnover >factor of twelve months, consumers are not going to pay >for the quality that would make a device last ten years >instead of two. (It was Sony, by the way, who taught the >CE business that lesson.)
This lesson is one of the ultimate causes of Sonys problems as is. Sony used to be a brand everyone thought of as quality. Now they have the brand recognition of overpriced good looking junk with a lousy customer service.