Adam sort of raises an issue I’ve often wondered about.
When there ARE flaws – the QC issues – like small cracks etc. etc. etc. – whose responsibility is it?
Since not all the products in the run suffer from these issues, can we say Apple’s ‘design’ was at fault? Or is it the manufacturer’s QC that is at issue?
Should Apple be holding its manufacturers to a higher standard of QC and inserting financial penalties in their contracts if a high (er) level of quality performance is not met?

Or, for example, should Apple have been aware that certain processes with certain materials could be expected to have issues and therefore should not have specified them for the product?

Just curious.

Good questions. Ultimately for the end user, Apple is responsible for making it all right (note I didn’t say alright). If the fault is ultimately caused by a contractor doing the actual assembly, then Apple can go back to that contractor for its own recompense according to whatever stipulations are in the contract. As an example, a few years ago VW stopped using a major production facility for its Golf and Jetta lines (Brazil or Mexico I think) because of the amount of problems that the cars from that plant had. VW tried to get the production issues solved, and when they weren’t VW built a new plant elsewhere.

Having said that, Apple’s designs do tend to be cutting edge (if not bleeding edge) and it may just be that building some products correctly to those specs takes time and unforeseen production issues may arise. Still, it makes you wonder a little bit.

Adam sort of raises an issue I’ve often wondered about.
When there ARE flaws – the QC issues – like small cracks etc. etc. etc. – whose responsibility is it?
Since not all the products in the run suffer from these issues, can we say Apple’s ‘design’ was at fault? Or is it the manufacturer’s QC that is at issue?
Should Apple be holding its manufacturers to a higher standard of QC and inserting financial penalties in their contracts if a high (er) level of quality performance is not met?

Or, for example, should Apple have been aware that certain processes with certain materials could be expected to have issues and therefore should not have specified them for the product?

Just curious.

Re: Laptops

Gene,
Apple has not referred to any of their portable computers as “laptops” since at least 2002, and with very good reason. They call them notebooks, or portables but I can clearly remember in 2002 when my first G3 iBook was delivered, it contained a warning in the (sparse) documentation that basically said, fast chips get hot so always put this on a hard surface and never on your lap.

In the 2+years I spent manning the Genius Bar from mid 2005 to late 2007 there was literally nowhere that Apple listed any device as being a laptop.

You are, of course, correct that some of these products ran hotter than Apple would have liked and that firmware updates were put out to resolve that. A very few of them ran much too hot, in fact. But IMHO chastising Apple for calling them laptops is inappropriate as Apple has not been doing so for quite some time. Even running properly, no modern notebook (again IMHO) should ever be placed on your lap, and absolutely never on your skin.

As for the general suggestions that rev 1 Apple products seem to suffer from problems, yes you are right about that. Although Apple will not always admit to these faults, my experience is that they will make them right as soon as possible. I do wonder, though, if they are doing enough testing of production models as opposed to prototypes. This also makes me wonder if the production facilities are really following the plans Apple gives them very well. Perhaps new facilities should be sought out.

I waited 6 months to buy my rev 1 Macbook. As a Mac Genius I was able to assess what was right with the product, what was wrong, what repairs I could expect, and what the “pain in the @$$ quotient” would be. I’m glad that I did, but I am sorry that I had to.

Cheers!

Re the iPhone software NDA,

What if Apple is trying to hide the fact that the iPhone Apps are somehow scaleable to a larger screened product that is already in the pipeline? Wouldn’t keeping the NDA enforced make sense in that case?