Did anyone at Apple ever respond to The Verge article? If The Verge wrongly interpreted the info they were given on background (or intentionally misled for clicks) isn’t it up to Apple to set the story straight? This isn’t a rumor coming out of the supply chain. This is a US tech publication claiming Apple told them a slightly bent product out of the box is normal and not a defect. This Verge article has been picked up by other tech publications and Apple rumor sites as well as shared all over social media. The way things turn into ‘gates’ is it companies don’t nip them in the bud soon enough.
So, how many bent ipad pros have we seen pictures of other than from the Verge? If this were a "real" issue, a flood of them would be on the net. But, nope. Just from the Verge? Maybe Nilay just sat on his
Maybe the case meets that spec when it is milled but gets deformed during the rest of the assembly process?
What are you even talking about. Return the thing if it appears bent to you.Why is this something you have to tell people.
Why are you repeatedly saying "just return it"? I think everyone here knows to return it if it bent. But you seem hell bent (intented) on trying to down play the issue. People hold Apple to higher standards because Apple holds themselves to higher standards. They're responses to this issue, thus far don't reflect a high standard. It smacks of legalese. It's pretty obvious some of the bending is beyond 400 microns. That's not explained by "tolerances". The issue should be addressed properly so that people have confidence in the products they're buying. "Return 'til you get a good one" isn't the solution.
RETURNED THE DARN BEND THINGY, now go somewhere ie Microsoft or Google thingy....be done w it...you cry baby
Your reaction is extreme too.All companies’ products can have issues. Do Ferraris have no issues just because they are ‘premium’.
Exactly, but the “issue” is how you deal with it. I wonder if Ferrari would tell a customer not satisfied with fit & finish that it’s not an “issue” for them.
What customer has Apple told that to? Who was refused a right to return? Be specific.
Okay, here’s what Macrumors posted of the letter from Apple to complaining customer: “Relative to the issue you referenced regarding the new iPad Pro, its unibody design meets or exceeds all of Apple's high quality standards of design and precision manufacturing. We've carefully engineered it and every part of the manufacturing process is precisely measured and controlled.
Our current specification for iPad Pro flatness is up to 400 microns which is even tighter than previous generations. This 400 micron variance is less than half a millimeter (or the width of fewer than four sheets of paper at most) and this level of flatness won't change during normal use over the lifetime of the product. Note, these slight variations do not affect the function of the device in any way.
Again, thanks for reaching out and I hope the above explanation addresses your concerns.”
Does that last part sound like an offer to return and replace? That’s as specific as I can get.
You’ve argued the wrong point. The other commentor asked you to be specific about someone Apple has refused an opportunity to return a defective product. What you’ve shown is only that Apple took the time to educate and inform a customer, reassuring him that the product he purchased is fit for use and won’t degrade from that status over its normal lifetime.
How does that suggest Apple is refusing this customer a return of a defective product, when the product is not defective but is within its manufacturing tolerance and, while noticeably shows a curve, won’t be adversely affected by that curve, a curve that is within a tighter tolerance than any previous generation iPad’s tolerance?
That's a really well-stated argument, and got me thinking about my own reaction to the news.
As a thought experiment, I imagined taking a piece of paper and folding it twice. That gives me the equivalent of the four sheets of paper Riccio uses to describe the tolerance, in a form narrow enough to represent only the crest of the curve. Place that piece of paper on the table and set an iPad on top of it. With the paper near the middle of the iPad, try pressing on the screen near the top then near the bottom. Even just that 400 micron variance is enough to allow the iPad to rock back and forth like a seesaw. Certainly enough to be distracting and possibly disruptive to operation.
To me the issue is that Apple's range of accepted deviation from flat is wider than what would make me happy. I consider that WORSE news than hearing a few freak bent units escaped unnoticed. It tells me that ANY given iPad Pro may not lie flat, and I need to be prepared to cherry pick if that matters to me.
Whether or not this is actually a big deal or just over-reaction to a relatively minor issue obviously depends on how much curve a "typical" unit exhibits and how many are going out with enough curve to be bothersome. I have no idea how serious or widespread the issue is, but it wouldn't deter me from buying one. I wouldn't want one that doesn't lie flat though, so Apple saying "that's normal" makes me wonder how many I'd have to go through before I got one that's "good enough." Maybe only one, maybe several. Who knows?
You seem to have missed Esquirecats' post (comment #51) that already shares his experience about this concern. To sum up, the iPad Pro doesn't rock back and forth, as you theorize. He said,
"Interesting about the curve, but I can see how this is a non-issue for real world users because the device has plenty of flex in it, which seems deliberate when you use the device. I.E. You can lay it flat on a table and despite the camera bump it won't rock back and forth as you draw on it.
To me personally (speaking from the perspective of having one of these) I'm glad that it has that amount of flex because if it rocked back and forth like the iphone does it would drive me insane. It was the first thing I noticed when I used it, I literally said to myself "how does this lay flat even though there is a camera bump.""
Yeah, I saw Esquirecat's post, but concluded that (s)he must be mistaken about the lying flat being the result of flex. I'm having a hard time imagining an item that small made of glass and aluminum being able to flex that far. My thought when reading that was the iPad is bent so the back is concave, and that's the reason it doesn't rock over the camera bump. It's resting on the edges, with the middle of the back in the air.
Now that I think about it, the only photos I've seen (and it's only a few) all show the bend being that way. I haven't seen any that show it bending inwards, so the front is concave. Maybe the cooling process that causes the bend only does so in one direction, in which case it would not result in rocking, and as in Esquirecat's case, may even mitigate the effect of the camera bump.
Maybe the case meets that spec when it is milled but gets deformed during the rest of the assembly process?
What are you even talking about. Return the thing if it appears bent to you.Why is this something you have to tell people.
Why are you repeatedly saying "just return it"? I think everyone here knows to return it if it bent. But you seem hell bent (intented) on trying to down play the issue. People hold Apple to higher standards because Apple holds themselves to higher standards. They're responses to this issue, thus far don't reflect a high standard. It smacks of legalese. It's pretty obvious some of the bending is beyond 400 microns. That's not explained by "tolerances". The issue should be addressed properly so that people have confidence in the products they're buying. "Return 'til you get a good one" isn't the solution.
RETURNED THE DARN BEND THINGY, now go somewhere ie Microsoft or Google thingy....be done w it...you cry baby
Your reaction is extreme too.All companies’ products can have issues. Do Ferraris have no issues just because they are ‘premium’.
Exactly, but the “issue” is how you deal with it. I wonder if Ferrari would tell a customer not satisfied with fit & finish that it’s not an “issue” for them.
What customer has Apple told that to? Who was refused a right to return? Be specific.
Okay, here’s what Macrumors posted of the letter from Apple to complaining customer: “Relative to the issue you referenced regarding the new iPad Pro, its unibody design meets or exceeds all of Apple's high quality standards of design and precision manufacturing. We've carefully engineered it and every part of the manufacturing process is precisely measured and controlled.
Our current specification for iPad Pro flatness is up to 400 microns which is even tighter than previous generations. This 400 micron variance is less than half a millimeter (or the width of fewer than four sheets of paper at most) and this level of flatness won't change during normal use over the lifetime of the product. Note, these slight variations do not affect the function of the device in any way.
Again, thanks for reaching out and I hope the above explanation addresses your concerns.”
Does that last part sound like an offer to return and replace? That’s as specific as I can get.
You’ve argued the wrong point. The other commentor asked you to be specific about someone Apple has refused an opportunity to return a defective product. What you’ve shown is only that Apple took the time to educate and inform a customer, reassuring him that the product he purchased is fit for use and won’t degrade from that status over its normal lifetime.
How does that suggest Apple is refusing this customer a return of a defective product, when the product is not defective but is within its manufacturing tolerance and, while noticeably shows a curve, won’t be adversely affected by that curve, a curve that is within a tighter tolerance than any previous generation iPad’s tolerance?
Kinda sounds like a distinction without a difference to me. You’re right, the email does not definitively state that Apple will not take an iPad back (much less exchange it) for the stated issue, but a reasonable person might think that it implies that. If Apple were selling a curved screen à la Samsung, fine. But I think one should expect that an iPad laying flat on a table should not be able to spin. If 400 microns allows that to happen, it’s a problem. Hope someone with that issue will test its “lie-flat stability” so we’ll all know.
The only additional statement I might expect from Apple is further clarification, to inform the press that the shape of the edges indeed does allow the human eye, and camera, to more easily discern a curve that’s existed as an in-tolerance artifact of manufacturing all along, since the very first iPad. And also MacBooks, likely as not.
The problem is that Dan telling us tolerances are tighter than before doesn't tell us the whole story.
One possible scenario, which most here consider likely, is that current units are as flat as or flatter than they've ever been before.
Another possible scenario is that while tolerances were wider in the past, MOST units never came close to reaching those limits. Perhaps the new model has a tighter tolerance but there's much more deviation from unit to unit than there was with previous models, so there are more noticeably curved units in the wild than there were with previous models.
We know the tolerance, but we don't know the relative degree of deviation from ideal compared to previous models. A tighter spec doesn't necessarily mean there isn't an issue with consistency.
I’d go with Occam’s Razor, which favors Dan’s statement on the matter.
Dan didn't say. That's the point. There's a critical piece of information missing.
Let's say the old ones had a tolerance of 1000 microns, but only one in ten million was off by more than 100 microns. The new ones have a tolerance of 400 microns, but maybe every third one they make comes close to that limit. That would both make Dan's statement true AND result in more units being visibly bent than in the past.
What Dan said does not preclude the possibility of there being lots of obviously bent iPads on the shelf. I'm not saying there are or are not, I have no way of knowing, but just that Dan's statement does not provide an answer one way or the other.
Wait... no iPad Pro lies flat, unless you purposefully lay it near the edge of the surface it’s laying upon such that the camera bump is off the edge.
That made me laugh a little, not because what you said is in any way wrong, but because it sort of accidentally implies "This flaw doesn't matter, because the iPad is already flawed by design anyway!" Somehow I don't find comfort in reading that a built-in, deliberate design choice -- the camera bump -- swamps the issue of a bent chassis!
But seriously, I get what you're saying and don't intend my comment as a reflection on you or your point. It is kinda indicative of how willing we are to ignore compromised design decisions as long as they're made by Apple, though.
Maybe the case meets that spec when it is milled but gets deformed during the rest of the assembly process?
What are you even talking about. Return the thing if it appears bent to you.Why is this something you have to tell people.
Why are you repeatedly saying "just return it"? I think everyone here knows to return it if it bent. But you seem hell bent (intented) on trying to down play the issue. People hold Apple to higher standards because Apple holds themselves to higher standards. They're responses to this issue, thus far don't reflect a high standard. It smacks of legalese. It's pretty obvious some of the bending is beyond 400 microns. That's not explained by "tolerances". The issue should be addressed properly so that people have confidence in the products they're buying. "Return 'til you get a good one" isn't the solution.
RETURNED THE DARN BEND THINGY, now go somewhere ie Microsoft or Google thingy....be done w it...you cry baby
Your reaction is extreme too.All companies’ products can have issues. Do Ferraris have no issues just because they are ‘premium’.
Exactly, but the “issue” is how you deal with it. I wonder if Ferrari would tell a customer not satisfied with fit & finish that it’s not an “issue” for them.
What customer has Apple told that to? Who was refused a right to return? Be specific.
Okay, here’s what Macrumors posted of the letter from Apple to complaining customer: “Relative to the issue you referenced regarding the new iPad Pro, its unibody design meets or exceeds all of Apple's high quality standards of design and precision manufacturing. We've carefully engineered it and every part of the manufacturing process is precisely measured and controlled.
Our current specification for iPad Pro flatness is up to 400 microns which is even tighter than previous generations. This 400 micron variance is less than half a millimeter (or the width of fewer than four sheets of paper at most) and this level of flatness won't change during normal use over the lifetime of the product. Note, these slight variations do not affect the function of the device in any way.
Again, thanks for reaching out and I hope the above explanation addresses your concerns.”
Does that last part sound like an offer to return and replace? That’s as specific as I can get.
You’ve argued the wrong point. The other commentor asked you to be specific about someone Apple has refused an opportunity to return a defective product. What you’ve shown is only that Apple took the time to educate and inform a customer, reassuring him that the product he purchased is fit for use and won’t degrade from that status over its normal lifetime.
How does that suggest Apple is refusing this customer a return of a defective product, when the product is not defective but is within its manufacturing tolerance and, while noticeably shows a curve, won’t be adversely affected by that curve, a curve that is within a tighter tolerance than any previous generation iPad’s tolerance?
Kinda sounds like a distinction without a difference to me. You’re right, the email does not definitively state that Apple will not take an iPad back (much less exchange it) for the stated issue, but a reasonable person might think that it implies that. If Apple were selling a curved screen à la Samsung, fine. But I think one should expect that an iPad laying flat on a table should not be able to spin. If 400 microns allows that to happen, it’s a problem. Hope someone with that issue will test its “lie-flat stability” so we’ll all know.
You do know about the camera bump on iPad Pros, right? It’s never going to lay flat on a flat surface, simply due to the camera bump, which extends farther out than the 400 micron tolerance. AnY bend sufficient to take the camera bump out of the picture (pun wholly intended) will by definition exceed the 400 micron tolerance, and therefore would indeed be a defect that Apple would surely cover under warranty. Ipso facto...
Wait... no iPad Pro lies flat, unless you purposefully lay it near the edge of the surface it’s laying upon such that the camera bump is off the edge.
That made me laugh a little, not because what you said is in any way wrong, but because it sort of accidentally implies "This flaw doesn't matter, because the iPad is already flawed by design anyway!" Somehow I don't find comfort in reading that a built-in, deliberate design choice -- the camera bump -- swamps the issue of a bent chassis!
But seriously, I get what you're saying and don't intend my comment as a reflection on you or your point. It is kinda indicative of how willing we are to ignore compromised design decisions as long as they're made by Apple, though.
And yet the camera bump hasn’t generated a cry for Apple to accept returns of iPads with one, as we’re seeing in this thread. Even though it would produce entirely the same issue you complained the bend would produce, a rocking back and forth of the iPad when used laying upon a flat surface.
So, how many bent ipad pros have we seen pictures of other than from the Verge? If this were a "real" issue, a flood of them would be on the net. But, nope. Just from the Verge? Maybe Nilay just sat on his
The only additional statement I might expect from Apple is further clarification, to inform the press that the shape of the edges indeed does allow the human eye, and camera, to more easily discern a curve that’s existed as an in-tolerance artifact of manufacturing all along, since the very first iPad. And also MacBooks, likely as not.
The problem is that Dan telling us tolerances are tighter than before doesn't tell us the whole story.
One possible scenario, which most here consider likely, is that current units are as flat as or flatter than they've ever been before.
Another possible scenario is that while tolerances were wider in the past, MOST units never came close to reaching those limits. Perhaps the new model has a tighter tolerance but there's much more deviation from unit to unit than there was with previous models, so there are more noticeably curved units in the wild than there were with previous models.
We know the tolerance, but we don't know the relative degree of deviation from ideal compared to previous models. A tighter spec doesn't necessarily mean there isn't an issue with consistency.
I’d go with Occam’s Razor, which favors Dan’s statement on the matter.
Dan didn't say. That's the point. There's a critical piece of information missing.
Let's say the old ones had a tolerance of 1000 microns, but only one in ten million was off by more than 100 microns. The new ones have a tolerance of 400 microns, but maybe every third one they make comes close to that limit. That would both make Dan's statement true AND result in more units being visibly bent than in the past.
What Dan said does not preclude the possibility of there being lots of obviously bent iPads on the shelf. I'm not saying there are or are not, I have no way of knowing, but just that Dan's statement does not provide an answer one way or the other.
By evoking Occam’s Razor I’m suggesting that Apple knows the effects of its manufacturing process, has known the effects of its manufacturing process on the potential for these structures to warp slightly. Otherwise why would they have had tolerances in the past and still have them today? That very fact tells us that Apple has all along known that iPad chassis are not manufactured perfectly flat, as a layperson may have all along assumed, that they do indeed all warp to a small degree and this is what has caused Apple to design them to a certain tolerance of deviation from perfectly flat.
Occam’s Razor would also suggest that a company that’s been designing and manufacturing (with the same manufacturing partners for years) iPads all along with bending tolerances would not radically alter its manufacturing process or chassis design without taking this aspect fully into consideration, and that indeed strong evidence that Apple has taken it into consideration is the fact their tolerances are now even tighter (you don’t get that by accident or neglect).
Considering the above, it seems far more likely that the flat edges with sharp corners allows a person to discern the bend versus the theory that you propose; that Apple somehow had less variance in past manufacturing versus today. The tighter tolerances, to my mind, argue against your theory, because it tells me Apple has been very consciously focusing on the propensity for bending all along and they would have looked hard at this in trial manufacturing runs of various proposed chassis design changes.
Maybe the case meets that spec when it is milled but gets deformed during the rest of the assembly process?
What are you even talking about. Return the thing if it appears bent to you.Why is this something you have to tell people.
Why are you repeatedly saying "just return it"? I think everyone here knows to return it if it bent. But you seem hell bent (intented) on trying to down play the issue. People hold Apple to higher standards because Apple holds themselves to higher standards. They're responses to this issue, thus far don't reflect a high standard. It smacks of legalese. It's pretty obvious some of the bending is beyond 400 microns. That's not explained by "tolerances". The issue should be addressed properly so that people have confidence in the products they're buying. "Return 'til you get a good one" isn't the solution.
You see a couple pictures in a clickbait article and instantly run to grab your pitchfork and shotgun. Then people tell you that you can always return an iPad Pro if it’s in that condition as a result.
what is their response supposed to be beyond telling you what their tolerances are and replacing your unit if it exceeds those tolerances? They didn’t say that an iPad Pro that’s bent out of shape is acceptible. That’s really sort of something that the verge added to what Apple actually said.
Maybe the case meets that spec when it is milled but gets deformed during the rest of the assembly process?
What are you even talking about. Return the thing if it appears bent to you.Why is this something you have to tell people.
Why are you repeatedly saying "just return it"? I think everyone here knows to return it if it bent. But you seem hell bent (intented) on trying to down play the issue. People hold Apple to higher standards because Apple holds themselves to higher standards. They're responses to this issue, thus far don't reflect a high standard. It smacks of legalese. It's pretty obvious some of the bending is beyond 400 microns. That's not explained by "tolerances". The issue should be addressed properly so that people have confidence in the products they're buying. "Return 'til you get a good one" isn't the solution.
RETURNED THE DARN BEND THINGY, now go somewhere ie Microsoft or Google thingy....be done w it...you cry baby
Your reaction is extreme too.All companies’ products can have issues. Do Ferraris have no issues just because they are ‘premium’.
Exactly, but the “issue” is how you deal with it. I wonder if Ferrari would tell a customer not satisfied with fit & finish that it’s not an “issue” for them.
What customer has Apple told that to? Who was refused a right to return? Be specific.
Okay, here’s what Macrumors posted of the letter from Apple to complaining customer: “Relative to the issue you referenced regarding the new iPad Pro, its unibody design meets or exceeds all of Apple's high quality standards of design and precision manufacturing. We've carefully engineered it and every part of the manufacturing process is precisely measured and controlled.
Our current specification for iPad Pro flatness is up to 400 microns which is even tighter than previous generations. This 400 micron variance is less than half a millimeter (or the width of fewer than four sheets of paper at most) and this level of flatness won't change during normal use over the lifetime of the product. Note, these slight variations do not affect the function of the device in any way.
Again, thanks for reaching out and I hope the above explanation addresses your concerns.”
Does that last part sound like an offer to return and replace? That’s as specific as I can get.
That’s an explanation of the spec of the iPad Pro. I don’t see them telling ANYONE that a variance beyond 400 microns is acceptible or that they won’t replace a defective unit. If you want to see where Apple said they’d take a return and replace you should read apple’s warranty. It’s right there. Beyond that, it should be common sense, but I guess not when there’s outrage on the table.
Is the iPad in the photo from the Verge bent more or less than 400 microns? That's the most important question. Also a subtle bend over the entire length of the iPad may not be noticeable while a sudden bend as in the photo would be a major issue as it is likely to get worse despite what Apple claims. What happens if the user tries to bend their iPad Pro back into shape and makes it worse? Who is liable for the repair then? This is a fiasco.
Is the iPad in the photo from the Verge bent more or less than 400 microns? That's the most important question. Also a subtle bend over the entire length of the iPad may not be noticeable while a sudden bend as in the photo would be a major issue as it is likely to get worse despite what Apple claims. What happens if the user tries to bend their iPad Pro back into shape and makes it worse? Who is liable for the repair then? This is a fiasco.
Obviously don’t try to fix a manufacturer defect on your own. That’s like trying to practice law on your own when you’ve already hired and paid for a lawyer.
Maybe the case meets that spec when it is milled but gets deformed during the rest of the assembly process?
What are you even talking about. Return the thing if it appears bent to you.Why is this something you have to tell people.
Why are you repeatedly saying "just return it"? I think everyone here knows to return it if it bent. But you seem hell bent (intented) on trying to down play the issue. People hold Apple to higher standards because Apple holds themselves to higher standards. They're responses to this issue, thus far don't reflect a high standard. It smacks of legalese. It's pretty obvious some of the bending is beyond 400 microns. That's not explained by "tolerances". The issue should be addressed properly so that people have confidence in the products they're buying. "Return 'til you get a good one" isn't the solution.
RETURNED THE DARN BEND THINGY, now go somewhere ie Microsoft or Google thingy....be done w it...you cry baby
Your reaction is extreme too.All companies’ products can have issues. Do Ferraris have no issues just because they are ‘premium’.
Exactly, but the “issue” is how you deal with it. I wonder if Ferrari would tell a customer not satisfied with fit & finish that it’s not an “issue” for them.
What customer has Apple told that to? Who was refused a right to return? Be specific.
Okay, here’s what Macrumors posted of the letter from Apple to complaining customer: “Relative to the issue you referenced regarding the new iPad Pro, its unibody design meets or exceeds all of Apple's high quality standards of design and precision manufacturing. We've carefully engineered it and every part of the manufacturing process is precisely measured and controlled.
Our current specification for iPad Pro flatness is up to 400 microns which is even tighter than previous generations. This 400 micron variance is less than half a millimeter (or the width of fewer than four sheets of paper at most) and this level of flatness won't change during normal use over the lifetime of the product. Note, these slight variations do not affect the function of the device in any way.
Again, thanks for reaching out and I hope the above explanation addresses your concerns.”
Does that last part sound like an offer to return and replace? That’s as specific as I can get.
You’ve argued the wrong point. The other commentor asked you to be specific about someone Apple has refused an opportunity to return a defective product. What you’ve shown is only that Apple took the time to educate and inform a customer, reassuring him that the product he purchased is fit for use and won’t degrade from that status over its normal lifetime.
How does that suggest Apple is refusing this customer a return of a defective product, when the product is not defective but is within its manufacturing tolerance and, while noticeably shows a curve, won’t be adversely affected by that curve, a curve that is within a tighter tolerance than any previous generation iPad’s tolerance?
Kinda sounds like a distinction without a difference to me. You’re right, the email does not definitively state that Apple will not take an iPad back (much less exchange it) for the stated issue, but a reasonable person might think that it implies that. If Apple were selling a curved screen à la Samsung, fine. But I think one should expect that an iPad laying flat on a table should not be able to spin. If 400 microns allows that to happen, it’s a problem. Hope someone with that issue will test its “lie-flat stability” so we’ll all know.
A reasonable person would ask Apple what to do if they have an iPad that exceeds tolerances.
This is absolute BS from Apple. I don’t bloody well care what they claim for their high manufacturing standards. A (very) premium priced product like this, that is supposed to be flat should not be visibly bent new from the factory! I reckon if they hadn’t been so obsessed with creating the thinnest product they could for absolutely no good reason, this kind of thing wouldn’t of happened in the first place. I bet next year’s version will be slightly thicker to prevent this sort of thing from happening again (hopefully!) but Apple won’t mention a thing.
Is the iPad in the photo from the Verge bent more or less than 400 microns? That's the most important question. Also a subtle bend over the entire length of the iPad may not be noticeable while a sudden bend as in the photo would be a major issue as it is likely to get worse despite what Apple claims. What happens if the user tries to bend their iPad Pro back into shape and makes it worse? Who is liable for the repair then? This is a fiasco.
It really isn’t. The threshold is what they consider acceptable. If one (or whatever small number) slips thru QA and ends up in a customer’s hands and is said threshold, a return is accepted. EOS. What part is difficult to understand?
As for the rest of your made up scenario, I would imagine that despite the buyer being stupid enough to start bending it, Apple would accept it back. It’s not a crisis. Just clickbait.
This is absolute BS from Apple. I don’t bloody well care what they claim for their high manufacturing standards. A (very) premium priced product like this, that is supposed to be flat should not be visibly bent new from the factory! I reckon if they hadn’t been so obsessed with creating the thinnest product they could for absolutely no good reason, this kind of thing wouldn’t of happened in the first place. I bet next year’s version will be slightly thicker to prevent this sort of thing from happening again (hopefully!) but Apple won’t mention a thing.
Your reading comprehension is bent. While no product should be damaged or exceed tolderances, here IRL we all know it happens from time to time. Such defects are returned and exchanged.
And yep, there are plenty of good reasons to make our devices thinner and lighter.
Did you buy one? (no) Is it defective? (no) Did you return for it? (no) Were you refused? (no). So...no problem.
This is absolute BS from Apple. I don’t bloody well care what they claim for their high manufacturing standards. A (very) premium priced product like this, that is supposed to be flat should not be visibly bent new from the factory! I reckon if they hadn’t been so obsessed with creating the thinnest product they could for absolutely no good reason, this kind of thing wouldn’t of happened in the first place. I bet next year’s version will be slightly thicker to prevent this sort of thing from happening again (hopefully!) but Apple won’t mention a thing.
Has anyone confirmed that the device thinness is the problem? I don’t remember any reviews complaining that the device was too thin.
Comments
Now that I think about it, the only photos I've seen (and it's only a few) all show the bend being that way. I haven't seen any that show it bending inwards, so the front is concave. Maybe the cooling process that causes the bend only does so in one direction, in which case it would not result in rocking, and as in Esquirecat's case, may even mitigate the effect of the camera bump.
Dan didn't say. That's the point. There's a critical piece of information missing.
Let's say the old ones had a tolerance of 1000 microns, but only one in ten million was off by more than 100 microns. The new ones have a tolerance of 400 microns, but maybe every third one they make comes close to that limit. That would both make Dan's statement true AND result in more units being visibly bent than in the past.
What Dan said does not preclude the possibility of there being lots of obviously bent iPads on the shelf. I'm not saying there are or are not, I have no way of knowing, but just that Dan's statement does not provide an answer one way or the other.
But seriously, I get what you're saying and don't intend my comment as a reflection on you or your point. It is kinda indicative of how willing we are to ignore compromised design decisions as long as they're made by Apple, though.
And yet the camera bump hasn’t generated a cry for Apple to accept returns of iPads with one, as we’re seeing in this thread. Even though it would produce entirely the same issue you complained the bend would produce, a rocking back and forth of the iPad when used laying upon a flat surface.
Check out the MacRumors iPad sub forum.
Occam’s Razor would also suggest that a company that’s been designing and manufacturing (with the same manufacturing partners for years) iPads all along with bending tolerances would not radically alter its manufacturing process or chassis design without taking this aspect fully into consideration, and that indeed strong evidence that Apple has taken it into consideration is the fact their tolerances are now even tighter (you don’t get that by accident or neglect).
Considering the above, it seems far more likely that the flat edges with sharp corners allows a person to discern the bend versus the theory that you propose; that Apple somehow had less variance in past manufacturing versus today. The tighter tolerances, to my mind, argue against your theory, because it tells me Apple has been very consciously focusing on the propensity for bending all along and they would have looked hard at this in trial manufacturing runs of various proposed chassis design changes.
what is their response supposed to be beyond telling you what their tolerances are and replacing your unit if it exceeds those tolerances? They didn’t say that an iPad Pro that’s bent out of shape is acceptible. That’s really sort of something that the verge added to what Apple actually said.
As for the rest of your made up scenario, I would imagine that despite the buyer being stupid enough to start bending it, Apple would accept it back. It’s not a crisis. Just clickbait.
Your reading comprehension is bent. While no product should be damaged or exceed tolderances, here IRL we all know it happens from time to time. Such defects are returned and exchanged.
And yep, there are plenty of good reasons to make our devices thinner and lighter.
Did you buy one? (no) Is it defective? (no) Did you return for it? (no) Were you refused? (no). So...no problem.