[unfunco]

Without sounding rude, what's the actual difference? Or for that matter, how do we define quality? If you're talking about planned obsolescence then Apple could be excused for being in the technology market; which changes rapidly.

I use Apple products (except for a phone, which is a Nexus 4) and I nearly always feel that their products are of a higher quality, this might be because of materials (rarely plastic) or it might be because their UI seems much more refined than other offerings, I always feel with Apple that they have obsessed over the details. If quality is perceived (perception, past-tense) – is it not quality? Or am I missing something? Quality can come from an assembly line too.

[InclinedPlane]

Some measures of quality are objective. In headphones, for example, one can measure the degree of distortion of the headphones in reproducing sounds. In smartphones one can measure the quality of the camera, the screen, the durability of the device, and so on.

Many of Apple's products do represent quality construction, but they extract a premium beyond even that and they often put out products which are objectively no better than the competition but which the public nevertheless swoons over and eagerly buys at a premium.

Indeed, the excess perception of quality in Apple products is such a well known phenomenon that it has a name: the Apple Reality Distortion Field. I've seen many comments in this thread alone demonstrating the truthfulness of that phenomenon.

[adamlett]

> Some measures of quality are objective.

Almost by definition, anything that is "measure" of something, is objective. But just because something can be measured, doesn't mean that it is important. It's a well described phenomenon that we tend to focus on only that which can reliably be measured, and tend to ignore that which cannot. At what point does sound quality become "good enough" that it takes a backseat to other parameters of quality? I've personally long maintained that in some important respects, the standard iPhone headphones are better than more expensive, objectively better sounding headphones that I've also used, simply because they get small, seemingly insignificant details right, like where on the chord is the microphone placed, and how long is the chord, and how do they feel in my ear. I'm constantly surprised at how little consideration is usually given to details line these in even very high end headphones.

The point I am trying to make is this: Subjective perception of quality is far more important than objective measures of quality. The best product is the one that does the job well enough and is the most delightful to use.