undefined | Better HN

0 pointsnumpad022d ago0 comments

IMO "build quality" is not the right term here. At least to me, "build quality" refers to how evenly examples are made and how close the real world examples adheres to manufacturing blueprints.

If finishes and gaps are tight, all around bodies and across examples, the build quality is GOOD. If every units looked slightly different and some were outright broken straight out of the box, then the build quality is BAD. Even if they were worthy of included in the MoMA collection.

Both Microsoft and Apple(or their paid Chinese outsources) are top notch. Every units looks the same and flats on the bodies are really flat. Industrial design and usability, like sharp corners and fugly aesthetics, are different issues entirely.

0 comments

hightrix22d ago

You're right. "Build Quality" isn't the right term.

Maybe "Overall Quality" or "Device Quality" would work better. The point is that my MBP has held up MUCH better over time than my Surface, which is barely able to charge at this point.

hedora22d ago

No; "Build Quality" is the right term.

Manufacturing tolerance is the term for "how close are they all to being the same shape?" Good tolerances are usually a prerequisite to good build quality, but not always.

For instance, cast iron pans can have poor tolerances (be off by fractions of inches), but, as long as they're not warped, and the metallurgy is solid, they could last centuries, and people would say they have good build quality.

On the other hand, a stainless steel pan that's volumetrically-perfect, but has faulty internal welds on the laminated bottom could fall apart after a few uses due to heat strain snapping the welds. That'd be terrible build quality.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse