AH, I get it.
So, releasing content that breaks promises, disappoints, and simply doesn't work for a certain population of customers, putting them out $60, is
specially evil, whereas putting out hardware that breaks promises (backwards compatibility jankiness, broken software: CoD; next gen graphic fanciness that isn't yet working universally), actually even
flat out breaks under normal use for some people,
inconsistent supply chain issues that actually result in a fundamental performance characteristic that will limit some devices compared to others (heat/noise/overall performance/life), which actually equally effects all possible customers for the product (in terms of general potential), and all they are asking for is 10x the cost to each consumer....is somehow "normal corporate behavior."
Me, I'm of the mind that they are not only the same issue, from any perspective, but also equally expected, if not also equally disappointing for all the same reasons/whatever--if you are going to jump in on first gen/first release content in this known world with all the known risks...yet again: caveat emptor! you literally signed the contract with that risk. ANd of course bear in mind that, pretty much all of these issues have very high chance and expectation from everyone (including most of those disappointed for whatever reason), of being addressed and fixed. At least, the potential is pretty good. Yet, strangely, many people very much enjoy these same products, even if they have experienced some of these issues to a certain degree. It's amazing how consumers can have such a wide perspective on this when just, well, thinking rationally under certain tolerances.
...I just can't rationalize why one is evil and the other is not, for the exact same thing.