Not really related to this but some comments on the SB/SP4 issues which there seem to be a bit too many.
I tried to think some way to preserve a release schedule while still allowing for larger internal QA.
Back in early days of C9 recall "dogfooding" being talked about (prior to automated testing hype). When the decision was made to put brand new custom firmware to Surface, I think the launch should have gone 1. Launch 2. public reserve to assess demand (don't bill yet) & keep dogfooding (say produce some 1000 units and have them assigned to biggest internal complainers & no-men - assuming they weren't all fired lol) 3. don't bill yet (or just take email for availability reminder) and extend the shipping date until most frequent complaints are addressed. 4. if those 1000 units didn't have serious hardware issue then allow the testers to keep them or something as payment for the testing .. Put some kinda prizes that go down over time, so the testers that most quickly find serious issues get paid, so you get a bit of a window to fix them before starting to mfg the units going to public.
note "been mentioned more than once" ... so it's already filtered list. Such issues should be caught in QA.
So bleeding edge hw and firmware has some issues. There's probably an expectations management mismatch here - public is likely expecting 4th gen Surface Pro 4, when infact if you put in some brand new custom firmware made from scratch, it's really a 1st gen device, there's no going around that. Analog: Same hardware SSD but different vendor firmware - close study of performance finds the performance may have large anomalies despite same hw.
I doubt consumers have much recourse beyond returning the product but I could see a scenario where there is unexpected amount of returns and poor tracking of what was the fault in each return. If there's a bunch of intermittent faults that are hard to repro and aren't recorded during the return process, you could end up with similar reputation as the rest of the PC oems.
While all the comparable competition is still stuck in 16:9 displays, MS does have time to fix this but damage (lost Mac converts) probably piles up quickly given how impressive the launch hype was yet the fw/sw side is sounding like not quite meeting the expectations (reality or atleast perception of certain "polishedness" that the Apple devices tend to give, reality may not quite be that but competition with Apple is a lot about this perception is reality stuff).
I read some of the updates that fix some big issues are not actually critical so the user has to do something to patch those. Probably the right decision in long term, but given the half-baked release state, might have been better to do some one-off first use mega patch that patched the FW etc as critical update.