> Your statement uses the presence of bugs to indicate a product is worth using.

This is not correct; "If a product is worth using, then it has bugs." (P→Q) does not imply its converse "If a product has bugs, then it is worth using." (Q→P). Buginess is presented as a necessary condition of being worth using, not a sufficient one.

It does, however, imply "If a product has no bugs, then it is not worth using.".

To be clear, my statement is that "No product worth using is bug free" (which is what dpark said) does not mean the same as "all bug free products are worth using" (which is what your response to dpark implied).

> It doesn’t have any discriminating power.

That was exactly my point. The presence of bugs in a product (in this case Apple Maps) does not mean it should not ship. “No open bugs” cannot be the criteria for whether a product is ready to ship.

That “pointing out” is, itself, “not useful either.”