There are a lot of assumptions behind the idea that if you see "bad packaging," which you don't define, then it implies the company doesn't care about the rest

There are a lot of assumptions behind the idea that if you see "bad packaging," which you don't define, then it implies the company doesn't care about the rest of the package. The author's example of "standard packaging" is not bad packaging, as it does its job well. It protects the product, the reason for the purchase, and it isn't difficult for the user to unpack. It might arguably be more environmentally friendly in its use of corrugated cardboard, and I have no idea about the foam. But it is likely less wasteful on this measure than Apple's packaging when you consider the entire process required. When you tack on the "customer experience" aspect of this packaging, not caring about creating luxury packaging doesn't mean the company does not think about the user's experience or care about the product itself. In the author's situation, the user is more aware of how wasteful and unnecessary this packaging is, and it doesn't help his experience. It also makes the product unnecessarily expensive. Apple only has the best packaging in every way if you ignore these negative aspects. Apple has also used the more standard packaging approach for some of its products, such as laptops, in the recent past, but with white printed cardboard. Does that mean Apple didn't care or pay attention to detail back then?