Newest is always better ? Even with data support

Taylormade Stealth just release not too long ago, and already there are issues brought up by users.
In my not 100% scientific mind on this subject, multi- material stretched to the limit of their tolerance level is not good news.
At $600 stock and over $800+ with optional shafts, this will be a large purchase for most of us.
Laminated face and ceramic material is nothing new , even for golf equipment. Composite heads had been around long before the use of titanium.
Had tried the Yonex, which was one of the leader in composite material in badminton and tennis racket back in the 70’s and the 80’s. Returned the set of woods after one month of use, with spots chipped away from the club face. Also tried the Callaway first generation composite head, returned due to the same reason.
The engineering research data was based upon a controlled condition, clean golf ball with clean club face … not the case in reality. If I purchased a driver for the game, I’d expect reasonable durability, under the normal playing condition. It is just not possible to wipe down the driver face and use a brand new golf ball before each tee shot.
same rant, for most of the new stuff these days; I believe the OEM are not building quality products to last “awhile”, the typical product cycle is about 3-5 years, with care of using.
It seems to me, the world is running on data and numbers now,more than life experience itself. It’s the same case in the sports of golf. At some point, we’ll need to separate the fantasy from what’s really happening. Case in point. I know someone who is well respected in his field worldwide. His study and theory worked perfectly on paper ( or spread sheet), but the real world is ( was ) not ready to accept the change,just yet, if ever. I’m certain, his thesis presentation for his PHD and the research for work later all made perfect sense st the time; but most of them failed when put into field rest. When will we learn ?
I’m for one who will not fork out a grand for a new driver knowing that it’ll probably have durability issue very soon.
I’m hanging on to my older golf clubs for that reason, alone.

I agree, though I gather you are a single digit handicapper, yes?

What does the handicap index got to do with the topic? No I’m not currently holding a single index and never was a plus for a weekend warrior.

Most won’t realize, part of the MSRP for the new golf clubs are marked-up with the replacement cost ( especially with the driver and other woods, and now the hollowed face irons ).
The OEM figure-in the estimated replacement cost due to product failure, added to the suggested MSRP. The reduction of price after the new model year can figured in the real cost of warranty replacement since introduction. After the warranty period, they can figure out how big a discount they could give for the remaining inventory at a sale price, or how big a rebate to the retail stores.
This is not unique to the golf equipment industry. The largest case in recent memory is the Ford Pinto catching fire after a rear end collision. They figured out the industry accident rate with the casualty related lawsuit and the possible settlement, they opt to leave the recall by anticipating the settlement with the possible cases in the future will be less than the recall.
Same as the Golf driver, they figured in the potential warranty replacement + injury settlement divided by the total projected number from sale; add that number to the budgeted MSRP.
So on a wild guess, the $800 driver with stock shaft offering, out of which close to $150-$200 per driver is the anticipated damage control amount added for potential replacement cost. If the driver will have no warranty claim, the MSRP could very well be close to 600 and still bring a reasonable profit margin.
Look at it this way. The sale price for the previous model year could very well be the supposed real term MSRP before the damage control expenses. Which means the OEM probably could sell the same driver for under $600 and still makes a good margin.