I hear you, BUT lets look at a very recent and highly publicized case where a manufacturer has intentionally deceived the consumer;
The Volkswagen Emissions Cheating scandal (in the USA). Here we have a well established company that flat-out falsified documentation in a direct attempt to lie to the US government and the consumer. This is not simply a case of over-stating a capability it was intentional deception.
And while I do understand the "ideal circumstances" statement that many companies make, BUT how do they fine "ideal"? Is that written somewhere? Is there documentation which states what the "ideal" circumstances are? Are these published? Are the results published and can be easily found? In the case of top speed, was this a one-off situation and was accomplished once? How easily repeatable is it?
Are these circumstances realistic? Again using top speed as an example. What is DJI's definition of "ideal"? Flying with a specialized light weight battery that may way less than what you or I might buy and have a higher output? Does their definition of "ideal" for speed run mean a tail-wind of 20 mph? Sure I'm exaggerating, but its to make a point that we, or at least I don't know how "ideal circumstances" are defined.
And I understand there are "degrees" to this and can be attributed to "circumstances" as long as we see results on both sides of the claim. Going back to top-speed, I see quite a few people posting speeds above the DJI claimed 45 mph. So, I'd attribute the ones who have not been able to achieve that speed to other circumstances other than a deception on behalf of DJI. But I'd be suspicious about DJI's top-speed claim if everyone posted that the speed they were achieving was far less than the claimed 45 mph with no one hitting 45 mph.
Regardless of being early adopters or not, IF a manufacturer makes a claim they need to show that it can be achieved. Being an early adopter doesn't mean getting less than what you paid for.
I have nothing but praise for DJI. I like what they have to offer or I wouldn't own 3 of their drones. Are they perfect? No, but they aren't claimed to be. So I'm definitely not picking on them. My point is much more broad, that we as consumer's shouldn't dismiss claims made by other owners just because we don't use that function. We shouldn't assume the manufacture is always being truthful (just look at my 2nd paragraph). Again, I'm NOT picking on DJI....
First let me say that I´m not making excuses for DJI, or saying anyone is being picky. By all means, if one´s Mavic has any issue that compromises any of the original, intended - and advertised - features or functions, at any level, one should pursue repair, replacement or refund as one sees best. I´d do the same if mine was faulty.
When I say "adjust our expectations" I mean that in our own interest. And not only to avoid frustration, disappointment or anger. But to really have our needs and wishes fulfilled accordingly, and to fight for our rights in a more productive way. "Special conditions testing" is not exclusive to DJI, that I know for sure. Special tires, special fuel, special engine settings... It´s the rule, and it´s allowed because a minimum of standardization is necessary for obvious reasons.
That´s why there´s a host of institutions specialized in independent testing out there. Labs, magazines, the like (though the level of independency or even accuracy - or the very concept itself - is debatable, so I won´t enter that merit). So, if something doesn´t perform within a certain margin from what has been advertised, and the user is not to fault, then of course the right thing to do is to go and seek our rights.
If we take previous DJI quads from yrs past as an indication (that´s all we got, really), it´s perhaps a small number of problematic Mavics compared to total sold. As usual, it makes a lot of noise making things look worse even for perfect Mavic owners.
I know that´s in no way consolation for pilots with problematic Mavics, or dealing with the frustrating customer support. But I see DJI as no different than any other new company involved with new tech that is in high demand and growing fast. Perhaps too fast. That´s usually a bad combination of factors, for the consumer I mean. But that´s how it is, the only real power we have is choice: to Mavic, or not. It may or may not improve with time, my guess is it will just not sure when or how.
Of course I expect the Mavic to perform well within its specs and list of features. It´s unnaceptable that the "generated products" (images) as well as the "camera carrier" (the AC itself) act crazy or unreliably. There are safety issues to be considered as well, besides all the others. But we´ll have to go thru this, and DJI too, one way or another.