I suppose the real question here is how people define quality. In my mind materials used, sophistication of visual design and mechanical engineering design, performance, and last but not least longevity/serviceability, equate quality.
It is questionable in my mind whether Apple's policy of soldering ram, proprietary SSD, glued batteries and non serviceable parts equate *quality* - not to be confused with *performance*.
In fact while looking inside the current MBP for example, where most of the real estate is comprised of glued battery modules and non serviceable parts just does not exude mechanical design excellence, rather visually is a meh...
Much like a digital movement watch that performs better than an analogue one, the digital watch works are throw away and replace components, compared to the mechanical construction of the analogue, which if constructed with excellence will stand the test of time in it's beauty of craftmanship and serviceability, the digital watch works will not, in all it's ugliness. But hey a beautiful case with a brand name makes the perception of quality in a digital.
Superficial beauty only combined with performance I think holds true for Apple these days where the cost of integrating all parts that used to be serviceable unto one motherboard (it's just one big throw away chip) is not only cheaper to manufacture chassi design wise, and much more profitable, especially if accidents happen where you are SOL even with applecare.
Collectible? I doubt it, serviceable - no way, expensive- hell yes, quality - well thats debatable.
