No product is bug-free. Much more important than the bug itself is IMO the way in which the vendor deals with bug reports. Are they acknowledged at all? Is the vendor willing to fix bugs? And how long do I need to wait for fixes?
^^That, exactly that. I've a few Rigol items but I'm mostly ambivalent to the brand. They are tools which work for me, at a price I'm prepared to pay for them, end of. However, "disappointed" is more on target, if I'm really asked and more important to Rigol themselves, I'm now reluctant to purchase anything else from them.
Someone here previously said words to the effect that "software shouldn't be released until it is fully specified, 100% correct". Nice idea in theory, and true(er) if you're working on code for life-at-risk applications. However, in today's world, that's not how development is done, not if you ever want to release anything and make some money so that you can continue to develop it further. So long as the code/product gives some value to someone in its current state, relative to its cost to them (direct and indirect) it's good to go. The (massively important) corollary to this is, successful software companies/publishers have an effective feedback loop around that.
You engage with your user base and actively solicit and encourage that engagement. You log and track their issues (preferably openly and publicly) and you correct and adapt with regular release cycles. You, within varying margins of error, publish the proposed content of future releases and estimated timescales. You have an effective release management process (not "why is this F/W revision available on one international site but not another?) This is what, imho, is missing from Rigol's approach and which if in place, would remove much of the negative sentiment we're seeing playing out in the above conversations. They've a GitHub repository but where is the bug list? Where is the user forum? Where is the engagement / response to users? Where is the published release cadence? They do nothing of value with it, such a wasted opportunity for a company largely addressing today's hobbyists for which this is development 101.
You CAN make money, capture markets and simultaneously satisfy users with alpha/beta release products/software (see Tesla, or Apple iPhone before them, if you're in any doubt) and it's a perfectly valid strategy. But you have to play the game as intended.
BTW - Rigol, if you're reading, I've a couple of decades in software product management and I'm available. I'd be happy to show you how this is done.