Pirsig dances a lot around definitions, but he doesn't define quality objectively at all. On the contrary, he defends its subjectivity and subjectivity itself. If you want to talk Pirsig, what I meant is that most consumers seem to view things only in terms of romantic quality and then infer an equal level of classical quality, which is, at best, illogical. Especially when classical and romantic quality are at odds, like in usage of soft plastic or phones that are ready to disassemble upon collision, absorbing kinetic energy, instead of taking it all in, inelastically. A "hard" outer shell is equated to a "good feel" when it's in fact not desirable at all on such devices. Please refer to ZAMM, more specifically the story about his friend that would try to start a hot bike by choking it, then complain about the bike.
By the way, no need to be rude, call my argument a "childish stawman" or act smug by suggesting reading material you assume I'm not familiar with. It's needless hostility, especially when you seem to have simply misunderstood my point (and one of said works).