I'm not sure it's wise to enter this debate but here goes.
The Iyonix problem referred to in the main story is not an issue of completeness, it's an issue of some faulty machines. The nature of the fault is intermittent, though exacerbated in certain circumstances. There has been a process of refining those circumstances to reproduce the fault more frequently; this is a standard technique for dealing with intermittent problems that are otherwise very time-consuming to solve.
The number of machines affected is unclear (to the general reader of the Iyonix Smartgroup at least). I presume that someone with a badly affected machine would return it to Castle for repair/replacement/refund. No-one has said that they've done this, though I wouldn't read too much into that since they might regard it as a private matter.
My machine, I'm pleased to say, has shown none of the problem symptoms. This *seems* to be the experience of the large majority of active posters to the group. Equally, the machine has been 'complete', in terms of the promised spec, since day one (mine is over a year old now). It has got a lot faster and slightly more capable as Castle have onward developed it but I don't see that as completeness.
I can't comment on the Omega personally but it would seem from the Press that it had some features mssing at launch; that would be a completeness issue. Presumably that has either been resolved now or owners are content to wait for its resolution. If they're not, and they've been sold a product that does not match its description, then they have the same right to a replacement or refund. Surely this is not relevant to the Iyonix mod-programme?