Not sure what analogy you're getting at with crack. Separate from the moral valence you're trying to ascribe to it, of course it's a great product in some respects. Though I'd suggest that explaining why a single molecule that interacts ~directly with the brain's reward system is a "good product" is much easier than something like a smartphone or car.
[0] One example I happen to know about had to do with the really complex machining that was required on one of the iPhones (forget which) to make the bevel around the screen bezel wrap around the corner in a way that felt (but was not actually) "flat" relative to the straight-line parts of the bevel. Without this multi-axis beveling, which was apparently a complete nightmare to figure out how to manufacture, the corners would've "seemed" sharper. Does that mean someone would pick up an iPhone and remark how nice it is that the corner bevel rotates another 3 degrees or whatever? Obviously not. Does that mean this was a complete waste of time? No one knows. Apple's market cap, margins, adoption, and consumer loyalty point toward them doing something uniquely right though.
The ability that you have to equate affinity/addiction to "good/quality" is downright creepy, and sadly symptomatic of literally the worst bits of all of technology.
If you're operating in real life like this, please stop.
"Good product," at least in English, generally means "a product that people successfully and happily use for its intended purpose." It doesn't usually mean "a product that does good in the world." There are plenty of very good products that don't do good things in the world. If you're operating in real life as if these are inseparable features of an object, please stop.
Well, I suppose you can carry on. Again, if it's useful for you to believe everyone else is an idiot and that, now, good product == product that does good, go ahead. I think this is a very low-resolution picture of reality though, and is probably the source of some of your confusion.
It is absolutely the case that the definition you are using can serve as a technically correct one. But that's not very important. What is important is that real people are being harmed by exploitative technology, and you handwaving that away as if it should be a dismissable part of the conversation is you doing a bad thing.
I find much more value in the view that a great product is the confluence of millions of tiny, apparently inconsequential decisions. It seems completely believable that if the product developers are successful, I as the consumer would struggle to reverse engineer what all of those decisions are by looking at the finished product.