Slashdot Mirror

Yeah, factually untrue. Industry statistics show Apple products to be consistently the most dependable you can buy.

That's a myth. It's only true if you rely on subjective surveys which are vulnerable to self-bias. Owners of Apple products basically like to believe their products are more reliable, so report them as such. Same reason BMW and Mercedes owners rate their vehicles so highly, when the repair rates show them to be average or below average in dependability.

If you use objective data like extended warranty insurance claim rates or repair rates at a computer repair shop, while Apple is top tier, they are hardly the best. (Their repair rates are probably biased low too, because a larger percentage of Mac owners first think to take their Macbook to an Apple store, rather than a generic computer repair store.)

http://www.squaretrade.com/htm/pdf/SquareTrade_laptop_reliability_1109.pdf
http://www.rescuecom.com/news-press-releases/computer-reliability-report-2014-q3.aspx
http://www.rescuecom.com/news-press-releases/computer-reliability-report-2014-q2.aspx
http://www.rescuecom.com/news-press-releases/computer-reliability-report-2014.aspx
http://www.rescuecom.com/news-press-releases/computer-reliability-report-2013-q3.aspx
http://www.rescuecom.com/news-press-releases/computer-reliability-report-2013-q2.aspx
http://www.rescuecom.com/news-press-releases/computer-reliability-report-2013-q1.aspx
http://www.rescuecom.com/news-press-releases/computer-reliability-report-2012-q3.aspx
http://www.rescuecom.com/news-press-releases/computer-reliability-report-2012-q2.aspx
http://www.rescuecom.com/news-press-releases/computer-reliability-report-2012.aspx

And if you don't yet know, Apple doesn't make the Macbooks. They're made by Quanta. Quanta is an ODM - original design manufacturer. Like an OEM except they also design the product. Quanta also happens to make most of HP's laptops. The vast majority of laptops sold are made by ODMs, not the brand names you see on the box. While the brand name exhibits some executive control over acceptable quality control criteria, it's really the ODM which determines build quality.

I'd say 2 years is probably a good estimate. Most people replace their iPhone after 2 years. Some of them will put their old phones in a drawer and forget about them, while others will give them to their kids (as a phone with service, or as a WiFi only iPod), while others will trade-in or sell their old phone which will keep it in circulation even longer. That would make the average life longer than 2 years, but 25% of iPhones don't even make it to 2 years.

Since that seems to be the thing Best Buy makes money off of, why not sell only the warranties that they try to weasel out of?

Because I'd hope that Square Trade would mop the floor with them. Story time:

I bought an original black-and-white Nook two years ago. Since they were newish at the time and some people had problems with the plastic bezel cracking, I bought a 3rd-party warranty from SquareTrade for maybe $20. Last month, I realized that my Nook's stuck pixel that I'd hoped would unstick itself was actually a crack on the screen. I wrote SquareTrade and told them that I'd somehow managed to break my Nook. They sent me a pre-paid shipping slip to mail it back to them, and last week I got a check for a 100% refund of the original purchase price. I am never buying a retailer's extended warranty again.

http://www.squaretrade.com/pages/laptop-reliability-1109/?ccode=bs_war_buyerblog

Not a cracked case, but creaky palmrests, keyboard keys becoming unresponsive, the touchpad buttons becoming loose...

Never had any of these issues. My mother's old Dell laptop had a faulty keyboard after something like 6 years. Not that it was unresponsive, but a few keys were no longer working. She insisted on having it repaired so I ordered a new keyboard for like $20 on ebay. Big deal. Most people change their laptop before it breaks physically anyway. What I've changed the most is probably hard drives, and all companies use the same brands.

Oh yeah and according to square trade, Lenovo's reliability is just between Dell and Acer, below average.
http://www.squaretrade.com/htm/pdf/SquareTrade_laptop_reliability_1109.pdf

And however much you want to fight it: Apple tools do get the job done, and last longer while doing it.

I'd like to believe it, but I didn't find any scientific evidence supporting it. All I hear is anecdotal statements such as:

HP sucks, Lenovo rules!!!
Dell sucks, Apple rules!!!
Acer sucks, my friend's Acer lasted only 6 months!!!

Squaretrade made statistics with over 30,000 laptops

http://www.squaretrade.com/pages/laptop-reliability-1109/?ccode=bs_war_buyerblog

Asus came first, followed by Toshiba, in terms of reliability. Sony came better than Apple. HP was the worst. Even worse than Acer and Gateway.

Apple did slightly better than the average, but given that what they call "premium laptops" (those over $1000), which include almost all Apple laptops, also did better than the average, Apple didn't score any better than the competition.

HP has been one of the worst PC manufacturers in the last 10 years (if not more). I have had a very low view of their PCs since the time they started selling thsose small towers with everything cramped in (about 10 years ago).

Completely agree. I'd suggest using Square Trade's published reliability by manufacturer report to narrow the possibilities. Asus, Toshiba, Sony, maybe Dell.

If there is a particularly good retailer in your area, buy from them. (In the UK, John Lewis offer a two year warranty with all laptops.)

I delved deep into the heart of reddit and slashdot, amazon and best buy reviews, various PC manufacturers' help forums, complaint forums, tech review websites, and even youtube. I slithered past reviews citing unexplainable ear-splitting whiny noises, dick-melting fan heat, and horrendous customer support. I viewed so much marketing bullcrap from the likes of Dell and HP that my eyes nearly fell out of my skull.

I did this in search of The One: the laptop I knew I would grow to depend on for constant usage 12-15 hours per day for the next 3-5 years, the laptop that would meet all of my insane expectations like good customer support, a manufacturer that employs engineers who have their heads on straight, and steep technical requirements that I thought would be impossible to find. I needed a laptop with a 250+GB hard drive, a 2.0+ghz processor, 2+GB RAM, plus no-bull-crap, honest, actual, reportedly GOOD battery life, a 13"+ screen, AND here's the kicker. It had to weigh less than 4 pounds AND be under $800.

Netbooks and tablets were too small, too weak. All the well-known laptops like Dells and HP's were cheap but too heavy, their battery life ephemeral at best, and their small hard drives loaded with bloatware.

You can all thank God that I did not give up then and there.

I now hold in my hands The One. The best bang-for-your-buck laptop on the market today. I'll be god damned if you can find a better deal.

I chose to buy a Toshiba Portege R705-P35 for $700 flat.

It has a 13.3" screen, which is kind of small, but still big enough to do some serious reading on it. It's a very small price to pay for:

• - 7.5 honest hours of reading mode (i.e. minimum screen brightness, no wifi, optical drive turned off-- yes you can easily do that on this laptop) and 5.5 honest hours of work mode (i.e. watching videos, screen on decent brightness, saving spreadsheets and docs, web surfing)
• - 2.4ghz i3 processor, a 500GB hard drive, and 4GB of RAM, capable of handling all but the most ridiculously intensive office tasks
• - a laptop that my withering, weakened body can easily hold and walk around with, using just ONE hand. It weighs in at just 3.2 lbs, which is only 0.3 lbs more than a 13" Macbook Air (and it is only 0.25" thicker than a 13" Macbook Air)

Even better, in 2009, Toshiba was ranked #2 by Squaretrade in terms of lowest laptop malfunction rates after 3 years. My R705 looks and feels solid. I'll admit it doesn't feel as nice as a Macbook Air, but considering that I saved over $500 vs a less well-equipped Macbook Air and didn't bend to Steve Jobs' will, it's good enough. Also, the R705 comes with an optical drive (take THAT, Macbook Air).

TLDR: I love my Toshiba Portege R705-P35 and would kill anyone who comes near it with bad intentions.

Agree about the Toshiba, hugely disagree with HP for any purpose, and suggest Asus as a second choice (even though at the three year mark it fairs better than others according to this report from Squaretrade.

Upon further reflection you retreat to a lesser claim. That is sufficient for me. I'll trade your reader survey for research by a 3rd warranty firm with results that affect their bottom line.

http://www.squaretrade.com/pages/laptop-reliability-1109/

If I had to quantify your initial claim I would not fall upon 4th place out of 9. Even your retreat tis barely acceptable.

There's also research demonstrating Apple Laptops are less reliable than offerings from Asus, Toshiba, and Sony.
 
  http://www.squaretrade.com/htm/pdf/SquareTrade_laptop_reliability_1109.pdf
 
I think it's quite possible that there are a few initial quality control issues with a new product offering from any company, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the company's standards have gone down.

He's joking. Grand parent knows that Apple stuff usually lasts longer than their PC counterparts. He's just riffing on the trite meme that Apple stuff is only purchased by people who think they are hip and trendy. Grand parent is probably not a programmer.

Reality disagrees. Apple laptops ranked 4th behind Asus, Toshiba, and Sony in the SquareTrade laptop reliability study. http://www.squaretrade.com/htm/pdf/SquareTrade_laptop_reliability_1109.pdf

I'm mystified as to why this is new for nerds, it's so terribly uninteresting. I can't see anything other than a (comparatively expensive) moderate upgrade to unremarkable hardware.

Statistics for laptop malfunctions http://www.squaretrade.com/htm/pdf/SquareTrade_laptop_reliability_1109.pdf indicate that for a higher price you get poorer reliability than many more modestly priced laptops.

I can appreciate that Apple computers are considered to be high quality to the general public but they don't seem to do things any better than a PC with Linux so where's the nerd angle in this?

>

I'm getting really tired of hearing otherwise educated people tell me that Apple's success is "just" due to marketing.

Problem is, in many ways it really is with fanboi/media misinformation mixed in. I mean, lets be honest here. If you are being told by fanbois and the media (amoungst marketing) that, today, you can buy a laptop that has the longest battery life, isn't able to get a malware of any form, is ranked the highest by companies like Consumer Report, never crashes/has errors, has the highest build quality, lasts for 5+ years and the competition can only last 3 years at best, and is also backup honestly by its company, then why wouldn't you want this amazing, heaven sent object? And this is how people bill Apple products. But its wrong and misinformed to levels of lying.

A MBP is according to Apple supposed to get 8-9 hours battery life (I hear more that its more honestly around 7 hours). Best battery life you can get right? Well, most average laptops get around 6-8 hours battery life in real world settings (most laptops come with NVidia's power swap tech to do this), which give or take, matches the MBP. Asus also released a basic laptop that can get 12 hours of battery life (Asus UL50). And while its specs aren't the best, it would easily allow you to surf the web, watch videos, Facebook, ect... things average people do making it a good choice for most people.

How about OSX can't get malware? I've heard people claim that because of how OSX is made, it is just impossible to do. Here is a list of OSX malware. No OS is immune. As for why you don't hear much about them is a good amount to deal with OSX's usage numbers. Depending where you look, your looking at guesses of 6.4%-9.6% of all computers are OSX. A little less then 1 in 10, so that means less users to mention about the problems, and the media doesn't really care to publish it. Lets be honest, problem X which is only a concern for a little less then 1 in 10 users isn't going to grab much attention and/or sell papers/web ads.

As for getting rave reviews from people like Consumer Reports? They just finished a report stating that the 11 inch Air is the best laptop in the 11 inch category. Wow, a great thing to note that Apple seems to rock that category... too bad it was compared to the Toshiba Satellite, and nothing else. They didn't even try to match it up to something else, just made sure to stack it in Apples favor. Didn't want it to be out done by the Alienwaress m11x because doubt Apple would have won then.

Never crashes or have errors? Go check Apples official forums for examples. Or other unofficial forums, people bring their Macs to the "Genius Bar" in every Apple store. You might notice, yes they do have errors. Not everyone has problems, but same goes for things like Windows. The hard numbers show more problems with Windows, but what percentage of it's users? I'm willing to bet it might be more of an even number. And please, don't pull up some old, badly out of date Windows anything and compare it to a brand new, top of the line Apple anything. Thats just purposely stacking it in Apples favor. Keep them in line. Old Windows anything, match with equal old Apple anything.

Apple has the best built laptops? Squaretrade just did a 3 year study showing that Apple is more honestly in 4th place for build quality, behind Asus, Toshiba and Sony. Study

People also claim that only Apple computers can last and/or run 5 years or more. Many people have computers/laptops running Windows that are that old and older and they still run fine after all this time. Also, many schools and libraries have Windows machines this old that are still running showing that yes, they can too.

As for warranties Apple stands by? Typical 1 year unless you buy the 3 year warranty, same as most companies. Same limits, options, ect... But Apple has also been noted for using sensor

I'm sure this has nothing to do with people breaking their iPhone 4 on purpose because the antenna is bad and they want a different model phone or heard they're redesigning the iPhone 4 in September

FTFA: "With just 4 months of data, it's clear that the iPhone 4 is significantly more prone to physical damage than its predecessor."

Actually that's not what that means. What is clear is people are breaking the iPhone 4 more than they did the 3GS. Could be any number of factors, doesn't necessarily mean iPhone 4 screen worse than 3GS. I think squaretrade needs a Jump to Conclusions mat. It's pretty scary though that a company that offers warranties makes unscientific assumptions about the products they're warrantying, I'd expect a better conclusion than this from SquareTrade "Research"

Oh wait Captain Context, the article only has iPhone stats posted.

Try the index that contains this article and look at the other studies. There's an (admittedly older) article comparing the iPhone with the Blackberry and Treo.

Handheld gadgets with glass panels are fragile. Genius!

Nonsense. The 360 is far and away the winner of the unreliable hardware award, but your citation of 0.1% for the PS3 is nothing more than wishful thinking. Also, the PS3 is the undisputed champion of both unintentionally and intentionally screwing up their consoles with firmware updates.

Bottom line, there are very good reasons to avoid both manufacturers, were it not for the fact that the Wii is basically a Gamecube with a cuter controller.

Here's some hard data, best I can find in 5 minutes, on the relative failure rates, which are much less drastic than you propose:

http://www.squaretrade.com/htm/pdf/SquareTrade_Xbox360_PS3_Wii_Reliability_0809.pdf

From a quick look, I can see a news article from mid-2007 (so about 6 months after release) that claimed a 1% failure rate for Wii and PS3, which as far as I can see comes from district of EB game stores counting their returns, and who also reported a failure rate of the early 360's (the much worse ones) at between 25% and 33%, from an interview with "ripten", which I had never heard of before.

If that's your source -- and it shouldn't be, since it's not recent and is comparing ~8 months at most to years, and is not really well-substantiated, but let's give it to you -- then it's intellectually dishonest to give 65% as the failure rate to the 360.

A quick search shows the only source that gives a failure rate as bad as 65% for the 360 is one showing that that's basically the *pre-production factory reject rate*, which is not related to the retail failure rate (http://gamer.blorge.com/2008/09/06/in-depth-expos-reveals-microsofts-xbox-360-failure-rate-was-68/).

Anecdote time!

My grandma bought xboxes for me and two cousins shortly after they came out. One cousin's xbox failed; the replacement did not fail, and the other xboxes haven't failed. Odds of that are about 7% assuming a 65% failure rate. Maybe we're just lucky.

http://www.squaretrade.com/htm/pdf/SquareTrade_laptop_reliability_1109.pdf

I don't fully trust that study so take what you will from it.

"Trailing edge"?

Apple led the charge of SCSI, USB, FireWire, Bluetooth, integrated webcams, multitouch, WiFi, sudden motion sensors, new battery technologies, unibody construction, DVD burners...

TO start with, USB was developed by Microsoft amongst other company's according to Wikipedia, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Serial_Bus ) so I'm not believing that they led the charge of it. FireWire is made by Apple ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewire ), yet isn't the standard option with iPods, iPhones or other major Apple products, USB is. And if a company won't stand by it's own standards with its highest standing products, I wouldn't call that leading the charge. As for your other 'facts', they would take a lot of effort to figure out the truth, and with you blunt mis-understanding of USB alone makes me lean towards you talking whatever you feel without wanting/needing facts.

Current Macs all have Core2Duo or better. That is by *no* reckoning "trailing edge".

Since the Core2Duo was made in 2007, and most PC makers use the i3/5/7 chips that are new and faster... that would be considered trailing edge ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#Core_2_Duo )

Backlit keyboards, mini displayport, magsafe--these, or similar features, are by no means even *remotely* common.

Mini DisplayPort are Apple tech, so thats more of a 'force upon' then leading edge ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_Display_Port ) Similar to how a lot of Sony products use a Memory Stick. Its not forward thinking, its forward 'pushing'.

As for a premium, that's absurd. Macs cost similar, and often cheaper, than equivalently specced PCs.

I always do love this one. Total BS because all Apple users pray to god no one will check. So lets check. I'll compare the best 15 inch MacBook Pro to a Dell Alienware laptop of as similar spec's as I can: (and before I hear the 'Apple makes top quality hardware claims, this PDF comparing laptop hareware: http://www.squaretrade.com/htm/pdf/SquareTrade_laptop_reliability_1109.pdf )

Apple MacBook Pro: 15 inch ( http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MB985LL/A?mco=MTM3NDczMDg )

CPU: 2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo (only option)

RAM: 8GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x4GB

HD: 500GB Serial ATA Drive @ 7200 rpm

Display: 1440-by-900-pixel LED-backlit display

Graphics card: NVIDIA GeForce 9400M + 9600M GT with 512MB

Alienware 15.6 inch laptop: ( http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=19&l=en&oc=DKCWFW1&s=dhs )

CPU (best I could match, Dell doesn't use the older Core 2 Duo): Intel® Core i7-620M 2.66GHz (3.33Ghz Turbo Mode, 4M cache)

RAM: 8GB Dual Channel DDR3 at 1066MHz

HD: 500GB SATAII 7,200RPM

Display: WideHD+ 1600x900

Graphics card: 512MB NVIDIA® GeForce® GT 240M (new gen card)

Apple doesn't state it's battery size, so assumed 9 cell, the best

Both have wi-fi cards (Apple doesn;t say with one), backlit keyboards.

Now the Apple, with a smaller screen (pixel size), slower CPU, slower/older graphics card, older gen HD will set you back $2,749.00. The Faster Alienware with a faster CPU, newer graphics card, new gen HD, larger (pixel count) screen will set you back $2,024. Saving more then $700 for a faster laptop over the Apple... I don't see how your last claim works... But pl

Maybe you should rethink your definition of quality.

Synopsis:
SquareTrade analyzed failure rates for over 30,000 new laptop computers covered by SquareTrade Laptop Warranty plans and found that one-third of all laptops will fail within 3 years. SquareTrade also found that netbooks are 20% more unreliable than other laptops, and that Asus and Toshiba are the most reliable laptop brands.

http://www.squaretrade.com/pages/laptop-reliability-1109

I'll defend them a bit - they say in their paper that they exclude computers that were purchased as either refurbished or used.

But that's where my defense of their methodology ends. They say the total sample size was 30,000, and they analyzed 9 brands that had over 1,000 units each. IMHO, that's still a pretty small sample size. The margin of error on at least some of those numbers would be around ±3%; that would be enough for the "top 6" manufacturers to be roughly indistinguishable. Keeping that in mind, I'd say there are two groups of manufacturers, reliability-wise: Asus, Toshiba, Sony, Apple, and Dell are more reliable, and Lenovo, Acer, Gateway, and HP are less reliable - but only by a couple percent.

Also, I'd object similarly to their comparison of netbooks against the larger notebook market; they say in their paper that netbook market share was 10% of all laptops until Q4 last year, so I have to assume that their 1-year data is probably similar, meaning 10% of their 30,000 samples are netbooks. That means a margin of error around ±2%. However, the difference between netbooks and "premium laptops" in reliability at 1 year is only 1.6%.

Finally, I almost missed this, but all their 3-year reliability numbers for all laptops are "projections" from their 2-year data (their 3-year reliability numbers for netbooks are projected from just 1 year). So take any error they had at 2 years, multiply it by 3/2, and you're off even further - I suppose that means the margin of error on some of these numbers is probably closer to 4.5%.

All in all, I'd say their paper is a little light on numbers. There are a whopping 11 actual data points that they base all of their data on in the paper - the other 13 data points are projections (all but 1 is a projection from data that is not quoted in the paper). Add to that my general sense of distrust in anybody that sells an extended warranty, and, well, you get the idea.

Heck yes I call that acceptable. Like I said, consumer electronics failure rates are more than 10% for almost all devices: see the Consumer Reports report.

PS3 and Wii failure rates are supposed to be around 3%

If you would care to read about the YLOD, you would know better. My launch PS3 DID have a YLOD that was fixed with reflowing, so although I cannot confirm everyone in NA will be affected at one point, I do confirm the NA launch models have been affected.

Remember Sony is publicly acknowledging 0.5% failure rate. Several third parties are fixing PS3 affected by the YLOD in NA. Blame it on hot weather this summer if you will or because ice cream sales are good.

The funny part is that a quick search on google.ca turns up 6500 hits for YLOD while on google.co.uk turns up 7600 hits. Considering Canada is half the population of the UK one could assume some Canadians seem interested by this subject.

Oh and yes if you care, Squaretrade has a recent study and found PS3 to have 10% failure rates after 2 years, read the PDF here:
http://www.squaretrade.com/pages/xbox360-ps3-wii-reliability-08-2009

The XBOX gets 23.7% defects after 2 years.

Low cost?

Low cost per month but how many months?

Insurance costs are always looked on as low giving the short term cost but never the accumulated costs.

While totally agreeing with you, I'd like to add that you can buy insurances with a one-time fee. For example, there is a company that insures iPhones, with a one-time fee of $96 for an 8GB iPhone.

In fact, eBay does work with a third party mediation company, SquareTrade to help buyers and sellers resolve conflicts. It's one of the services listed on eBay's services page.

Granted, like in most mediations this does not guarantee a favourable outcome. But if you feel you have been defrauded of something, most credit card companies protect the buyer anyway.

Actually, it gets weirder.

Ebay's got this partnership/close-connection/they spam you with a group called SquareTrade that you can sign up for (I think you have to have certain number of feedbacks/powerseller status).

SquareTrade lets you do feedback resolution--though of course you have to send them an extra couple of dollars each month.

I guess ebay uses a third party to keep from being considered in any way responsible for comments... but I don't think it's that hard to remove negative feedback (never done it myself.)

Actually, it gets weirder.

Ebay's got this partnership/close-connection/they spam you with a group called SquareTrade that you can sign up for (I think you have to have certain number of feedbacks/powerseller status).

SquareTrade lets you do feedback resolution--though of course you have to send them an extra couple of dollars each month.

I guess ebay uses a third party to keep from being considered in any way responsible for comments... but I don't think it's that hard to remove negative feedback (never done it myself.)

However, while there are places like SquareTrade that remove feedback, I still find eBay's policy of NOT removing libellous comments irresponsible at best.

As a seller on eBay for more than 5 years, now with more than 1500 feedback comments (99.2% positive), I have felt every negative for WEEKS! after I have gotten them; getting emails about what went wrong, etc etc. I also KNOW LOTS of eBayers will peruse through feedback, even with my high rating and look for my one or two negatives. Where this really comes into play is if the buyer is a problematic or habitual complainer, they will use your previous negatives as ammo against you to say, "See, you have a past of poor service" (Not that I experience that many problems) Just, it seems the last two negatives I have gotten as an excuse to justify the poster's poor communication skills.

I wish eBay had a trade sytem, like exchange 1000 positives for 1 negative once a year. OR I wish they would institute a system that makes it as diificult to leave a negative as it is to apply for an auction fees listing credit. Like; post, wait 10 days before it ACTUALLY posts to the other account, in the meantime, seller/buyer are warned of the potential of the negative comment, on the 10th day negative poster can choose to return to eBay and finalize the comment. This gives oppotunity to work something out.

From: Squaretrade

You can have your negative feedback removed as part of an arbitration process, IF both parties agree and pay $20.

Q. What circumstances will eBay will consider removing Feedback?

A. In limited situations eBay may remove feedback without a ruling or settlement agreement from SquareTrade. See eBay's Feedback Removal Policy for more information.

eBay will remove feedback after filing a case with SquareTrade in two situations.

1) Feedback can be removed after you file a case with SquareTrade and there is no response to your case filing if:

-At least 14 days have passed since you filed your case;
-The feedback was left less than 90 days prior to this case filing;
-All necessary case notices were sent to the respondent and SquareTrade received no response either online or by email;
-Filer used the same item # and eBay IDs as recorded in the feedback record (note that a separate case must be filed for each item #); and
-The item bought or sold must not violate the marketplace policy.

2) Feedback can be removed after you file a case with SquareTrade and receive a response from the other party if:

-You have obtained the help of a SquareTrade Mediator;
-Both parties agree to the removal in a Settlement Agreement;
-The item bought or sold must not violate eBay marketplace policy; and
-All other terms of the mediated settlement have been completed.

{Note: there is no time limit to resolving problems - feedback can be removed through mediation even if more than 90 days has passed.

Yeah, it's pretty easy to pad feedback on eBay... You have to look for other signs that they're a trusted seller, other than the feedback, like actually looking at the actual auctions - if they're all 50 cent items and you're planning on buying a 2x800 G4 from the guy, somethings going on... if you don't smell fish, you better go take some decongestants.

There are a couple of other things that you can do, too. There's a pretty reputable company out there called SquareTrade that has a Seal that certifies sellers as legitimate. I doubt they can do anything is a situation of fraud, but they do dispute resolution too. They do some pretty extensive checking on sellers... plus they have a fraud protection guarantee so that you're protected against fraud for an additional $250 (over eBay's amount). I think they also have somewhere on their site where you can search for items being sold on eBay by their members, but i forget where it is.

*the tide is right for cowsurfing*