Slashdot Mirror
Netbooks Have Higher Failure Rate Than Laptops
Barence writes "Netbooks are more likely to fail within the first year than their more expensive laptop brethren, according to new research. SquareTrade, an independent US warranty provider, analyzed the failure rates of more than 30,000 laptops covered by its own warranties. It found that 5.8% of netbooks malfunctioned within the first year, compared to 4.7% for regular laptops and 4.2% for premium laptops costing more than $1,000. The research also raises question marks over the legendary reliability of Macs. Three PC manufacturers — Asus, Toshiba, and Sony — boasted better reliability rates than Apple. Macs have a 17.4% malfunction rate over three years, compared to market-leader Asus, which has a 15.6% failure rate. HP was the worst of the nine PC vendors listed, with a malfunction rate of 25.6% over three years."
I saw this the other day. What struck me most is that Sony and Apple have historically had the highest failure rates in the industry (maybe other than HP), and Dell has had among the lowest. Toshiba appears to have consistently low failure rates. I'm glad to see that Apple and Sony have improved (assuming the accuracy of the report), and very disappointed at Dell's slide.
Still, as an IT support guy, those numbers don't jive with what I see. Apple laptops need warranty service far more often than this study indicates, in my experience. I'd like to know more about the methodology of the survey.
I wonder how much of the failure rates is due to problems with Nvidia chips?
Before I get downmodded as a troll or for flamebait, please note that Nvidia has had well documented problems with reliablility, due to materials used in the chip bumping and finishing processes.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
This isn't too surprising, really. Whenever you go for the cheap end of things, you get poor quality.
Now don't understand me-- I'm not saying that it's good. I think it'd be great if we could make cheap things also be good quality. Like I imagine someone could manufacture netbooks and still sell them relatively cheaply just by virtue of the fact that they use fewer components and less materials. However, the tendency in a situation like this is for the manufacturer to say, "These are cheaper products with tight profit margins. These are also budget products, and people who buy budget products will tend to buy the cheapest thing available. Let's just cut every corner, make them as cheap as possible, and not worry too much about quality." It's the same reason we get $5 blenders at Walmart that break after a year.
Of course, the problem is often that it's hard for consumers to tell the difference, so companies sometimes don't provide a good middle ground. Like you might find yourself in a situation where you can find a cheap $5-10 blender that will break in the next year, and the next step up is a $1000 "luxury" blender with a built in toaster oven, speakers, and iPhone dock. I guess simple, high quality, economical goods don't sell.
Seconded.
I used to work for a managed services provider and HP reseller. One of our bigger clients was Dunwoody College of Technology. One of my duties was refurbishing their HP laptops between semesters. They had a wide variety of issues ranging from Accidental Damage, wireless radio failures, to bad harddrives, etc... We even had one sent in that a drunk student vomited onto (we referred to that one as the "puke-top").
The overwhelming majority went through the refurbish process with little more than a thorough cleaning and re-imaging. HP's Channel Support was a pleasure to work with (I spent many unproductive hours on the phone with Dell Support at a previous job).
I now personally own an HP DV7 Pavillion laptop that cost me $1200 last February. It has better features than the Mac Book Pro had at the time and cost me $1400 less. Maybe I'm biased.
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
It's not necessarily cheapness. Netbooks are named differently than laptops because they have different characteristics, ones which allow more convenient use in different environments. So my first guess was that the explanation is likely "Netbooks used in harsher environments than laptops". They're smaller, so a person might carry one around more, put more wear on it per unit time. To summarize: netbooks have higher failure rate than laptops, cellphones have higher failure rates than cordless phones, and desktop computers have a higher failure rate than museum-piece computers that are never turned on.
Anecdotal evidence based on practical experience: I dragged my Samsung NC20 all over Europe and obscure parts of Russia and before that I had a well travelled Samsung NC10 and abused the crap out of it and they are both working just fine. These units went through customs time after time, banged around, exposed to -10c temperatures, countless flights, and copious exposure to the funky Soviet Era power wiring with no ill effects!
I had much worse luck with my HP DV9000 laptop (something happened to the freaking hinge and the LCD would just cut out from time to time and reboot the system) and my Lenovo G530 (two functions keys mysteriously stopped working). The funny thing is I treated the laptops much better than the netbooks - go figure.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
Also because of their size people have a tendency to transport them in a bag that is less supported. Most people carry their Laptop in a proper bag or a Targus backpack, where as its not uncommon to see someone carrying their netbook in their purse or messenger bag.
I was thinking the same thing. People tend to look at Netbooks more as a toy. It's much lighter weight tends to lead to people throwing it around more, or putting it in a backpack with a bunch of other items, whereas a laptop tends to be carried around in it's own laptop bag.
I wonder what the failure rate is of SSD models compared to regular hard drives, as not having any moving parts would seem to fair better, and be spec'd similar to a 'mid-sized electronic device'. I have a Dell Mini 9 with an SSD, and when I saw that Dell was defaulting the newer Mini 10v's with a traditional HD, I kind of cringed.
I've taken it apart and put it together about 12 times now
I think we can all stop wondering why netbooks have high failure rates.
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
Another /. story brought this to my attention and I did some digging. It turns out that the entire tech-blog-sphere is basing their articles on a 'study' done by Squaretrade, a company that sells extended warranties for computers and phones. I won't get into the ethics of selling warranties for brand-new computers that already carry OEM warranties.
The problem is that Squaretrade is in direct competition with Apple's Applecare. A few quick searches on their website shows that their plans cost more than applecare and that they lack some of the features of applecare (phone support, apple store support, ups dropoff service, etc).
So my advice is to take that bar graph with a grain of salt.
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
iPod: Fits in pocket.
Netbook: Doesn't.
Couldn't that have something to do with it?
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Despite the sensationalist headline (this is /., after all), I thought a 1% failure rate between laptops and netbooks was pretty trivial.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Not necessarily.. Particularly with wimpy stuff like over-the-counter painkillers, the expectation effects that people experience in response to brand names may well make a significant difference, even though the chemistry is identical.
To insert some unscientific anecdotal evidence; I've had my MacBook back in for repairs three times since I got it two years ago. But the issues I've taken it back for (some faint marks on the screen, and two cracked palmrests) I would have (and indeed have in the past) tolerated on a cheaper laptop with a manufacturer without a highstreet presence. My willingness to complain (and therefore register a failure) is raised because there's someone I can walk to and yell at who will fix it quickly and for free.
All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
I am more surprised that Sony is in the list.
I always found Sony laptops to be the worst. Every year old Sony laptop I have ever seen has an LCD with colours so washed out, that the only things I would use it for is as a paperweight, or doorstop.
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
My two year HP pavillion dv6535ep laptop exibited the following behaviour during time:
* After two months:
- A lcd pixel near the bottom right corner stoped working, it is red all the time.
* After four months:
- Maximum battery capacity lowered to less than half.
* After a year and couple of months:
- The integrated (USB) camera stopped working due to bad contact on wiring near screen hinge. The camera starts/stops working everytime the screen is tilted.
* After two years:
- The power supply adapter stopped working (it shorts the mains when it gets too hot).
My previous laptop was a Acer Aspire 1520:
* The battery capacity didn't go below ~80% after four years.
* The nvidia graphics card failed after one year and something.
* The power supply adapter failed with a lot of white smoke after two years and something.
* A SMD transistor popped up from mainboard after five years. After soldering it myself, the laptop continued working perfectly until today.
And yes, I'm carefull with laptops, I take proper measures to preserve battery life and my house's electrical mains are not faulty.