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.
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.
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.
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?
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.