Microsoft Dismisses Consumer Reports' Surface Complaints, But Doesn't Offer Much Evidence

Microsoft has publicly responded to Consumer Reports, saying that it disagrees with the publication's Surface reliability findings. But the company hasn't offered much in the way of evidence. In a blog post, Surface chief Panos Panay writes: In the Surface team we track quality constantly, using metrics that include failure and return rates -- both our predicted 1-2-year failure and actual return rates for Surface Pro 4 and Surface Book are significantly lower than 25%. Additionally, we track other indicators of quality such as incidents per unit (IPU), which have improved from generation to generation and are now at record lows of well below 1%. Surface also ranks highly in customer satisfaction. 98% of Surface Pro 4 users and Surface Book users say they are satisfied with their device, and our Surface Laptop and new Surface Pro continue to get rave reviews. Long-time watcher Paul Thurrott writes: Does changing the time frame from "by the end of the second year of ownership" to "1-2 year failure rate" skew the results because more failures happen later in a product's lifetime? Also, he introduces the notion of "return rates" here. By definition, the feedback that Consumer Reports receives is from product owners, not those who have returned products. If someone is almost two years into device ownership, they are not returning the product. They're just using it. And dealing with it. So consider the issue muddled, in just one carefully-constructed sentence. Which I believe was crafted to confuse the issue. But there is more. "Additionally, we track other indicators of quality such as incidents per unit (IPU), which have improved from generation to generation and are now at record lows of well below 1 percent," Panay offers. It's not possible to understand how an "incident" relates to a "failure." Mostly because he doesn't explain the term. Likely because doing so would betray that this is an apples to oranges comparison. [...] I will point the reader to Welcome to Surfacegate, my description of Microsoft's feeble attempts to ignore and then slowly fix endemic issues with those exact two Surface models. And anecdotally, I'll point to the fact that the three Surface Book models I've used have all had reliability problems. But the biggest issue I have with "customer satisfaction" is that it's kind of a bullshit measurement when it comes to premium products.

Comments

Just given one of these at work..

[xtal]

I have been looking at the Surface for awhile. It looked OK.

Then I got one at work to replace my aging Dell Latitude. (Surface Pro 4)

The keyboard is junk. It's flimsy and moves when you type on it; the trackpad, which is required if you're using it as a computer (which I have to) is very narrow in depth and is difficult to use when compounded by the fact everything flexes when you use it.

Using this device on anything but a flat table or desk is right out.

Also, it's covered in Microfiber. WTF. This stuff attracts lint, dust, and pet hair like nobody's business and I shudder to think how grimy it's going to be in a year or so.

In short, Microsoft turned what looked like an OK tablet into a horrible computer.

That I'm stuck with.

Maybe for years.

Sigh.

This is why many in the NFL are frustrated

[smooth wombat]

The NFL has a contract with Microsoft to use their Surface tablets on the sidelines. They tout it as a way for the team to get almost real time information on play calling, whether offense or defense. Unfortunately, and directly related to this article, there are those, particularly coaches and quarterbacks, who bemoan the unpredictability of the Surface and its many malfunctions.

Even worse, people were initially calling them iPads or iPad-like which certainly didn't sit well with the marketing crew at Microsoft.

Microsoft can claim all they want their Surface is doing well, but from real world experiences, where timely information is invaluable, or in the case of Consumer Reports where Surface owners report the numerous problems they have, there is only so much spin which can be done to try and spackle over these poorly performing devices.