Sound off: What's relevant to consumers?

Share

Read the recent laptop study Computerworld published from RESCUECOM? Curious what your thoughts are. There's an interesting discussion surrounding their results and methodology in comparison to our in-depth analysis on laptop reliability.

"Rescuecom's rating for Apple hardware contradicted after-sale warranty firm SquareTrade..." - Gregg Keizer, Computerworld "Rescuecom is not an Apple authorized repair facility..., nor does Rescuecom provide the protocols of their methodology for their survey, as do all others who conduct valid surveys, so that their method can be subjected to peer review." - Computerworld reader

What’s the motivation? Much of the discussion echoes our thoughts: consumers should have access to statistically significant data with transparency in methodology, etc. Many of you expressed interest in our multi-year laptop reliability report for this very reason. While we can’t speak for RESCUECOM, the goal of SquareTrade’s reliability reports (like our overall company mission) is to empower consumers, giving you the opportunity to make an informed choice (even if this means publishing data showing lower failure rates than reported by other sources.) More relevant data for consumers: Given the overwhelming interest in our previous studies – including our 2009 laptop reliability report – our current plan is to continue gathering and publishing such data to help you make a more informed purchase decision. But we’re interested in hearing about what you find most relevant. What do you find most useful about our studies? Which of our studies have you found of most interest or valuable as a consumer? (eg our 2009 Video Game Console Study, iPhone study, Smartphone reliability report, etc.) Sound off: Feel free to post your feedback directly on the Computerworld article. You can also sound off below or join the conversation on Twitter!