Dear Readers,
I would like to respond to some comments made today in an article by Gareth Halfacree on the bit-tech.net website. You can view that article here. Specifically, a number of claims were made by Ray Gorman of Lenovo about our Laptop Reliability study, and I would like to clarify each of those claims, and give a rebuttal where necessary.
Ray Gorman: “total number claimed in this
report is not a statistically significant sample for a study where no attempt
is made to control key variables affecting repair rates, such as comparable
machine types, end users, geography, and applications”
SquareTrade’s study examined data from 30,000 laptop owners, which we believe to be a very statistically significant sample. When a national publication polls Americans on their attitudes towards political matters, they poll 1000-2000 people; a sufficient sample size to represent the 230 million Americans.
We did not control for the variables Mr. Gorman
mentioned, but we also did not feel it necessary. With an average sample of over 3000 laptops
per manufacturer, our sample size is large enough to assume a random
distribution of users for each variable.
As an example culled from Lenovo's own
warranty repair data, Gorman points out that the company would "expect a
10X difference in repair rates between systems bought for [secondary school]
students and systems used only in a home office by adults," a distinction
which isn't made by SquareTrade's study.
We analyzed our data to produce a general study of manufacturer failure rates relative to one another, not to produce a study only about the reliability rates of laptops used in a home-office setting.
To return to the polling analogy, pollsters choose random survey participants in the phone book, and do not control for geography, race, income, or any number of other variables that are may be very relevant in determining which candidate the participant would vote for.
Arguing that SquareTrade "has a vested
interested in showing scary failure rates as they have done here [as] they are
in the business of selling after sale warranties," Gorman claims that
Lenovo's internal data shows that laptop failure rates are "at least
two-thirds lower than what is claimed in the Square Trade survey."
I won’t dispute the fact that SquareTrade is in the business of selling warranties. However, I do dispute the fact that we’re trying to scare consumers to buy warranties.
We find our overall results for laptop failure rates to be very consistent and in line with other organizations that have reported research. We direct our readers to the following reports:
- In June 2006, Gartner reported actual failure rates of 28% for systems purchased in 2003-2004. They projected a 22% failure rate, based on 1 year of data for systems bought in 2005-2006.
- In November 2007, Consumer Reports reported “Repair Rates for 3- to 4-year-old” Laptop Computers at 43%.
For those concerned by the high rate of
failure that SquareTrade quoted in their study, Gorman says not to worry:
"PC hardware is extremely reliable, and this study is full of holes[,
as the] method is flawed, the data is inaccurate, and the conclusion is wrong."
Respectfully yours,
Vince Tseng
VP of Marketing, SquareTrade
PS. I am typing this out on my Lenovo T61 ThinkPad, which is the standard notebook distributed by SquareTrade’s corporate IT department. Before my current Lenovo ThinkPad, my prior personal laptop and corporate laptop were both IBM ThinkPads. For what it’s worth.






