| Author |
SE ranks poorly in reliability/quality |
mib1800
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: > 500
PM |
@Gigs
Quote:
| Taking age into account and features also is something. For instance if you were talking to say 3310 and t100 users, you probably wouldn't find much at all wrong with them. But then there's hardly anything there to go wrong. |
|
Your point is plausible but it is really moot. The survey asked people who bought phones in the last 12 months. I think the 2 models you mentioned have disappeared from the shelf eons ago.
Quote:
| Sure some of its devotion but its also about taking results on a level playing field, as I stated if you're going to blanket any manufacturer with being unreliable in product then you can't just take it on a survey that doesn't take into account differences between network and phone faults. |
|
I thought I have illustrate to you on this issue with DVD/orange case. Here it is again. Other makes would also be subjected to same conditions (i.e. the other manufacturers would also get bad apples even if it is a network fault). So this will level the playing field. SE is not being singled out here. On the orange case, u did not say whether other makes also have the problem within the same network. If they dont then fault will be attributed to K700. If they are similarly affected, this statistical anamoly will even out for every make.
I think you should take "reliability/quality" in relative terms. From the survey, the results show SE as less reliable than Nokia/Samsung. It is not in anyway saying SE phones are unreliable in absolute term.
@august
I think many SE fans (you excluded of course  ) here just can't take the fact that Nokia is more reliable than SE. It is general knowledge that Nokia is known for its reliability. Just that in esato, this statement is known as a myth.
| |
|
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
augustborn9917, I do take issue that SE are unreliable. I agree there are some issues related to premature firmware releases, external casing (particularly joystick operation), and issues of operator specific firmware being less reliable than unbranded firmware. These issue do impact on the customer perception and experience of SE phones.
I also agree Nokia handsets are generally more reliable.
But my point is that SE are not so much worse than Nokia that people need to jump up and down and claim that SE phones are unreliable. Nokia have their own firmware and hardware issues, just jump on the Nokia forums - people claiming left right and centre how they had to update the firmware or complaining about buttons not working properly. These types of problems are by no means exculsive to SE.
I've myself have never owned an unreliable SE phone. And okay so I had to flash the firmware (first time ever) with SEUS on my K750, but after doing so it is faultless. I would rather be able to flash it to fix such a problem than be stuck with a dodgy firmware and have no update path.
The K750 never crashes. My K700 crashed 2-3 times in 12 months. My T610 never crashed. All three handsets were ultra-reliable.
My advice to people with problems with their handsets, do an online update (for K750, to R1L if you don't absolutely need the better video quality, which is not that much better anyway) or return the phone for repair under warranty instead of jumping on the forums and telling everyone how bad they are. I don't have enough hairs on my head to count the number of people who come on here complaining but who won't do anything constuctive about it.
They should just get on with it.
What the Which survey proves, IF ANYTHING, is that phone manufacturers AS A GROUP, have high failure rates. Nokia had 10% of their handsets fail, which is pretty piss poor quality control, really in the scheme of things, not much better than SE's 20%. Imagine a factory that produced a 10% failure rate on DVD Players for example? Most electronics manufacturers consider anything greater than 1% to be an abysmal failure rate. Some work on .1% or lower.
This is what the Which survey has revealed; that there is a general and legitimate dissatisfaction amongst mobile phone users, who don't differentiate between handset or network faults. Another survey is now needed to flesh out the real causes of the faults that are leading to the dissatisfaction. Such a survey would provide real data to assist operators and manufacturers improve their products. |
mib1800
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: > 500
PM |
@max_wedge
august: sorry for jumping in.
Quote:
| What the Which survey proves, IF ANYTHING, is that phone manufacturers AS A GROUP, have high failure rates. Nokia had 10% of their handsets fail, which is pretty piss poor quality control, really in the scheme of things, not much better than SE's 20%. Imagine a factory that produced a 10% failure rate on DVD Players for example? Most electronics manufacturers consider anything greater than 1% to be an abysmal failure rate. Some work on .1% or lower.
|
|
I think I have to correct you again. You are mixing up defect rate with reliability . Defect rate is measured at production line (i.e. how many sets that were produced that cannot be sold because of manufacturing problems). A good manufacturer should be able to keep defect rate to within a couple of percent.
On the other hand, reliability refers to how long-lasting/durable/robust these phones are during use. By default these phones are non-defective when came out of the factory. Any device will eventually fail. It is just a matter of time.
Your swipe at Nokia did nothing to change the fact that SE phones are still twice as likely to fail within the first year compare to phones produced by market leader Nokia. You should not belittle this gap. It is a huge gap. If you say Nokia reliability is bad, then SE's reliability would be totally unacceptable.
[ This Message was edited by: mib1800 on 2005-09-02 10:10 ] |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
actually mib, quality control includes testing and projections of reliability throughout the warranty period (and longer usually) not just the number of failures coming off the production line.
And here you prove your inordinate love of nokia - I never dissed nokia, I just said they have problems also. The fact you interpret that as a "swipe" at nokia shows you can't accept anything bad to be said about your beloved nokia. Hence you prove yourself no more rational than the SE fans you come here to berate for their love of SE.
And don't tell me that SE are twice as unreliable as Nokia on the basis of that survey. I've already stated I don't accept that the reliability figures of the survey are valid, so why do you think that argument would wash with me? For all we know most of the faults reported were operator related and it may be that neither Nokia or SE are anywhere near 10%.
Both Nokia AND SE need a big kick up the arse if their handsets are that unreliable. 10% is MASSIVE, regardless of defect rate/reliability arguments. So since you accept the survey results, you are saying that you would accept Nokia producing handsets of which 1 in 10 are unreliable? Do you really think that would be acceptable?
If I agreed with you about the results then of course I would think that SE are even worse, but I don't agree with the survey results for handset reliability. I don't think either Nokia or SE are so bad that 1 in 10 or 2 in 10 handsets are unreliable. That just boggles the mind. If they are that bad they both should get out of the business.
My personal view is that most of the reported faults would be operator related, and that the end user perceives that as a handset problem in most cases. I think the survey points to the need for more co-ordination between manufacturers and operators, but I don't think it is very useful when it comes to determining reliability of handsets.
[ This Message was edited by: max_wedge on 2005-09-03 04:16 ] |
mib1800
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: > 500
PM |
max_wedge:
Quote:
| fact you interpret that as a "swipe" at nokia shows you can't accept anything bad to be said about your beloved nokia |
|
I can accept bad facts about Nokia but not in the way you trying to put it. The "swipe" refers to your attempt to try to portray Nokia as equally bad as SE in reliability based on an out of context "defect rate" figure analogy.
Sure, the overall reliability figure maybe is bad (I dont know). Currently this is what the industry is capable of right now. As time goes by this will improve. This and the relative reliability as shown in the survey is two different matters
Quote:
| And don't tell me that SE are twice as unreliable as Nokia on the basis of that survey |
|
I am not telling you. . The survey is.
Quote:
| I've already stated I don't accept that the reliability figures of the survey are valid, so why do you think that argument would wash with me? |
|
Just remember you are arguing against the survey results put out by a third party that says SE phone are twice less reliable than Nokia/Samsung. I am mostly inert in this debate and just stating what is in the survey and pointing out the "weak side" of the many reasons put out here trying to show that SE has been unfairly treated.
Quote:
| I don't think either Nokia or SE are so bad that 1 in 10 or 2 in 10 handsets are unreliable. That just boggles the mind. If they are that bad they both should get out of the business.
|
|
This is call growing up pain. Some are better at growing up than others. Either this or you go back to your fixed line.
Quote:
| My personal view is that most of the reported faults would be operator related, and that the end user perceives that as a handset problem in most cases. I think the survey points to the need for more co-ordination between manufacturers and operators, but I don't think it is very useful when it comes to determining reliability of handsets.
|
|
The survey just show reliability from the phone user point of view and not from the handset point of view. It may not just be hardware. It may also include factors like ease of use, software stability, robustness (i.e. failure due to rough use), system integration with operator network etc.
[ This Message was edited by: mib1800 on 2005-09-03 09:20 ] |
slattery69
Joined: Jan 03, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: north east england
PM |
after reading this thread it got me thinking about my own experience with phones over the last few years.
strangely enough my own experience isnt to much different to the survey results after thinking about it.
my first se phone was a t68i i had to send 6 of these back due to recieption problems. my next phone was a t610 5 of these were sent back due to various problems all hardware related.
after that i had a nokia6600 which was sent back once due to me walking into a wall and smashing the screen, no other problems
i now have a k750 no probs what so ever with it.
so out of my last 3 handsets (2 se 1 nokia) both se broke down on many occasions and the nokia not once.
strange, however it hasnt put me off using se and wont nor would it make me buy 1 brand over another, i always buy the phone thats suits my needs and wallet |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
mib, re: "The survey just show reliability from the phone user point of view and not from the handset point of view. It may not just be hardware. It may also include factors like ease of use, software stability, robustness (i.e. failure due to rough use), system integration with operator network etc."
Exactly my point. That's why I say you cannot draw any conclusions about reliability of handsets from this survey. There is no differentation between handset and network faults (or combinations of both) so how can the results indicate that SE are poorer than Nokia in reliability?
I'm not questioning the validity of the survey, I am questioning your interpretation that user reported faults have a meaningful correlation with the handsets they use. The survey never claimed that the handsets were at fault, they just reported the ratio of handsets AND operators used by the reportees. Why not say 20% of users where on operator x, and 10% of users were on operator y, therefore operator y is more reliable? Either way, you are completely discounting one half of the equation. |
mib1800
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: > 500
PM |
@max_wedge
Quote:
| I am questioning your interpretation that user reported faults have a meaningful correlation with the handsets they use. |
|
And yet again, you are accusing me of something which was not originated by me but by the survey.  (Leave your SE mind for a while and go and read the survey again esp the part "1 in 5 ....")
If you want to dispute the survey, then the onus is on you to prove it wrong and unfair with proof (other than your biased interpretations). I suggest you can google it or email Which?.
[ This Message was edited by: mib1800 on 2005-09-04 08:36 ] |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
I'm not disputing the survey.
The survey proves that phone manufacturers and operators as a group, are guilty of not getting it right. I'm disputing your inference that the survey was designed to determine which manufacturers are least reliable. The survey was designed to highlight an industry wide problem with general reliability of mobile phones and service providers. The nitty gritty of it needs to be determined with a more in depth survey, that differentiates between network and handset faults, and also to determine where combinations of both are causing problems (I believe that happens a lot, for example some operator branded phones reknown for problems but not their unbranded couterparts)
Yes, I actually agree that Nokia are more reliable than SE, I've never disputed it. However I don't believe the difference is as bad as you choose to believe it is. It's just like saying a ferrari is faster than a lotus. Sure, but they are both nice cars. And each has specific advantages over the other. Likewise, a nissan GTR isn't as well made as a rolls royce, but it's more fun 
I don't believe Nokia or SE have even close to 10% unreliability rating on their handsets. I believe many industry issues of cross-compatibility and provider lock-in deals and other problems cause many of the faults that are seen. The actual hardware of handsets is less of an issue than the faults with service providers networks and the support they provide (or don't).
I think that it's the operators who are making all the manufacturers look bad. If the survey accurately recorded the type of fault, whether handset or network, it would go more like this: 1% of faults due to Nokia handsets, 1.5% of faults due to SE handsets, 2.5% of faults due to the other handsets (samsung and motorola), and 10% of faults due to operators  (that's roughly 1 in 7 that the survey claims) |
mib1800
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: > 500
PM |
@max_wedge:
Quote:
| think that it's the operators who are making all the manufacturers look bad. If the survey accurately recorded the type of fault, whether handset or network, it would go more like this: 1% of faults due to Nokia handsets, 1.5% of faults due to SE handsets, 2.5% of faults due to the other handsets (samsung and motorola), and 10% of faults due to operators |
|
Let's take a look at the 10% operator faults. So in order for these faults to occur and reported by users, the users MUST BE USING A PHONE!! Am I right? So why the heck are a higher ratio of SE users reporting this kind of faults than Nokia users. Simple. Somehow or other SE handsets are causing these faults. This brings us right back to the conclusion of the survey. No matter what, at the end of the day, a higher ratio of SE users will be more pissed off than Nokia/Samsung users.)
|
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
bullshit. What I'm saying is that the 10% is caused by operator faults alone, and the 4-5% of faults are caused by mobile phones as a group, of which SE are 1.5% and Nokia are 1%. I'm talking about if the survey was designed to differentiate between operator and handset faults. Therefore the network faults would be regardless of the handset in use. Pure network faults that have nothing to do with the handset. Such as the inability to send mms of greater than a certain size that ALWAYS gets blamed on the phone, when the root cause is the operators trying to prevent people sending huge MMS's.
So yes SE would be less reliable than the Nokia, but NETWORK faults that cause problems for the user would eclipse the handset faults completely. That's my view, and I don't believe the survey is designed to differentiate between network and handset faults, so you can't just assume (and assuming is all you are doing) that the results mean teh handsets are at fault. You are completely ignoring the complicity of network faults in the equation. It's as if you think only handsets can be at fault and that networks never cause a problem that the end user attributes unfairly to the handset.
I say again, if you think the hardware of all the manufacturers, Nokia included, is so bad that 1 in 7 of their phones fail on average then something is very wrong. Personally I think you are ignoring the role of the operators in this result. |
mib1800
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: > 500
PM |
@max_wedge:
For your "10% is operator faults", you still havent given any clue to why the proportion of SE users reporting this kind of faults to be twice as high as Nokia.
Quote:
| That's my view, and I don't believe the survey is designed to differentiate between network and handset faults, so you can't just assume (and assuming is all you are doing) that the results mean teh handsets are at fault. You are completely ignoring the complicity of network faults in the equation. It's as if you think only handsets can be at fault and that networks never cause a problem that the end user attributes unfairly to the handset. |
|
The network & the handset work in combination. That is the reason why Which? did not categorise the faults. You just cannot separate the faults so distinctively. The faults can be caused by the handset+network working together. If you are saying it is just purely network faults, as I said before, the statistics will level out for all manufacturers. Somehow the proportion of SE users reporting these faults are higher. I think it would be very naive of you to suggest that this is purely due to network faults. So you cannot absolve SE from all blame in this matter.
btw: I think it is pure bullshit the way you are assigning the % of faults attributed to network or handsets. This is just pure nonsense and desperation. You have NO such information at all. 
|
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
mib I'm not absolving SE I'm just saying because the survey is designed specifically to pinpoint handset faults, any type of Network fault could be skewing the results to make all handsets appear very unreliable. I maintain that even 10% unreliability would be a very poor result for Nokia.
I'm agreeing that yes if you level out operator faults then SE is less reliable. I just simply don't agree that the difference is as bad as you read it. Like I said a Rolls Royce, or to be more price comparable a VOLVO, is more reliable than a Nissan GTR, but does that mean I want to go and buy a Volvo? No I'd rather have the GTR thank you. And while you can see the GTR is LESS RELIABLE than the Volvo, by no means does that mean GTR's are unreliable.
Look, I may be wrong. Further surveys may reveal that the operator has hardly any impact on handset reliability, in which case all the handset manufacturers need a big kick up the arse. I can't believe you really think that 1 in 10 of your beloved Nokia handsets fail. That's appalling if it's true (and yes if it's true then SE are even worse)
Honestly I just can't see it. I've owned 5 handsets myself, and seen friends handsets, in the order of probably 100 handsets in the last year, and 3 of those have failed due to handset problems. Whereas many of those peeps (probably about 10% which is where I am getting my rough figures from) have had bad gprs settings, dodgy memory cards, mms operator limits, and all sort's of other operator problems that they have blamed the handset for. They come to me because I know a thing or two about phones, and in each instance I fixed their problems by addressing the OPERATOR issues, such as configuring GPRS correctly. The two failed hadsets were rectified with master resets, and the third (my K750) with a flash update. So while the software had failed, the phone hardware was good.
I realise that the above figures are gleaned from anecdotal evidence, but I still maintain more study is needed to really know what is going on with the 1 in 7 unreliability figure that mobile phone users have reported. (as you can see my anecdotal evidence equates roughly to a 1 in 7 failure rate. So I am cetainly NOT disagreeing with the survey)
|
mib1800
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: > 500
PM |
max_wedge:
Quote:
| And while you can see the GTR is LESS RELIABLE than the Volvo, by no means does that mean GTR's are unreliable.
|
|
Now we are talking the same language. . This is what I have been saying previous posts (I'm too lazy to point you to it). The title of this thread is about "ranking". It is all about reliability in relative terms.
Quote:
| I can't believe you really think that 1 in 10 of your beloved Nokia handsets fail. |
|
This is not an unrealistic figure because "failure" here has many facets. If it is just hardware alone then no. If it is software+hardware+network factors, then yes. When we talk about reliability, it is about how well the handsets stand-up to "real-world" conditions.
(if you just take reliability as whether you can just power on your phone, then 1 in 10 is too high )
btw: I believe 9.99999999999999999999999999999 in 10 will fail. It just a matter of time. Murphy's has made sure this.
Quote:
| I've owned 5 handsets myself.... |
|
Didnt you say you need to update the firmware (i.e. repair) of one handset before it can be use reliably? So, 1 in 5 of your handsets failed. If all your handsets are SE, then this mimic the survey results.
|
a1ster
Joined: Jul 10, 2005
Posts: 36
From: AREA 51
PM |
Performance wise:
1. NOKIA
2. SONY ERICSSON
3. SAMSUNG
most of se phones have bugs. | |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2005-09-02 04:17
