| Author |
SE ranks poorly in reliability/quality |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
mib;
"Now we are talking the same language.  " hehe! I assume you also mean about the cars as well...the GTR could break down every week and I'm probably still prefer it 
"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."
Agree. SE are reliable but not as reliable as Nokia. But the networks make both look bad. My point is that SE aren't so bad that they are doing anything "wrong", atleast not particularly more or less so than other manufacturers.
Have a look at this research, and you'll see that (of 12000 participants and 38 phone models) when the study is about handsets alone, Nokia and SE are almost level in reliability: http://www.gizmag.co.uk/go/4335/
Samsung, nec and sagem all are rated higher than Nokia and SE.
"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."
This is what I have been saying all along. Operator faults and misinformation, and end user ignorance, aren't something manufacturers have a lot of control over so their handsets shouldn't be branded "unreliable" because of it. One of the issues that the user often blames the handset for is their own inadequacy at using the phone. I agree that to some extent if the phone ui is well designed many of those "faults" can be avoided, but at what point does user stupidity overcome the ability of the ui to allow for that stupidity? Is it still a "handset" fault in such a case?
For example many peeps I've fixed handsets for have screwed their internet settings trying to "fix" them because the phone couldn't display a website. Well, the phone was not capable of displaying the site because it was flash/java/html and not xhtml; who is most responsible for training the user as to what websites are displayable or not? The operator or the manufacturer? In my experience it is the operator (through their mobile phone stores) who mislead the customer about the handsets ability, so in many cases I would blame the operator for such user complaints, not the handset. But of course the user ALWAYS blames the phone ("this stupid phone can't even display my flash/java/completely useless bells and whistles website"). My brother-in-law bought an XDA but it couldn't log in to his stocks site. Yet it was the operator who promised him it could view ANY internet site that a computer could. They didn't tell him he would need to find third party solutions such as opera mobile. So is that the handset at fault, or the operator?
If the operators didn't spread half the crap misinformation they do, then user expectations would be more realistic, and handset complaints would be lower.
"btw: I believe 9.99999999999999999999999999999 in 10 will fail. It just a matter of time. Murphy's has made sure this."
Can't argue with that
"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. "
Ahm, I think you'd agree a sample of 5 isn't enough to draw any conclusions But if you include even just my close friends and family you can throw in some more SE handsets and including my own and it is easily 1 in 10: 3 K750's, 2 K700's, 4 T610's, 1 T100 and only mine has had an issue (crashed twice in the first day, fixed by update to R1L). I've handled many other phones, SE included, that haven't had hardware or software problems. Of the many phones only two others had hardware faults; a Moto V525 (needed master reset to fix corrupt firmware), and an XDA with a pcb problem (now there is a phone with problems).
But again my experience is anecdotal, not systematic research. I'd like to see more research conducted, since as I have said I accept that 1 in 7 users (not handsets per se) experience problems and the industry as a whole needs to address that. 
| |
|
mib1800
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: > 500
PM |
@max_wedge:
Quote:
| Agree. SE are reliable but not as reliable as Nokia. But the networks make both look bad. My point is that SE aren't so bad that they are doing anything "wrong", atleast not particularly more or less so than other manufacturers. |
|
I dont think SE is "bad" or "wrong". Unfortunately, like you say most of the time when things go wrong, the problem is pinned on the handsets. Blaming most of the problems on the manufacturers may not be fair, but the reality is this is the norm and will continue into the future.
If we take for a fact that the hardware part of SE handsets is as reliable as other manufacturers, it may then be prudent for SE to focus on to improving/rectification of "the other faults" (incl. network/software) together with the operators as SE is still relatively weaker in this aspects compared to the market leaders.
Quote:
| Have a look at this research, and you'll see that (of 12000 participants and 38 phone models) when the study is about handsets alone, Nokia and SE are almost level in reliability |
|
Any info on the 38 models that were tested? From the site, it just mostly talking about Samsung and the D500. btw: Did you see the "A" model which has a 38% repair rate?
Quote:
| ...since as I have said I accept that 1 in 7 users (not handsets per se) experience problems and the industry as a whole needs to address that |
|
Here I concur with you. I think I read somewhere that the mobile phone industry is rated lowly by consumers in terms of satisfaction because of handset contract, problems etc.
|
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
I agree SE have some work to do with regard to their relationship with network operators.
I think they made some big steps with improvements to branding regimens, starting with the K700. For example one of the big differences in the vodafone branded T610's compared to the non branded was the 500KB of undeletable vodafone content that really pissed people off. Out of 2MB total memory, 25% dedicated to useless crap that most people would rather have replaced with their own choice of content or had available for photos!
Big big mistake to let Vodafone do that. Hopefully they have learnt their lesson and will start to demand more control over such issues.
Another issue with operators is the inability to be straight with prospective handset purchasers - ie: what the user can realistically expect the handset to do.
Hopefully all arms of the industry will get together and start to sort these issues out.
I'd like to get a hold of the full Connect Magazine survey, but apparently it isn't online. I'm thinking of ordering aback issue from the German Connect website (if possible), I will post more info if I do get the survey.
|
Kryptik
Joined: Jun 24, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: Port Elizabeth, S.Africa
PM |
Nice one, Max. On the subject of branding, how has it affected the memory in subsequent SE handsets?
This message was posted from a Nokia |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
not a problem. Even in the K700 with bucket loads of memory (41MB), they allowed half of the vodafone content to be deleted, and what's left is about 8 pics and a few ringtones, and a java game. Still not great but better. If they had the same propertion of memory allocated to voda content as the T610, there would be 10MB's of vodafone crap!
I'll check my brother-in-law's Vodafone K750 and let you know how bad it is with that handset. His activity button is replaced with a link to Vodafone Live content, but you can still task switch, alhtough it's fiddly: For example if you are in a game, you can press the activity button. It allows you to minimize the game, but then tries to go into Vodafone Live. You cancel that, and it goes back to the standby screen. You can then make a call or whatever, then from standby screen press up joystick to bring up the activity menu, where you can go back to the game you were playing.
So it's not as bad as I initally thought the crippling of the activity button would be. I guess that's also how it works on the W800 also where the activity button is locked to the media player. |
Kryptik
Joined: Jun 24, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: Port Elizabeth, S.Africa
PM |
@Max, thanx mate. I've downloaded some of those Vodaphone icons onto my 6600, daaaamn, they're ugly!! I'm in the process of deciding to which SE handset i want to switch, and since we're being offered branded as well as unbranded phones in South Africa now, it's good knowing the difference.
This message was posted from a Nokia |
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2005-09-01 19:10:46, mib1800 wrote:
@scotsboyuk:
i'll answer your last paragraph first. This I believe is the crux of the matter.
|
|
My apologoes for my delay in answering, but I have been inundated of late.
Quote:
|
imo, i think what you are asking is non-existence because the good people at Which? would most probably not interested in this kind of survey in the first place. What you're seeking is only of interest to engineers and QC persons. I doubt the general public can comprehend such nitty-gritty details of whether fault is due firmware/hardware/network etc. Many don't even know what the heck is firmware.
|
|
I see convergeance looming on the horizon ...
What I am saying is that the survey itself was inherently flawed and over simplified. To draw the sort of conclusions as have been drawn from it seems both rash and illogical. It can indicate a trend, but as for establishing facts, that is beyond its ability in my opinion.
Quote:
|
From my point above, this is precisely the kind of survey that would affect buying decision. Which? obviously structured their survey this way so that results can be understood by the general public.
|
|
Just because something can be understood does not mean to say that it is presenting valid information. Which? seem to have structured their survey on grossly simplistic terms with an apparent lack of concern for the underlying details that would give some meat to their report.
Quote:
|
On the matter whether survey is fair, I agree with you that only the people at Which? can shed light on this. All I can say is that if they can put it to print, they would have a reasonable confidence of defending it. However, I disagree with you that without knowing the survey parameters would dilute the usefulness or impact of the results.
|
|
Then you disagree. The survey offers, at best, a very basic view of the mobile market. It seems to indicate a trend, but without any substantiating evidence to validate its claims. It merely makes a sweeping statement bases upon simplified criteria, which takes little or no account of the reality of the situation. Hence it can be regarded as a curio, something one may pass comment upon, but to base a buying decision upon it is nonsense.
Quote:
|
I agree with you we should raise questions on the results presented by these type of survey. But my opinion is that we should only raise questions within the scope of the matter (i.e. not deviate too much from the central premise of the survey, otherwise there is no end to it).
|
|
But then that is just it isn't it? There is no scope to this survey because it has been made vague. It merely postulates a single simplified generalisation without offering anything worthy of consideration beyond a casual glance. If it had offered some sort of grounding for its conclusions then it would have been useful, perhaps a breakdown of the results or an explanation of the criterion may have sufficed as a meaningful reason d'attire.
Quote:
|
Even if you know the survey results down to the categorisation of "faults" or "group of users", what you achieve is no more than just knowing. In the end, we still end up with the general indicative trend as was given.
|
|
Not at all. We have no idea what such a breakdown would show. There is a whole range of factors, which could have skewed the results. The trend that we see may be better explained or even put in an entirely new context if we did have such a breakdown.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2005-09-18 06:10 ] |
mib1800
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: > 500
PM |
@scotsboyuk
welcome back. btw, I was off for a while too.
Quote:
|
..It can indicate a trend, but as for establishing facts, that is beyond its ability in my opinion. |
|
All surveys are inherently flawed because each one is trying to establish a "fact" within a very narrow premise. And this "fact" is no longer valid once we deviate from this premise.
I agree with you totally that this survey can only indicate a trend. Which? stated that it is its own opinion when it said that the avg 1 in 7 problematic phone is too high. Who knows, maybe 1 in 7 (or even 1 in 5) can be acceptable as "good/excellent" if we look at it from another angle. Until some independent body like the ISO came out with a global standard, we can only work with this relative ranking.
So if you like, you can take it that SE/Moto make "excellent" quality phones but Nokia/Samsung make "better than excellent" quality phones.
Quote:
| Hence it can be regarded as a curio, something one may pass comment upon, but to base a buying decision upon it is nonsense.
|
|
For some (relatively small percentage) who is If torn between which 2 phones to buy, this survey may just give a nudge to the decision.
This is called "trial by media" and u r "guilty until proven innocent". The impact is there whether it is true or not. So if SE dont sue or keep silent, then everyone takes it as true.
Quote:
| Not at all. We have no idea what such a breakdown would show. There is a whole range of factors, which could have skewed the results. The trend that we see may be better explained or even put in an entirely new context if we did have such a breakdown.
|
|
To know the fact you are seeking, we would need many other surveys, do we not?
[ This Message was edited by: mib1800 on 2005-09-21 05:11 ] | |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2005-09-07 06:38
