"We've got nothing against Apple, but one of the less-than-shining realities of the company's failure rate is that the extra dollars don't translate into superior product lifespans."
Well I suspect that's because Apple uses not so expensive parts and then marks them way up because of their apple name.
Just to play devil's advocate (I love giving Apple, and basically any other company, a good razzing), but...
I didn't see any data in the linked article specific to Apple. The graph shows premium laptops have the lowest failure rate... wouldn't that be mostly Apple machines, and couldn't the numbers be tainted *downwards* by overpriced PC hardware? Just saying.
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
>> Of course neither of us could know this for sure
I suspect it is the other way around... They are using the same hardware in the entry level but marking the price up substantially... So they are introducing that higher failure rate into a pool that would have had a lower failure rate.
Of course neither of us could know this for sure because neither of us have access to the results specific to apple :-P
NEWS TIPS |
This site is intended for informational and entertainment purposes only. The contents are the views and opinion of the author and/or hisassociates. All products and trademarks are the property of their respective owners. All content and graphical elements areCopyright © 1999 - 2014 David Altavilla and HotHardware.com, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy and Terms