>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
Sony Ericsson / Sony >
General
> SE ranks poorly in reliability/quality
Bookmark topic
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
--
Posted: 2005-09-03 13:45:07
Edit :
Quote
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.
--
Posted: 2005-09-04 06:57:08
Edit :
Quote
@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 ]
--
Posted: 2005-09-04 09:18:28
Edit :
Quote
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)
--
Posted: 2005-09-04 14:08:43
Edit :
Quote
@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.)
--
Posted: 2005-09-05 14:32:54
Edit :
Quote
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.
--
Posted: 2005-09-06 03:06:42
Edit :
Quote
@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.
--
Posted: 2005-09-06 03:53:25
Edit :
Quote
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)
--
Posted: 2005-09-06 04:27:38
Edit :
Quote
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.
--
Posted: 2005-09-06 14:02:29
Edit :
Quote
Performance wise:
1. NOKIA
2. SONY ERICSSON
3. SAMSUNG
most of se phones have bugs.
--
Posted: 2005-09-06 14:36:06
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
