Home / Explore Technology / Tablets / Is Microsoft’s Surface Lineup Unreliable?

Is Microsoft’s Surface Lineup Unreliable?

Consumer Reports yanked its recommendation from several Microsoft laptops on Thursday, citing results from reader surveys that described problems such as freezing on startup and unresponsive touch screens.

Based on the feedback, Consumer Reports said that it can no longer recommend Microsoft products with detachable keyboards, including the Surface Pro and the Surface Book, or the Surface Laptop, which has a conventional clamshell design. The feedback from readers covers 90,741 tablets and laptops that subscribers bought new between 2014 and early 2017, according to Consumer Reports.

The publication said it uses reader feedback data to make projections about a product's reliability. It now estimates that 25 percent of Microsoft laptops and tablets will "present their owners with problems by the end of the second year of ownership." It said this is the first year it was able to gather enough data to make a reliability determination for the Microsoft Surface products.

Consumer Reports vs. PCMag

The results of the Consumer Reports reader surveys are markedly different from PCMag's Readers' Choice Award survey, which asks consumers several questions about their overall satisfaction with the products and their reliability, as well as experiences with technical support and repairs within the past 12 months.

Microsoft earned a Readers' Choice Award this year in the Laptop/Tablet Hybrids category, receiving the highest ratings for overall satisfaction (8.6 out of 10), satisfaction with reliability (8.7), and likelihood to recommend (8.7). In addition, Microsoft had the lowest percentage of machines needing repair in the category (7 percent).

Microsoft also earned high scores in PCMag's overall Laptops category, although it trailed Apple, MSI, and Alienware. Apple, which won the Laptops category, received ratings of 9 or better on on overall satisfaction, overall reliability, and likelihood to recommend. PCMag's surveys are hosted by Equation Research, which also performs our data collection.

Surface products have also performed very well in PCMag's lab tests, with Surface Pro models winning multiple Editors' Choice awards. Consumer Reports noted that the Surface Pro also performed well in its lab tests, earning scores of "very good" or "excellent."

Microsoft disagreed with the Consumer Reports reliability recommendation, and said that its own data suggest consumers are satisfied with Surface products.

Related

"While we respect Consumer Reports, we disagree with their findings. Surface has had quite a journey over the last few years, and we've learned a lot," Panos Panay, corporate vice president of Microsoft Devices, wrote in a blog post. "In the Surface team we track quality constantly, using metrics that include failure and return rates – both our predicted 1-2-year failure and actual return rates for Surface Pro 4 and Surface Book are significantly lower than 25 percent.

"Additionally, we track other indicators of quality such as incidents per unit (IPU), which have improved from generation to generation and are now at record lows of well below 1 percent," Panay said.

Microsoft is relatively new to the laptop business. It announced the first Surface product, a hybrid tablet, in 2012, and sales began early the next year. The Surface Pro arrived in February 2013, followed by the Surface Book in 2015 and the Surface Laptop in June. Microsoft also began selling the enterprise-focused Surface Hub in 2015, an interactive whiteboard with screen sizes as large as 84 inches. The Surface Hub is not included in Thursday's Consumer Reports announcement.

Read more

Check Also

Apple slapped with $6.6M fine in Australia over bricked devices

Apple has been fined AUS$9M (~$6.6M) by a court in Australia following a legal challenge by a consumer rights group related to the company’s response after iOS updates bricked devices that had been repaired by third parties. The Australian Competitor and Consumer Commission (ACCC) invested a series of complaints relating to an error (‘error 53’) which disabled some iPhones and iPads after owners downloaded an update to Apple’s iOS operating system. The ACCC says Apple admitted that, between February 2015 and February 2016 — via the Apple US’ website, Apple Australia’s staff in-store and customer service phone calls — it had informed at least 275 Australian customers affected by error 53 that they were no longer eligible for a remedy if their device had been repaired by a third party. Image credit: 70023venus2009 via Flickr under license CC BY-ND 2.0 The court judged Apple’s action to have breached the Australian consumer law. “If a product is faulty, customers are legally entitled to a repair or a replacement under the Australian Consumer Law, and sometimes even a refund. Apple’s representations led customers to believe they’d be denied a remedy for their faulty device because they used a third party repairer,” said ACCC commissioner Sarah Court in a statement. “The Court declared the mere fact that an iPhone or iPad had been repaired by someone other than Apple did not, and could not, result in the consumer guarantees ceasing to apply, or the consumer’s right to a remedy being extinguished.” The ACCC notes that after it notified Apple about its investigation, the company implemented an outreach program to compensate individual consumers whose devices were made inoperable by error 53. It says this outreach program was extended to approximately 5,000 consumers. It also says Apple Australia offered a court enforceable undertaking to improve staff training, audit information about warranties and Australian Consumer Law on its website, and improve its systems and procedures to ensure future compliance with the law. The ACCC further notes that a concern addressed by the undertaking is that Apple was allegedly providing refurbished goods as replacements, after supplying a good which suffered a major failure — saying Apple has committed to provide new replacements in those circumstances if the consumer requests one. “If people buy an iPhone or iPad from Apple and it suffers a major failure, they are entitled to a refund. If customers would prefer a replacement, they are entitled to a new device as opposed to refurbished, if one is available,” said Court. The court also held the Apple parent company, Apple US, responsible for the conduct of its Australian subsidiary. “Global companies must ensure their returns policies are compliant with the Australian Consumer Law, or they will face ACCC action,” added Court. We’ve reached out to Apple for comment on the court decision and will update this post with any response. A company spokeswoman told Reuters it had had “very productive conversations with the ACCC about this” but declined to comment further on the court finding. More recently, Apple found itself in hot water with consumer groups around the world over its use of a power management feature that throttled performance on older iPhones to avoid unexpected battery shutdowns. The company apologized in December for not being more transparent about the feature, and later said it would add a control allowing consumers to turn it off if they did not want their device’s performance to be impacted.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Disclaimer: Trading in bitcoins or other digital currencies carries a high level of risk and can result in the total loss of the invested capital. theonlinetech.org does not provide investment advice, but only reflects its own opinion. Please ensure that if you trade or invest in bitcoins or other digital currencies (for example, investing in cloud mining services) you fully understand the risks involved! Please also note that some external links are affiliate links.