Gaming laptop broken - less than 3 years old

smashinglynaive

Manxman_in_exile said:

smashinglynaive said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

RogerBareford said:

cx6 said:

A component on a 3 year old laptop should not fail like this

If it goes tp court the judge will make a decision based on the balance of probabilities that the OP did or did not use their laptop on a radiator with the vents taped up.

I thought there was more too it than that.

From what i have read i was under the impression that a component may have a mean life of say 10 years but 1 in 5,000 may fail at 3 years but if it was not a manufacturing fault then you can't claim under CRA.

Those 1 in 5000 that fail before their time didn't conform to the contract in terms of durability for which the consumer is entitled to a remedy  

Components have an MTBF rating, and M doesn't stand for minimum.

No it doesn't, but @the_lunatic_is_in_my_head isn't suggesting that it does, are they?  Just that a component that fails well before the expected mean life expectancy for it was not sufficiently durable and therefore not of satisfactory quality?

And mean means the average.  Is three years enough to be "inherently faulty"?

I don't know, but the OP seems to have a report that states the item was faulty but no indication of whether it's an inherent fault.  And that is going to be a problem.

Manxman_in_exile

smashinglynaive said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

smashinglynaive said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

RogerBareford said:

cx6 said:

A component on a 3 year old laptop should not fail like this

If it goes tp court the judge will make a decision based on the balance of probabilities that the OP did or did not use their laptop on a radiator with the vents taped up.

I thought there was more too it than that.

From what i have read i was under the impression that a component may have a mean life of say 10 years but 1 in 5,000 may fail at 3 years but if it was not a manufacturing fault then you can't claim under CRA.

Those 1 in 5000 that fail before their time didn't conform to the contract in terms of durability for which the consumer is entitled to a remedy  

Components have an MTBF rating, and M doesn't stand for minimum.

No it doesn't, but @the_lunatic_is_in_my_head isn't suggesting that it does, are they?  Just that a component that fails well before the expected mean life expectancy for it was not sufficiently durable and therefore not of satisfactory quality?

...I don't know, but the OP seems to have a report that states the item was faulty but no indication of whether it's an inherent fault.  And that is going to be a problem.

I know.  And, of course, that's why I pointed it out previously at 11:20 on 22 February.

smashinglynaive said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

smashinglynaive said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

RogerBareford said:

cx6 said:

A component on a 3 year old laptop should not fail like this

If it goes tp court the judge will make a decision based on the balance of probabilities that the OP did or did not use their laptop on a radiator with the vents taped up.

I thought there was more too it than that.

From what i have read i was under the impression that a component may have a mean life of say 10 years but 1 in 5,000 may fail at 3 years but if it was not a manufacturing fault then you can't claim under CRA.

Those 1 in 5000 that fail before their time didn't conform to the contract in terms of durability for which the consumer is entitled to a remedy  

Components have an MTBF rating, and M doesn't stand for minimum.

No it doesn't, but @the_lunatic_is_in_my_head isn't suggesting that it does, are they?  Just that a component that fails well before the expected mean life expectancy for it was not sufficiently durable and therefore not of satisfactory quality?

And mean means the average.  Is three years enough to be "inherently faulty"?
...

Well I think "mean" actually means the "mean" rather than just "the average".  It's not at all clear to me that @the_lunatic_is_in_my_head thought it meant "minimum", which is what you seem to be implying.

I agree that because something fails before MTBF does not necessarily mean (no pun intended) that it is not sufficiently durable.  But that does not necessarily "mean" that the retailer can't be asked to show that it was in fact sufficiently durable.

(eg In the past few years I've returned innumerable LED light bulbs because they have all failed well before they were expected to.  By a magnitude of around 10 x.  I don't have a LED bulb in the house that has not been replaced well before it should have been.  The last time I had to have one replaced I asked the reatiler about their durability and they told me they had to claim against the manufacturer all the time.  But the manufacturer kept on replacing them FOC so the reteiler wasn't bothered... )

[Edit:  the LED light bulbs I'm referring to all have advertised life expectancies in the region of 15,000 hours or more.  None of them are used for more than 5 hours per day - mean - so that gives a life expectancy of 8 years.  So yes - three years would be sufficiently deficient to indicate inherently faulty.  If manufacturers believe their components won't last longer than two years -  make them say so.  Then everybody knows... ]

smashinglynaive

Manxman_in_exile said:

smashinglynaive said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

smashinglynaive said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

RogerBareford said:

cx6 said:

A component on a 3 year old laptop should not fail like this

If it goes tp court the judge will make a decision based on the balance of probabilities that the OP did or did not use their laptop on a radiator with the vents taped up.

I thought there was more too it than that.

From what i have read i was under the impression that a component may have a mean life of say 10 years but 1 in 5,000 may fail at 3 years but if it was not a manufacturing fault then you can't claim under CRA.

Those 1 in 5000 that fail before their time didn't conform to the contract in terms of durability for which the consumer is entitled to a remedy  

Components have an MTBF rating, and M doesn't stand for minimum.

No it doesn't, but @the_lunatic_is_in_my_head isn't suggesting that it does, are they?  Just that a component that fails well before the expected mean life expectancy for it was not sufficiently durable and therefore not of satisfactory quality?

...I don't know, but the OP seems to have a report that states the item was faulty but no indication of whether it's an inherent fault.  And that is going to be a problem.

I know.  And, of course, that's why I pointed it out previously at 11:20 on 22 February.

smashinglynaive said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

smashinglynaive said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

RogerBareford said:

cx6 said:

A component on a 3 year old laptop should not fail like this

If it goes tp court the judge will make a decision based on the balance of probabilities that the OP did or did not use their laptop on a radiator with the vents taped up.

I thought there was more too it than that.

From what i have read i was under the impression that a component may have a mean life of say 10 years but 1 in 5,000 may fail at 3 years but if it was not a manufacturing fault then you can't claim under CRA.

Those 1 in 5000 that fail before their time didn't conform to the contract in terms of durability for which the consumer is entitled to a remedy  

Components have an MTBF rating, and M doesn't stand for minimum.

No it doesn't, but @the_lunatic_is_in_my_head isn't suggesting that it does, are they?  Just that a component that fails well before the expected mean life expectancy for it was not sufficiently durable and therefore not of satisfactory quality?

And mean means the average.  Is three years enough to be "inherently faulty"?
...

Well I think "mean" actually means the "mean" rather than just "the average".  It's not at all clear to me that @the_lunatic_is_in_my_head thought it meant "minimum", which is what you seem to be implying.

I agree that because something fails before MTBF does not necessarily mean (no pun intended) that it is not sufficiently durable.  But that does not necessarily "mean" that the retailer can't be asked to show that it was in fact sufficiently durable.

(eg In the past few years I've returned innumerable LED light bulbs because they have all failed well before they were expected to.  By a magnitude of around 10 x.  I don't have a LED bulb in the house that has not been replaced well before it should have been.  The last time I had to have one replaced I asked the reatiler about their durability and they told me they had to claim against the manufacturer all the time.  But the manufacturer kept on replacing them FOC so the reteiler wasn't bothered... )

[Edit:  the LED light bulbs I'm referring to all have advertised life expectancies in the region of 15,000 hours or more.  None of them are used for more than 5 hours per day - mean - so that gives a life expectancy of 8 years.  So yes - three years would be sufficiently deficient to indicate inherently faulty.  If manufacturers believe their components won't last longer than two years -  make them say so.  Then everybody knows... ]

The problem is that the lunatic isn't saying that, they're saying that if 1 fails early, it MUST not have conformed to the contract.  I disagree, as some components will fail early (the MEAN time between failure) and many will go on to live for years.

Claiming that an item falling in 3 years must be inherently faulty seems, to me, to be a pointless exercise.

The OP has a report that states WHAT failed, but not WHY.  If it was inherently faulty, happy days.  But so far it's a cause without a reason.

Jenni_D

If we're veering into the world of pedantry ... 😈

MTBF means Mean Time Between Failures ... what's really being discussed here is the Mean Time To Failure (MTTF)

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

If the goods fail before their time with no unreasonable negative interaction from the consumer then they haven't conformed to the contract in terms of durability.

The CRA stipulates certain considerations regarding conformity one of which is price, personally I do not think a laptop that cost "over £1000" that fails after 2 years and 7 months is reasonable, particularly when used for a couple of hours a day every other day or so. I also do not think the average person would find that reasonable either.

I don't like the term inherent as people looking for help may take that to mean the issue should have been present as it currently is from the start rather than an issue lurking waiting to display itself.

I don't like the term faulty as it means different things to different people and isn't specific with regards to which aspect the goods are failing to conform to.

Lastly I don't like the term engineer's report either, people looking for help are not building a bridge over a ravine, they need the goods independently inspected.

As per my only simple point on this topic, the so called "report" merely needs to assist the consumer in articulating that on the balance of probabilities the goods do not conform to the contract. 
 

Jenni_D

If I recall correctly, the legislation talks about goods not conforming to contract, rather than becoming faulty.

Sandtree

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Lastly I don't like the term engineer's report either, people looking for help are not building a bridge over a ravine, they need the goods independently inspected.

That would be a civil engineer or structural engineer.

I think its just that we are catching up with much of the rest of the world where the term is applied much more broadly, its certainly being used much more in business and IT design but even 20 years ago the guys valuing a car or deciding if repairs were reasonable in a car insurance claim were "Motor Engineers" and produced an "Engineer's Report". Obv there are strong parallels to what's required in this sort of situation.

To go off on a bit of tangent, price is slightly more complex, particularly when you get to technology, as mid priced should probably last longer than budget but high end can go either way as it can be investing in more robust components or can be going into the bleeding edge where you can get the "burn bright, burn fast" where components are overclocked to go well beyond their intended performance (obv links in to our recent R8 and Whirlpool discussions)

PS. whilst I get the sentiment, I also strongly dislike the inherent fault language 

smashinglynaive

Jenni_D said:

If we're veering into the world of pedantry ... 😈

MTBF means Mean Time Between Failures ... what's really being discussed here is the Mean Time To Failure (MTTF)

No, what's being discussed here is MTBF.

MTTF is for devices that cannot be repaired.  Perhaps that's the way most manufacturers want to go but it isn't currently the case for almost any laptop.

MTBF is absolutely the current metric that we should be using.

https://limblecmms.com/blog/mttr-mtbf-mttf-guide-to-failure-metrics/

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Jenni_D said:

If I recall correctly, the legislation talks about goods not conforming to contract, rather than becoming faulty.

Yeap spot on There is list of requirements to which the goods must match to be of satisfactory quality based upon the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory. 

Goods being durable must mean they are fit to carry out their purpose with appropriate longevity and I think most people would simply put this as the goods must last a reasonable amount of time when the required considerations are taken in account. 

In terms of proof the regs only say that within the first 6 months it is taken the goods must not have conformed unless demonstrated otherwise. After 6 months the opposite is true in that it isn't taken so the consumer must demonstrate but only to a standard either accepted by the trader or by the small claims process.  

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Sandtree said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Lastly I don't like the term engineer's report either, people looking for help are not building a bridge over a ravine, they need the goods independently inspected.

That would be a civil engineer or structural engineer.

I think its just that we are catching up with much of the rest of the world where the term is applied much more broadly, its certainly being used much more in business and IT design but even 20 years ago the guys valuing a car or deciding if repairs were reasonable in a car insurance claim were "Motor Engineers" and produced an "Engineer's Report". Obv there are strong parallels to what's required in this sort of situation.

To go off on a bit of tangent, price is slightly more complex, particularly when you get to technology, as mid priced should probably last longer than budget but high end can go either way as it can be investing in more robust components or can be going into the bleeding edge where you can get the "burn bright, burn fast" where components are overclocked to go well beyond their intended performance (obv links in to our recent R8 and Whirlpool discussions)

PS. whilst I get the sentiment, I also strongly dislike the inherent fault language 

I do agree, I think in terms of the board the use of "engineer's report" can present the requirements to posters looking for help as are being overly complicated or difficult through use of negative language.

Also similar to cars there are no doubt many people who have expert knowledge in tech whose opinion would be credible whist they have no official capacity to class themselves as an engineer. 

Personally I find it very difficult to purchase things, I prefer to pay more for something that lasts longer but it's hard to tell if you are just paying for branding, extra features or even some kind of perceived value where because the price is higher the goods must be better quality when in fact they are just the same as another retailer selling at 20% less.

I think this is where the standards of a reasonable person would come into play.