If you your are going to throw out statistics don't make them up. You have no evidence or proof that 99% of failures have not been because of NAND endurance. I am not taking a stance one ways or the other on the longevity of solid state drives. I am taking a stance that one should not spread misinformation by making up statistics.
Unless the SSDs were used in enterprise environment, there is simply no way the NAND endurance could have been the cause of the failure with only one year of usage. You can use the data I posted earlier, all consumer SSDs (except Samsung's SSD 840) use MLC NAND that's good for at least 3,000 P/E cycles. The older you go, the more likely it is that the SSD has NAND that's rated at 5-10,000 P/E cycles.
Now, even with a 64GB SSD, the minimum write endurance for the drive is 206.2TB. That's 565GB of data
per day. Even in the enterprise world that's considered extreme because it's nearly 10 drive writes a day. In the consumer world, I can't think of a usage that would write anywhere near that, no matter how extreme write amplification factor I use.
Yes, I did make up that 99% number because I'm willing to bet that I should've said 100% instead.