Consumer Reports Pulls Purchase Recommendation for Microsoft Surface Devices

[deckard666]

From MS's own leaked memo today -

"A chart accompanying the memo says that Surface Book had a return rate of around 17 percent when it first launched and continued to remain above 10 percent for the first six months of its release. The Surface Pro 4 had a similar return rate of 16 percent, though it did drop down to less than 10 percent a month after its release. As per the chart, the Surface Book has had the highest return rates compared to any other Surface device since the last two years that it has been on sale."

A one in six return ratio - talk about lack of quality control....

 

[Queen6]

From MS's own leaked memo today -

"A chart accompanying the memo says that Surface Book had a return rate of around 17 percent when it first launched and continued to remain above 10 percent for the first six months of its release. The Surface Pro 4 had a similar return rate of 16 percent, though it did drop down to less than 10 percent a month after its release. As per the chart, the Surface Book has had the highest return rates compared to any other Surface device since the last two years that it has been on sale."

A one in six return ratio - talk about lack of quality control....

I'll be straight as an owner of a Surface Book used professionally I have incurred no issue at all, equally I don't dispute the figures, certainly Microsoft needs to fix this rapidly if it wants to remain to be considered a premium provider. Admittedly I did purchase my Surface Book well into the production cycle on the advice of a good friend. Clearly as my own Surface Book illustrates the system is solid in principe, equally why is Microsoft allowing it's vendor to produce substandard units, worse still ship them...

I would be interested to see the numbers now, however as often's the case with such matters the damage is already done. I will remain to keep my own Surface Book for the typical tenure of 24 months in professorial use, traveling globally, nor to some of the most accessible places. Hopefully Microsoft will dig deep and work harder on such matters to resolve.

Would I purchase another? Yes, as I have no practical reason not to based on my own experience, equally once again I would hold off for the first year, much the same as I generally do with Apple.

Q-6

 

[SteveJUAE]

I'll be straight as an owner of a Surface Book used professionally I have incurred no issue at all, equally I don't dispute the figures, certainly Microsoft needs to fix this rapidly if it wants to remain to be considered a premium provider. Admittedly I did purchase my Surface Book well into the production cycle on the advice of a good friend. Clearly as my own Surface Book illustrates the system is solid in principe, equally why is Microsoft allowing it's vendor to produce substandard units, worse still ship them...

I would be interested to see the numbers now, however as often's the case with such matters the damage is already done. I will remain to keep my own Surface Book for the typical tenure of 24 months in professorial use, traveling globally, nor to some of the most accessible places. Hopefully Microsoft will dig deep and work harder on such matters to resolve.

Would I purchase another? Yes, as I have no practical reason not to based on my own experience, equally once again I would hold off for the first year, much the same as I generally do with Apple.

Q-6

Whilst I agree there is no smoke without fire I think CR data conflicts with many others, including well known and similar subscription based consumer reporting in other countries.

Additionally they do not note of the +90k feedback on laptops since 2014 (which seems relatively small IMO) how many were related to MS products.

I think CR quote below sums it up and how much you should consider it:

"Predicted reliability is a projection of how new models from each brand will fare, based on data from models already in users’ hands"

 

[dogslobber]

From MS's own leaked memo today -

"A chart accompanying the memo says that Surface Book had a return rate of around 17 percent when it first launched and continued to remain above 10 percent for the first six months of its release. The Surface Pro 4 had a similar return rate of 16 percent, though it did drop down to less than 10 percent a month after its release. As per the chart, the Surface Book has had the highest return rates compared to any other Surface device since the last two years that it has been on sale."

A one in six return ratio - talk about lack of quality control....

This shows it's junk. Yet again, CR is not afraid to call out junk hardware when it encounters it, while those who get their models from the mothership will not, and this is why CR is second to none; they have no conflict of interest.

 

[SteveJUAE]

This shows it's junk. Yet again, CR is not afraid to call out junk hardware when it encounters it, while those who get their models from the mothership will not, and this is why CR is second to none; they have no conflict of interest.

I would not be too hasty as the new MBP are not showing up in CR data yet which means you will have to wait a year or 2 to see

This makes CR reporting somewhat useless as things move faster than they can advise unless your buying old models maybe

 

[Queen6]

Whilst I agree there is no smoke without fire I think CR data conflicts with many others, including well known and similar subscription based consumer reporting in other countries.

Additionally they do not note of the +90k feedback on laptops since 2014 (which seems relatively small IMO) how many were related to MS products.

I think CR quote below sums it up and how much you should consider it:

"Predicted reliability is a projection of how new models from each brand will fare, based on data from models already in users’ hands"

Personally I don't bother with such publications, rather preferring to defer to my own peer group, which have yet to fail me. Barring the initial release of Surface Pro 4 & Surface Book requiring software patches I don't know anyone who has incurred a serious issue with either. I am certain more likely to listen to this group of engineers, designers, business users etc. that the likes of CR...

Q-6

 

[BaltimoreMediaBlog]

I think a better definition is repeating a made up definition, pretending it to be true. d-:

Actually, that's a quote from Albert Einstein. He literally said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”.

 

[dogslobber]

I would not be too hasty as the new MBP are not showing up in CR data yet which means you will have to wait a year or 2 to see

This makes CR reporting somewhat useless as things move faster than they can advise unless your buying old models maybe

That’s because CR actually do CONSUMER testing of the widgets and print their findings as the conclusion, which can take months. They don’t reprint the mothership marketing blurb and call it a review like most others do.

 

[zhenya]

Personally I don't bother with such publications, rather preferring to defer to my own peer group, which have yet to fail me. Barring the initial release of Surface Pro 4 & Surface Book requiring software patches I don't know anyone who has incurred a serious issue with either. I am certain more likely to listen to this group of engineers, designers, business users etc. that the likes of CR...

Q-6

I have reported widely here and on Surface-specific forums of the troubles I had with my SP3. Microsoft's own firmware update bricked the battery for me and many other owners - both SP3 and SP2. The battery suddenly would not charge. Microsoft spent months denying there was an issue, (instead insisting that a 100% dead battery in 14 months and with fewer than 200 cycles for most users was acceptable.) Many of us who needed our machines to have a battery in order to do our jobs had no option but to pay out of pocket for a refurbished warranty exchange - for at least $450. This despite the fact that Microsoft - specifically Panos Panay - promised that there would be a $199 Surface battery replacement program - which never materialized. When Microsoft eventually acknowledged this firmware bug - and issued a patch (many months later) - they again, in mainstream media - assured owners that had paid out of pocket for this particular bug that they would be reimbursed. I spent countless hours dealing with Microsoft support attempting to get this money back - more on principle than anything - it certainly wasn't worth my time - to no end. Microsoft support is a firewall of outsourced techs who speak marginal English (not their fault - but makes it very difficult to resolve complicated technical issues), have no power to do anything, and will only transfer you around in circles, never allowing you access to the people who might make a difference.

When my SP3 recently broke the screen from a minor fall, largely due to the precarious nature of the kickstand/type cover arrangement - and they wanted another $450 - I called it quits. I went back to Lenovo with an X1 Carbon that is utterly fantastic - no issues - support with native speakers of my language - and the confidence that if something goes wrong a tech will be here to fix it the next day. This is another business done with their Surface experiment.

 

[tobefirst ⚽️]

Actually, that's a quote from Albert Einstein. He literally said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”.

So, like I said, the poster I was quoting was repeating a made up definition.

 

[Queen6]

I have reported widely here and on Surface-specific forums of the troubles I had with my SP3. Microsoft's own firmware update bricked the battery for me and many other owners - both SP3 and SP2. The battery suddenly would not charge. Microsoft spent months denying there was an issue, (instead insisting that a 100% dead battery in 14 months and with fewer than 200 cycles for most users was acceptable.) Many of us who needed our machines to have a battery in order to do our jobs had no option but to pay out of pocket for a refurbished warranty exchange - for at least $450. This despite the fact that Microsoft - specifically Panos Panay - promised that there would be a $199 Surface battery replacement program - which never materialized. When Microsoft eventually acknowledged this firmware bug - and issued a patch (many months later) - they again, in mainstream media - assured owners that had paid out of pocket for this particular bug that they would be reimbursed. I spent countless hours dealing with Microsoft support attempting to get this money back - more on principle than anything - it certainly wasn't worth my time - to no end. Microsoft support is a firewall of outsourced techs who speak marginal English (not their fault - but makes it very difficult to resolve complicated technical issues), have no power to do anything, and will only transfer you around in circles, never allowing you access to the people who might make a difference.

When my SP3 recently broke the screen from a minor fall, largely due to the precarious nature of the kickstand/type cover arrangement - and they wanted another $450 - I called it quits. I went back to Lenovo with an X1 Carbon that is utterly fantastic - no issues - support with native speakers of my language - and the confidence that if something goes wrong a tech will be here to fix it the next day. This is another business done with their Surface experiment.

Indeed very much a poor customer experience, and with that, I too would feel the same. CR obviously have their reasons, equally I have no personal anecdotal experience or know of issue. Overall Microsoft need to fix this and fix it fast if they want to remain to be considered as a provider of premium hardware, not just offer weak defensive statements. Ultimately Surface is a Halo brand, yet with such poor reliability openly documented it will diminish in status rapidly without the right actions taken.

Q-6

 

[convergent]

This shows it's junk. Yet again, CR is not afraid to call out junk hardware when it encounters it, while those who get their models from the mothership will not, and this is why CR is second to none; they have no conflict of interest.

That’s because CR actually do CONSUMER testing of the widgets and print their findings as the conclusion, which can take months. They don’t reprint the mothership marketing blurb and call it a review like most others do.

I think its funny that you love referring to Microsoft as "the mothership" when Apple actually has a mothership, and you list it as your location.

By the way, if you don't think CR has a conflict of interest, you are on a mothership somewhere in outer space. CR is a dying cause. In order to keep their subscription model alive, they need to get headlines... what better way. There are way better places today to get product information, such as Amazon's actual customer feedback. I subscribed to CR about a year ago because we had some big purchases that they have historically been really good at providing data on in the past - cars, appliances, etc.. I found the data they provided to be very shallow, incomplete, and in some cases in complete conflict with other more reliable sources.... and cancelled after several months of useless information.

Who knows if what they report about reliability is right or not. By my own research, I found that each new Surface model had problems at launch, but long term reliability seemed to be fine base on user reports on various sites. That may have skewed the CR testing. From my own experience, I've had a number of Apple products fail, and had I not bought AppleCare I would have been out of luck.

I am thus far quite pleased with the new Surface Pro and it does things that no Apple computer will do, so Apple is out of the running to consider. Since you are clearly all in as an Apple fanboy, I find it hard to take your criticism seriously when Apple doesn't have a horse in the race to compete with the Surface Pro. And lets not forget JD Power's report that the Surface beat out the iPad for user satisfaction - https://www.macrumors.com/2017/04/06/microsoft-surface-beats-ipad-j-d-power/

 

[Queen6]

I think its funny that you love referring to Microsoft as "the mothership" when Apple actually has a mothership, and you list it as your location.

By the way, if you don't think CR has a conflict of interest, you are on a mothership somewhere in outer space. CR is a dying cause. In order to keep their subscription model alive, they need to get headlines... what better way. There are way better places today to get product information, such as Amazon's actual customer feedback. I subscribed to CR about a year ago because we had some big purchases that they have historically been really good at providing data on in the past - cars, appliances, etc.. I found the data they provided to be very shallow, incomplete, and in some cases in complete conflict with other more reliable sources.... and cancelled after several months of useless information.

Who knows if what they report about reliability is right or not. By my own research, I found that each new Surface model had problems at launch, but long term reliability seemed to be fine base on user reports on various sites. That may have skewed the CR testing. From my own experience, I've had a number of Apple products fail, and had I not bought AppleCare I would have been out of luck.

I am thus far quite pleased with the new Surface Pro and it does things that no Apple computer will do, so Apple is out of the running to consider. Since you are clearly all in as an Apple fanboy, I find it hard to take your criticism seriously when Apple doesn't have a horse in the race to compete with the Surface Pro. And lets not forget JD Power's report that the Surface beat out the iPad for user satisfaction - https://www.macrumors.com/2017/04/06/microsoft-surface-beats-ipad-j-d-power/

Bought my Surface Book November 2016 so far it has proved to be 100% reliable and more stable than any of my Retina Mac's. nor do I know of anyone who has incurred drama with a Surface Product. Bottom line is once MS releases Surface Book 2 I will likely buy one, as Apple offers nothing remotely competitive, equally again I will hold off to allow time for things to settle, same as I would do with a new design of MBP.

Q-6

 

[dogslobber]

I think its funny that you love referring to Microsoft as "the mothership" when Apple actually has a mothership, and you list it as your location.

By the way, if you don't think CR has a conflict of interest, you are on a mothership somewhere in outer space. CR is a dying cause. In order to keep their subscription model alive, they need to get headlines... what better way. There are way better places today to get product information, such as Amazon's actual customer feedback.

I stopped reading here when you attempted to make out Amazon customer reviews as better than CR. Sorry, you lose.

 

[SteveJUAE]

That’s because CR actually do CONSUMER testing of the widgets and print their findings as the conclusion, which can take months. They don’t reprint the mothership marketing blurb and call it a review like most others do.

Whilst I agree CR and other such publications like Which in UK do "Proper" product testing their retrospective reporting statistics used for future projections are somewhat flawed IMO but may be indicative of older models (ie 2 or more years old) given the data sample they used.

I suspect MS has already reacted to their stats from 2 years back and we may have to wait another year or 2 with CR to reflect this

 

[convergent]

I stopped reading here when you attempted to make out Amazon customer reviews as better than CR. Sorry, you lose.

LOL... well as a former paying subscriber to CR, and a long time Amazon buyer, I am confident in my assessment that the value of CR's product recommendations is pretty much useless. I'll take the direct feedback of thousands of buyers that actually used the product in real life over some laboratory experiment any day. I win, because everything I've bought with good Amazon recommendations has proven to be a great buy. Things bought based on CR recommendations... not so much.

Enjoy life on the Apple mothership where everything Apple produces is filled with pixie dust and glowing CR reviews.... oh wait... I seem to recall CR bashing the Macbook Pro.

 

[dogslobber]

Whilst I agree CR and other such publications like Which in UK do "Proper" product testing their retrospective reporting statistics used for future projections are somewhat flawed IMO but may be indicative of older models (ie 2 or more years old) given the data sample they used.

I suspect MS has already reacted to their stats from 2 years back and we may have to wait another year or 2 with CR to reflect this

It's called brand reliability measuring. Brand reputation lives and dies by the perception of quality. Why do you think Apple responded like lightening to resolve the CR quality issue identified? What would have happened if they didn't? I'll leave you to join the dots.
[doublepost=1502928061][/doublepost]

[irrelevant anecdotal evidence deleted]

Enjoy life on the Apple mothership where everything Apple produces is filled with pixie dust and glowing CR reviews.... oh wait... I seem to recall CR bashing the Macbook Pro.

I'm not who you think I am. But do carry on.

 

[MDMachiavelli]

And it seems like MS was really trying to gain market shares with this line.

 

[tech4all]

Once you try Mac, you do not want Windows, even for free.

Yea, I'd beg to differ...

 

[SteveJUAE]

It's called brand reliability measuring. Brand reputation lives and dies by the perception of quality. Why do you think Apple responded like lightening to resolve the CR quality issue identified? What would have happened if they didn't? I'll leave you to join the dots.

They reacted quickly as it was cheap and easy to do so, look at other issues Apple refused to accept quickly eg on dGPU and defective screen coatings

They were not so worried about reputation then when it cost them money

Dot's were not joined so easily then

 

[dogslobber]

Dot's were not joined so easily then

I don’t think you quite understand the difference between CR highlighting an issue and some irrelevant webpage pointing it out. There are some publications that even Apple can’t ignore.

 

[cote32mt]

This is based on past experiences 10-20 years ago when my mom subscribed to CR and I used their recommendations. Maybe some of my complaints are no longer valid, but CR still feels somehow out of place in the world I live in now.

1) A couple of products I purchased which were recommended by CR failed. Sure it can happen, but I still felt let down nonetheless.

2) Outdated info/discontinued products still being reviewed, but no longer available or difficult to obtain from normal retailers/regional retailers.

3) New products often took 4-6 months, sometimes longer, after initial release to be reviewed. That irritated me the most since I thought I might as well wait now for the next generation of the product. I'm not sure how fast they are now, but the sites I go to will often review a product within days of release. A month at most. That's what you should expect now.

4) Free and better sites that I've found to be very reliable (so far). CR was slow to adapt to the digital reality, failing to realize that just like newspapers, their magazine increasingly didn't matter to the next generation of consumers and now they've become irrelevant to people 40 and under, maybe even 50 and under, hiding behind their paywall. I'm not saying that they weren't helpful to a lot of people over the years with their reviews, perhaps even making life-saving differences, but the times have changed and CR feels/felt like one of the many 20th Century dinosaurs that still roam, trying to hang on to their dwindling base. They may have a decent chance of survival, but more changes probably will be necessary for that to happen.

I'm ancient by most standards here (65) but completely agree with your assessment of CR, even though I've subscribed to them for 35+ years. I still pay attention to CR, but always check other resources such as Amazon reviews as well.

 

[convergent]

I don’t think you quite understand the difference between CR highlighting an issue and some irrelevant webpage pointing it out. There are some publications that even Apple can’t ignore.

CR is pretty irrelevant, so I might take my chances with this webpage you are referring to.

 

[SteveJUAE]

I don’t think you quite understand the difference between CR highlighting an issue and some irrelevant webpage pointing it out. There are some publications that even Apple can’t ignore.

Who's talking about some irrelevant webpage I was referring to the 1000's of owners who were ignored, however CR is somewhat irrelevant to many outside US as much as Which would be outside UK

 

[Jonathanok100]

Yeah, I don't trust Consumer Reports' "recommendations" any more than I trust their car "tests", which (by their own admission) often don't actually involve any testing but instead are based on less than 100 cherry-picked reviews from their paid subscribers, all of whom fit a very strict demographic that likes whatever's trendy and looks for problems with whatever's not. I've had my Surface Pro 3 since December 2014 and haven't experienced a single issue. My iPad (or rather iPads, since I've had to replace them due to their planned obsolescence) and Android tablet, on the other hand, did not fare so well. Anyone who looks at the actual numbers, like customer reviews and satisfaction ratings, percentages of customers reporting problems, or frequency of returning devices, can see that Consumer Reports' data and claims are simply "alternative facts" that are at odds with reality. This is great news for whatever brand is apparently "in" at the moment, since now they get free false advertising, but it's also yet another black mark on the credibility of Consumer Reports as a reliable source for product reviews, and it's unfortunate for whatever poor souls blindly follow their product recommendations and purchase something that actually will break after two years.