5 Years Later and the same problem persist. Class Action anyone?

The jacks on the motherboard do not break if you dont bang the laptop around. I know I have had a dell laptop for 2 years and have not hasd this problem. My gf has had her laptop for 3 -4 years without this problem.

At work where the librarians treat the laptops like crap we have had to get the mobos replaced 2 times because they bang the laptop around while plugged in.

Its people not taking care of their laptops thats the problem.

 

Fair point, the broken jack could be avoided if people were careful. But if it was designed slightly differently, for a few cents at most, people could be rougher with their portable laptops and teh AC jack would not break. Dell don't make the change. Why?

 

Choose one of the following:

Because it's not big enough of a problem to warrant adding 5 cents to the production cost of each laptop.
Because it's not a simple fix.
Because making the fix causes other unseen problems.

 

So Dell know about it, they could fix it for 5cents but choose not to, even though *many* people have a problem with it?

Who says it's not big enough of a problem to warrant 5 cents? Not the consumer with a broken AC jack, that's for sure. Dell say it's not a big enough problem to warrant 5c. Why is it not a problem? Because the machines that break after the warranty period will be ready to fail in every area anyway (they are designed that way, don't you agree? Or do you think they are designed to last 10 years?) and people are going to buy a new machine when it does fail. Most will be ready for new tech anyway so this isn't a problem.

If they design the thing to last 10 years they will lose the sales to people who are only waiting for it to break in order to buy a new machine.

 

Because 5 cents times every computer you sell equals a crap load of money. Because fixing this problem increases their laptop sales by near 0%. Because wasting money for a company that's barely staying afloat is a horrible idea.

There's a million better reasons than, "We're doing this to screw you so you have to buy a new computer". Like I said, it'll only do the opposite. Any consumer who faces this problem is NOT going to buy another Dell laptop.

 

More money than they make from selling a whole machine when the old one breaks?

 

You have to wait a few seconds after I post to answer. I have a habit of editing my posts multiple times until I'm content.

 

No worries. Try not posting for a minute after typing a reply, giving yourself time to think. I often do.

I have never said that they are doing it to screw people, read carefully, I have forcefully stated the opposite. There is no conspiracy or mystery to it. Products are designed to last a certain amount of time, surely you agree with that?

There are many reasons things are designed to last as long as they do, a major one of which is so that the item can fail soon after it's expected life and consumers can buy another one. Everyone is happy with this agreement, most people would want a new laptop after 3-5 years anyway, it makes sense to design them to last that long, hence forcing a few extra sales from those who wouldn't upgrade as a matter of course.

What are they going to buy then? Who makes laptops that last 10 years? It's not just Dell, all manufacturers design things to have a certain life, do you agree with that?

The reason why is what we disagree on.

You can't seem to accept that a manufacturer would want to sell machines to people after 3-5 years, whether those people need one or not.

Here's the bit I don't have any hard proof to show you but it's all right there, in every manufacturing corporation.

Manufacturers sometimes spend more money ensuring a part will fail in a certain (shorter) timeframe than it would cost to make that part last longer.

That's the bit you think is a conspiracy theory. It's not my job to convince you of the truth of it and if you don't want to believe it there's nothing I can do to convince you anyway, save getting you a job in a company that actually makes things. I don't have copies of the minutes of internal meetings at Dell.

How about fridges and washing machines? Ones from the '50s are still going strong. No one has one from 10 years ago that works as well as it did the day it was new.

You might say that things are built "cheaply" now and that's true but it's not purely so the makers save on production costs.

It's not about purchase cost and profit, it's about turnover. What do you do when everybody has bought something? You need to get them to buy another one, so you have to make sure the first one fails in a period of time that is acceptable to you and teh consumer.

 

I have nothing to contribute to the topic, really but isn't this a common problem for laptops?

 

I don't know.

 

We agree on the facts here - that manufacturers know the reliability of their machines, they know their own failure rates, and they are content with producing products with these failure rates.

What we disagree on is the reasoning behind it. You claim that they do it in order to ensure future sales, which I believe is nonsense.

It's all about cost v. reliability. When you put a set amount of money into a machine, it will have a set amount of reliably. Once you hit a certain point, yours returns will diminish, and it will take more and more money to get the same increase in reliability. This gives the companies a choice to make, and that's where to stop when the increase is too small to justify the cost. For laptops, it has nothing to do with ensuring future sales - people will upgrade whether their laptop breaks or not, yet if you have a higher reliability rating than your competition, people will upgrade to your computers. Companies have every incentive to make their computers as reliable as possible, especially when reliability is so important in the consumer's decision on who's laptop to buy.

 

To a point.

You think Dell would like their machines to last longer if they could do it for the same cost. I disagree. I think Delll makes their machines to last a certain amount of time, then builds that machine for as low a cost as possible.

They don't want them to last longer as it would cost them the sales from people who would upgrade, but there 5 year old machine is not broken.


Here's what Dell want. They want every machine to last for exactly a certain amount of time, then they want them all to fail. Of course there is a bell curve, but they have targets.

Of course the perceived reliability of the machine is an important marketing tool and they have to reach certain targets in order to ensure sales as people are less likely to buy a laptop known to be unreliable, as you say.

But it's a curve, and there is also point beyond which the machine is too reliable and they are losing some future sales.

Here's a scenario: Dell can make a certain component of a machine 2 ways, both for the exact same cost. Design #1 will have a mean time to failure of 5 years. Design #2 will have a mean time to failure of 10 years. Assume that both will cost exactly the same to design and produce, it's a simple design difference, not an engineering challenge.

Do you think Dell will go into production with design #1 (5 yr. life) or design #2 (5 yr. life)?

Why?

The answers are not a mystery or a conspiracy, they are a basic, fundamental part of manufacturing. You don't make things last longer than they have to. Doing so ultimately costs sales to the industry as a whole, and in the end, to your company.

 

That's the best part about those two geniuses: all they've proven is that they don't know how capitalism works. They're like, "uh, the corporation FORCES me to buy their product!" Oh, you mean you have no option than a laptop? "That's right." If consumers were actually as stupid as those two, corporations would LOVE it because then they really COULD do whatever they wanted. I mean, apparently they could ship you a laptop that was cut in half and go, "huh, what are you going to do now?" And Daytona would be like, "shoot, I guess I have to buy another laptop from you ...but this sure makes me angry!" HA HA HA HA HA!

Let's be honest, the truth is that those two saps are angry because they're cheap. They're great at talking about how Dell should do THIS or do THAT, but heaven forbid you ask them to try running a corporation in the same manner. "No way, I am too noble to make money! I scorn money!" Oh, well, generally that means you just suck at making money.

I didn't even bother reading the "airtight" argument that was presented "proving" that Dell and other laptop manufacturers purposefully design laptops to fail. Maybe if I need a good laugh, I'll do it. I'm sure Lenin would be extremely proud of the effort, though, fellas.

 

Five years later, my Latitude D600 still has an intact power jack.

Ok, I lied. It's about 5 days away from being five years old.

 

Really? I thought you must have read and understood it perfectly in order to compose such an eloquent response.

How's your face look? If you're this ignorant and aggressive in real life, not too pretty I bet!

 

As I'm sure that the vast majority are.

 

That's nonsense. If Dell could make a machine that was twice as reliable for the same cost, they would do it in an instant. Their sales would double, while the majority of people will still upgrade in 3-5 years due to aging of the components.

By your logic, compact fluorescent light bulbs, LEDs, or anything that disrupts the status quo would never be sold. Innovation is the blood of competition. If a competitor can find a way to one-up their rivals, it'd be done yesterday.

 

OK. .

 

I bought my dell recently and so far no power plug problem, tho it does feel looser, but my old laptop, an HP had this problem, it started about 2.5 years into my ownership of it, and it was completely unuseable by around 3... maybe a coincidence. My brother and I pulled out service manuals for it, and had to completely dissassemble the machine, and unsolder the socket, and replace it with a new one that was about 10 dollars, now it works perfectly again.

I am a mechanical engineering student, and from everything I've learned in my classes, and my internship in an hvac components company, stevenkelby is essentially correct. You can treat this as my oppinion, but it's completely logical.

Companies have certain design goals whenever they are designing a product. Sometimes it can be reliability, I"m sure that military laptops NEVER fail because of the power supply socket, but then again, they are often very outdated, and 3-4 times the price of a regular laptop.

All consumer products are designed with a specified life time, every component is designed, and tested to function for a specified number of cycles, under specified loads. There would be no reason to have a product which is not designed with reliability as the number one goal, to outlast its design lifetime. If you wanted it to last longer, you would have a longer design lifetime.
If your business model isn't concerned with reliability, your products do not need it. I'm sure a condom can be designed such that you could squeeze the "product" out of it and slap it on again for another go, but who would want to use the same condom more than once?????

If your target consumers want the new cool thing every 2-3 years, they won't care if their notebook is going to outlive their hamster. It isn't about getting ALL THE PEOPLE ON THE PLANET to buy your product because it's the coolest thing since sliced bread (unless u're apple), it's about getting all the people within your pre-specified niche.

kamehame: Why do all of your post sound like you are explaining to all of us (the people reading this thread) what's going on, and who and what the people debating you are? I think we are plenty capable of making our own decisions about what has been said, why don't you concentrate on using calm, sound reasoning,and a LITTLE common courtacy. In other words, stop being a douche bag... if you are an adult, act accordingly, if you aren't, you are giving kids a bad name.

 

I never claimed it was implemented properly - just maybe reasoning as to why thy thought a magnetic power socket might be preferable and the reason for them moving to it.

 

So, am I missing something here....or did you just contradict yourself in the above lines about things lasting forever....but, no, wait....it's actually only as long as 20, 30, 40 years....

the first bit of sense uttered from you in this whole thread.

 

No, I meant it literally, forever. Infinitely. Not even billions and billions or years, but forever.....

Picking on perspective is a pretty weak argument.

 

I can't be bothered arguing with you because looking at the previous posts, whenever someone makes a totally valid point countering what you have said....you say something like..."thats not important" etc etc or "thats a weak argument" or some such thing.

or else you ignore their point, pretty much....and just ask another a question

so no point in saying anything more to you.

Oh, one last thing....how's that 'American people' theory you have coming along?

 

Umm.... So.... Does this mean if i wanted to i could start a class action lawsuit over the Static on the Headphone Jacks and the Loudness of the DVD Burner in my m1530

OH BTW I LOVE DELL, DELL IS CHEESE

 

No, it's not; he's correctly pointing out that you have set yourself up as the arbiter to determine what is an "appropriate" time frame for any product to work. If YOU say it should last five years, then five years it is! If YOU say it should work 20 years, then 15 constitutes an underhanded plot by evil corporations to penny-pinch their way into your pocket. It's just another way of saying what I've been saying all along: since you're the expert on consumer products, why don't you make a company and fulfill these goals? I mean, you'd end up having your company collapse in five seconds because you have no understanding of anything, but that's besides the point. The important thing is that as soon as you made a product some ignorant guy on the Internet would start harping about how it's not good enough for him.

 

OK. I dare you to be true to your word and not respond then but I am happy to respond to any questions you have for me.

Let me know what point you want to debate and I'll do my best I promise.

I do apologize for accusing you of being American, you're obviously offended by that assumption for some reason, maybe you're racist against Americans, I don't know, but it was honestly not an insult, merely an (incorrect) observation.

My American people theory is coming along fine thank you. They are indeed patriotic in general, and on average, are quick to defend their country, government and corporations, as I had assumed. I don't think that's a bad thing, do you?

 

Actually, what he'll do is just say that you're being "willfully ignorant" if you don't agree with him, which is a great argument. (Check it out, that's what he said to Lithius.) Basically, anyone who doesn't agree with his idiotic "corporation plot" argument is in cahoots with them. By the way, this is the guy who gets to determine how long products last. Someone died and left him in control or something, even though he doesn't know how to run a business.

 

You sir, are an idiot.

I was kind enough to respond to your post, I challenge you to read and respond to this one.

Please respond to my post, if you are able to read and comprehend it, which I doubt:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=3208620&postcount=97

If you did have any powers of comprehension you would know that

I have no opinion, nor have ever expressed an opinion, on what I consider to be an appropriate time frame for any product to work.

Pleas quote where I claimed to.

Where are you getting these crazy assumptions from? Please quote me, or at least explain why you think that I think that I should get to say how long something lasts?

As above, I don't have any opinion on how long it should last.

It's Dell who say how long that part should last, they designed it.

As it happens I don't have a problem with Dell, or how long there stuff lasts, I have no opinion either way. I'm sure they have spent a lot of time and money deciding how long there machines last and I'm sure they have sound reasons for doing so.

What goals? Laptops that last 10 years?

For some reason I feel compelled to explain it to you one last (I mean this!) time, incase there is a chance you will read it. But I doubt you have gotten this far. Prove me wrong!

I don't make laptops that last 10 years because:

1. I don't know how to make laptops.

2. I don't want a laptop that lasts 10 years.

3. Almost no one wants a laptop that lasts 10 years.

4. Making an entire laptop that lasts 10 years would cost too much money and no one would pay that much.

5. If I did make laptops, I would want them to last 5 years so that they will break then. It's pretty much the end of their useful life anyway and most people will have traded up by then. Those who haven't, I would want to force to trade up by having their laptop break. They will accept this as it has had a good life.

Like I said, you're an idiot.

 

Fascinating, did you come up with that one while you were dreaming about cars that last forever and tires that never need changing? LOL. Oh, and by the way, the answer to your question is already quoted, which is even funnier:

Here's a clue: nobody cares if YOU "don't care if a laptop lasts 10 years." That's the point. Apparently you DO care if it lasts only five or so. But who cares what you think? Apparently you think it matters because YOU have determined that the corporations have sabotaged your laptop and caused it to work "not long enough." And that's the basis for your stupid argument, as well as the equally stupid "tires don't last long enough" and "cars don't last long enough" and "lightbulbs don't last long enough." At least you have enough sense to admit you don't know the first thing about making ANY of those things, but apparently you think you're qualified to tell everyone else how to make them.

Which makes you the idiot, but everyone already knew that.

 

Clearly, you can't even read. I DON'T care if it lasts only five years or so. I claim that everything lasts long enough, in fact, it all lasts the perfect amount of time, and if I was in charge, I would make everything last for exactly as long as it does now.

So you see, you were wrong, yes?

Thanks for responding to the questions I asked you in my post too. JK, I know you couldn't have read the whole thing in that time.

 

...which makes you the arbiter of what is the "perfect amount of time," which is what I said, which makes you illiterate. Thanks, you lose.

P.S. If everything lasts "perfectly" right now, then by definition the AC adapter jack lasts perfectly the right amount of time, too, so stop whining about it. LOL, you said it was perfect. HA HA HA!

 

I have to say that I agree to an extent with the whole argument that companies don't really want to make products that last longer. I don't think it's ALL because they want to force us to buy new product, I think some of it is also the increased cost to do so.

I was going to write a lot more on the subject but I really don't want to get too invested in this argument...oh and btw steven you have some good points, but do come off sounding a little pretentious and paranoid; don't know what all the hate against daytona was from, are we not supposed to expect a manufacturer to make a quality product?; and kamehame you sound like a jerk and an idiot (as has already been stated) please stop digging yourself in even deeper.

 

Sound argument, I'm sold.

Nothing like a guy that pops in to say "I agree and you're right, but I don't want to get involved, just wanted to say that you're right and also that other guy is a jerk, but I'm not involved." Grow a pair, dude.

 

Notice I didn't write anything more related to the actual subject of the thread...you know you can't actual dig yourself out right?

 

Actually, that was my entire point: all you did was come in here, say "I agree, but I'm not going to explain why and also you're wrong, but I'm not going to explain why and also I'm not involved but I just wanted everyone to know my opinion without any repercussions, thanks." Which is, as I said, what eunuchs do.

 

STOP THE PRESSES......

If we all collectivly move to a version of LINUX they other OS creators will get the point. Its not piracy that drives up prices.... its not the programmers....its us the consumers... just like gas prices if you complain but keep dumping your money into it they have no reason to even think about lowering costs or for that matter producing a decent product

 

kamehame: He did explain why though, he just did it in a concise manner. You are obviously 14 kamehame, both from the dbz screen name, and by your behavior. You do not know nearly as much about business, both in theory and in practice as you would like to appear to. You compensate by being a douche and saying things like "you lose" and generally being a rotten little kid. Many have asked you politely to act more like an adult, you refuse to. How old are you really?

It simply isn't a sound business model to make products that your customers never have to replace or service. Yes you will most likely get alot of initial clients and make "bank" but companies are concerned with long term profits and growth. If you hire 1000 employees and rent out several factories to produce your ever-lasting product, you'll make tons of profit for the first couple of years, but subsequently your costs, i.e. rent for the factories and yearly salaries to your employees will end up costing mroe than the trickling of new customers will yield. There are a few cases in which this isn't true, and it can be argued that in the case of laptops, even if it is built to last forever, it will become obsolete in a couple of years and people will upgrade, but not as many will as would if their laptop broke and they were FORCED to buy a new one.

There is NO large corporation on the face of this planet which is content to make crazy profits for a couple of years, and then retire because they've made billions and are now rich. That isnt' how corporations work. They want to KEEP making more and more and more money because the longer they exist and the bigger they are, the more costs they have every year, so they can't afford to make alot one year and then stop making as much money.

Now are you going to ignore my post again or will you actually attempt your first thought out and reasoned post?

p.s. The only person talking about conspiracies here is you, big business IS out to get you, it's not a conspiracy theory, it's capitalism. The whole US economy is based on unending and ever increasing consuming of everything. If people stop buying things all the time (as the trend is now going) the economy suffers because the corporations suffer. You see, it's not about making money, it's about CONTINUING to make lots of money over and over again every year.

 

I'm not even sure what your argument has been up to this point, just about every post has been something like the above one...in other words reiterating someone's post who you disagree with in a way to make them sound like an idiot, which in effect just back fires.

Since I really don't want to go and re-read all those posts again could you plainly state what you have been trying to argue? Is it a good thing that dell (or most computer companies) use sub-par materials and maufacturing standards with many of their products?

 

I don't think he knows WHAT he's arguing, just that people are bashing big business, and he for some reason has to come to their defence because apparently big business is the coolest thing since christ

 

Every time I leave this, this just devolves into a name-calling thrashfest. Please stay on what little topic we do have here.

I'd have to agree with the above statement. Every time we've reached my logical counterpoint, Steven backs out with a "You're right" or "OK" and never offers another counterpoint, only to come back later and insist that he's right.

 

Ok, lithus, I posted 2 thorough posts with reasoning and explanations, yet nobody has yet addressed the points I raised and the name calling is pretty one sided, where are all the mods? Am I the only one who thinks that kamehame needs atleast some sort of warning from a mod, every post of his I"ve seen, in this thread and another on this forum have been name-calling, insulting and largely irrelevant to the topic of discussion.

 

You keep making the point that companies have a target reliability time for their products, which is absolutely true. Dell knows how long their laptops should last and their exact failure rates. I've confirmed that many times.

What I have a problem with is that Steven is insinuating that Dell has the ability to make their laptops last longer, FOR THE SAME COST, yet choose not to because they would lose future sales.

That is absolutely not true. Right after performance, the next most important thing for the majority of laptop purchasers is reliability. Like I said before, if Dell could make a laptop twice as reliable AT THE SAME COST, they would have done it yesterday. They will instantaneously increase their sales and drive consumers away from their competitors, while at the same time THEY WILL NOT LOSE FUTURE SALES. The majority of people will still upgrade in 3-5 years, and are almost guaranteed to be repeat customers.

 

Reliability is important, but reliability only up to the design lifetime, if it doesn't fail in 3 years if 3 years is their design lifetime, then it is reliable.

I fail to see why making a 2ice as reliable product at the same cost would instantly drive up sales. Do you think that marketing departments see consumers as logical, smart human beings? No, unfortunatly they would much rather attract us with shiny doo-dads, and multi-colored thingamajigs. Hell, they charge 200 extra for a spiffy color, and people pay it!!!
They also have to make calculations on how much they make per laptop, versus how much they make if you take it in for service. Why should they put in a 5 cent screw to fix a problem when you can pay them 200 to just replace it.

I am hesitant to say it will cost them NOTHING to fix this particular problem, but it WOULD be an insignificant increase in cost. Problem is that that when designing a product, as Steven mentioned EVERY corner is cut to minimize production cost, so if they can save 1 cent per laptop, they WILL save that 1 cent because if they save 1 cent in a hundred places, that's 1 dollar per laptop, and when you're making hundreds of thousands of laptops, it adds up.

If dell wants customers to purchase their laptops for reliability, they will come up with a model, lets say the "Lastro" and market it as such, then charge u extra for extra reliability. Basically, if their regular laptops don't fail more often than other laptops from competitors, they don't have to improve it. Don't think for a minute Dell and EVERY other laptop manufacturer doesn't know that the power supply plugs fail often they have tested them all, they know, and they are doing nothing because they have decided that it is more profitable for them not to change it.

I will leave you with the engineer's motto, as taught to me by my engineering design proffessor: "Fix it till its broke" As in, you start with a brilliant design that is crazy good, then start cutting stuff out, a little here, alittle there until you squeeze everything you can out of it in terms of weight and cost until it barely works, and that's what you build. That's how engineering works unless you are engineering a space ship or airplane on which human lives depend because THEN the lawsuits would be a real problem.

 

That's exactly the point - fixing the defect would cost more than not fixing it. The reliability v. cost curve is optimized right now. However, if there was a way to increase reliability or decrease cost without affecting the other attribute, it'd be done right away.

The problem I have is with lightbulbs and tires that last forever, but can't be sold since they'll kill future sales.

Plus, there are laptops that are created with longer reliabilities. I own one. Dell has the Latitiude line. Lenovo has the Thinkpads...etc.

 

Yeah, but reliabilty vs cost is not what is being claimed on here by the two lunatics. It is common sense that, if a company poured millions of dollars into EACH laptop, of course it could produce a laptop that would last longer (which is what you mean with "reliability vs cost").

These guys are claiming that Dell and all other laptop manufacturers DELIBERATELY and INTENTIONALLY create systems that are timed to fall apart ON PURPOSE in order to force consumers to buy more laptops. That is the statement that is being made by both Daytona and stevenkelby and that is why I keep making fun of them.

That, plus the fact that on repeated occassions in this thread I have challenged them to form a company that lives up to their own expectations and they have refused. The fact that stevenkelby thinks he is the arbiter of "how long a laptop should last or else there's a plot!" is ridiculous. The fact that these guys think THEY get to decide how long a lightbulb SHOULD last "to make it fair" is silly.

 

You have challenged them to make a company, wtf, how is that proving your point, and for that matter, how is calling them lunatics or "making fun of them" prove your point? It doesn't, it just shows your character, or rather lack there of. Really, do tell me how old you are. I'm betting 14, you would do well for yourself if you take a course or 2 in critical thinking or public speaking, they cover persuasion there, remember "logos", it is your friend.

They were not arguing that manufacturers create time bombs in their machines so to say, they are saying as am I, that manufacturers are designing products that last a specified time, if it lasts 2ice as long, cool, but if it breaks 2 days after warranty expires, super duper, another 2k from the customer. If you don't think that's how corporations work you've got some learning to do. Cars also are designed to run with no problems roughly until the warranty is out because that way they don't have to pay for your repairs while under warranty, but once you're out of warranty u might still go back to the dealership to get your car serviced/ repaired.

You both keep missing the point that for large corporations it's not immediate profits that matter, but sustained LONG term profits. Long term as in decades, they're not some get rich quick schemes that kamehame tries to use as examples to argue his point. You can't just start a company every time you have a half-assed idea, you need a business proposal, prototypes, cost estimates, timelines, you have to meet with investors, secure millions in investments etc... years of effort and in the end a large corporation like starbucks comes to the corner across from your store with a big fat "sale" sign and you go bankrupt even though you may have had better coffee/laptops.

Can we agree that fixing the original issue in this thread can be done?

Can we agree that it will cost a few cents MAYBE even a whole whopping dollar more?

Can we agree that they've had more than 15 years to find out about this problem and fix it?

Can we agree that most manufacturers haven't?

Good, now I'm not saying that any corporation should be sued over this, but can't you see that they are essentially screwing you for what would be a cheap fix, as evidenced by the fact that it cost me all of 10 dollars to fix it on my laptop, and that's for 1 part, if i bought 100000 of them, they'd be 5 cents a piece. So perhaps now kamehame, you can see why people wouldn't feel bad about screwing corporations in any way they can. I know I certainly don't. I wouldn't break the law, but I would have no moral issues with stealing from any large corporation, be it hp, dell, microsoft, or haliburton. None of them are looking out for normal people, nor are they looking out for their employees, heck all their customer service jobs moved to India, all their manufacturing is in china or taiwan.

 

And that's where we disagree.

I've said this what? Thrice now? If Dell could make their laptops more reliable at the same cost, the would do it. It would help their short-term sales. It would help their long term sales. It would help sales overall. That's how competition works, not giant corporations out to screw everyone. I have no clue why you would think that Dell would actually lose money if they sold a more reliable product. Really? You would never buy another computer from Dell if the first didn't break? Let's say every single person who bought a revamped Dell kept it on average a year longer, sure Dell loses that money, but guess what? Now they have twice as many customers!

Why do they outsource? To cut costs. To be able to sell you laptops at $1000, again, not to screw you over. You may feel screwed over when you call up and talk to a guy that can't speak english, but guess what? You get what you paid for, and guess what the companies realized? People care more about price than they do service. No matter what they say.

 

This is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It wastes my time and upsets the pig(s).

To argue or debate effectively, you also need to listen to the other sides points and respond to them. Some people don't have that ability so this is a waste of my time.

If anyone wants to ask me personally a specific question that you feel I've walked away from, PM.

Bye!

 

You think I'm talking to myself? Of course I'm responding to the other side. You repeatedly say that increasing reliability will decrease sales. I'm telling you that's stupid logic. You're the one who always stops mid-discussion.

"OK"
"You're Right"
"I'm tired of this"
etc...

I'm also not the one repeatedly claiming that I'm right and whoever disagrees is willfully ignorant.

 

You say it will increase both short term and long term profits but you don't explain why. I have explained why I think it would not. Reliability is relative, if their laptop outlasts half the other laptops out there (which I believe it does btw) then it can be called reliable, I mean that's why I bought a dell. I've always been talking about power supply sockets in general on laptops. What I'm arguing is that the added change would not cost much to implement when going from one generation to another, yet they do not do it. I am saying that they have a reason to not do it, and corporations use primarily 1 formula: maximize profit. They wouldn't be doing it unless their calculations told them that this way maximizes their profits.
Now from here I concede that I am speculating about their exact reasons, I believe it is because their customer surveys, or whatever formulas they use to analyze their customer base tell them that they will lose long term profits from people who would not need to buy a new laptop or service their current one. It sounds simple, to the point and reasonable. Whatever their reasons though, they ARE doing only because it maximizes profit.

I'm much more careful about my power supply jack on my dell than I was with the hp before because I think if I don't break it, the machine WILL last a long time, it is solidly built everywhere except stupid places like the power supply, and the media buttons, those areas are cheapo.

p.s. They do outsorce to cut costs, but their motive isn't nearly as noble as "so they can sell you a cheap laptop" It's so they will (say it with me now) MAXIMIZE PROFIT.