Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi,comp.arch.storage (
More info?)
"Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message
news:rvWdnV9fgJxzK5vcRVn-uw@metrocast.net...
>
> "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:aNxNc.336547$Gx4.279986@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Has anyone ever heard anyone claim that the length of a HD's warranty
was
> > simply a marketing and price point decision by the mfg and the warranty
> > length has nothing to do with expected drive life? Somewhere I think I
> > remember someone making such a claim and a bunch of trolls tried
> > unsuccessfully to shoot him down?
As usual your pompous jibber below says little.
The deal is that HD warranties were ALWAYS a marketing and price point
decision and had little to do with expected HD life. Since the 1 year and 3
year warranty HDs ALREADY had an expected life of over 5 years. So in a pen
stroke a company could change its HD warranty length and even retroactively
without great exposure SINCE the drives were ALREADY going to last for 5
years anyway as I've always said.
Seagate simply announced a modest cost change internally and externally
effectively a modest price decrease, nothing more.
> Well, AFAIK nothing physical changed in ATA drives when manufacturers a
> while ago decided to drop the warranty period from 3 years to 1. And I
just
> read that Seagate is now going to *raise* that period to *5* years as an
> inducement to prospective buyers (something I'd certainly take into
> consideration: I deliberately chose a 3-year-warrantied drive last time I
> bought one).
>
> Even if manufacturers over time might be able to cut corners such that a
> drive would often fail in its second year without too much risk of
> first-year failures, it seems unlikely that the cost savings could make up
> for the resulting bad publicity. So I'd guess that drives should be in
the
> bottom of their 'bathtub' curve for several years regardless of what the
> nominal warranty period is: unless they fail (even during that nominal
> period) at a fairly significant rate the savings that the manufacturer can
> realize by shortening it would seem unlikely to be large (though in such a
> cut-throat pricing environment the resulting price difference might
> noticeably affect sales, so if one does it, the rest may have to follow,
and
> the same may be true for lengthening the period as Seagate is doing, since
> it would otherwise give them a unique selling point for very little price
> difference).
>
> Whether similar considerations apply to the terms of service (e.g., duty
> cycle) specified for the drive is less clear: there may be fairly
> noticeable savings in manufacturing a drive for light-desktop rather than
> server-style use, even leaving aside more obscure characteristics such as
> resistance to the need for re-seeking in environments subject to
vibration.
>
> - bill
>
>
>