Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It's a lot more than 3. I mentioned other startups I know, and if I did a survey I could probably collect data on a couple hundred. Also it would be 4 just among my 3 cofounders, since one was bought as a replacement and then began having problems itself.

Nonetheless, there is very likely to be a substantial failure rate for anyone to observe of 3 out of 4 Macbooks having problems. While you can't get an accurate mean failure rate from that small of a sample, you could pin down ranges for a given certainty. I'm too lazy to figure out how to do the math to get a range for say, 75% certainty, but I guarantee it's high by industry standards.

Also, you could simply Google around. Mac fans everywhere seem to consider their notebooks highly unreliable. Again, anecdotes, and probably a weighted sample too. But from Apple's perspective, it might as well be data since people will perceive it as such.



An incredibly weighted sample. That's like searching for commentary on any default Linux distro. Negativity rises to the top, because it's more urgent and more entertaining.

Again: I'm running my MBP from college, and I'd say that probably half my floor runs Mac. I've been dubbed the techie, unfortunately, and I've been asked no questions regarding Mac bugs yet. The biggest problems people've been having is with using Word 2008 to print: apparently, it messes up the margins.

And, of course, from personal experience: the only error my Mac has had was when I attempted to install Windows XP. And that was admittedly disastrous, but my computer was entirely backed-up and the Geniuses got it fixed off-the-clock - pretty top-notch customer service. When I installed Vista it happened smoothly.

Again: my evidence is as anecdotal as yours. But I'm not using my evidence to say that Apple is perfect and does no wrong. I'm just pointing out that for every "brick" story somebody has, there are a dozen "Maclove" stories that people just aren't provoked to tell.


Very true. But, if you assumed Macs failed 10% of the time, and that to be a high rate for notebooks overall, a sample of a ten of which none failed would happen ~35% of the time.

A sample of which 3 out of 4 failed would be much more rare. Thus you can glean more information from a sample of 3/4 failures than a sample of 10 with no failures.

I don't remember my combinations well enough to figure out the exact numbers, so I may be a bit off, but you see what I'm saying.


You're saying, now, that it is statistically relevant.


And it's not. Because from the data I've looked at, 10% is a vastly high number. You can't make numbers up and call them statistically relevant. And you can't disregard the fact that 3 out of 4 could just as easily be the statistical anomaly.

However, the other comment I've made still stands. Can we all drop it? Nobody cares, nobody will prove anything either way. I like the MacBook Pro, love it, think it's the best machine I've ever used. You, Matt, don't. Neither of our opinions matter to the other person, and this entire thread was started pointlessly and seemingly with intent to inflame. Let's drop it and go argue our operating system of choice somewhere that invites actual DISCUSSION.


No, I'm not saying that. I'm simply saying a small sample of failures (assuming failures are significantly less likely than non) gives you more information than a large sample of non.


Statistics take into account any valid ways of getting more information. And they also take into account what we know about how to avoid making crap up. You need to either claim to have a statistically relevant amount of information, or to know nothing about overall failure rates of apple laptops.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: