WOW, Seagate ups warranty to 5 years.
- Thread starter Bozo
- Start date
blakerwry
Storage? I am Storage!
They were one of the 1st with WD as I remember.. maxtor was there also... IBM/HGST last.. samsung was the only one not to join the fray.
I disagree with IBM being last - They simply approached it a different way by putting a power-on-hours limitation on their drives. That limitation puts them first because that happened before the warrentee reductions occured.
sechs
Storage? I am Storage!
The power-on hours are irrelevant, as they'd replace the drive under the warranty anyway. The 120GXP didn't seem to be any less reliable than any other similar drive.
blakerwry
Storage? I am Storage!
Mark, the power on hours was a recomendation... It was not a limit and it did not affect the warranty.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Any of our resellers brave enough to make a change based on this? I'm not.
I'd love to see data backing up Seagate's claims of reliability.
The other thing that's interesting is, the vast, vast majority of Seagate drives are sold to OEMs with NO Seagate warranty. If this change only affects the tiny, misguided minority who buy non-OEM Seagate drives... WTF is the point? For that matter, WTF was the point of dropping to 1 year?
I'd love to see data backing up Seagate's claims of reliability.
The other thing that's interesting is, the vast, vast majority of Seagate drives are sold to OEMs with NO Seagate warranty. If this change only affects the tiny, misguided minority who buy non-OEM Seagate drives... WTF is the point? For that matter, WTF was the point of dropping to 1 year?
Bookmage
What is this storage?
Hrm... ok, so now Seagate has 5yr warranty on retail drives. I will assume this also means 5yr warranty on oem drives i purchase thru online stores, ie. newegg, mwave, wutever store on pricewatch i can find...
So now do I still stick with Samsung and it's 3 years? or go with Seagate?
And who wants to take bets on the next company to up their warranty to 5 years?
So now do I still stick with Samsung and it's 3 years? or go with Seagate?
And who wants to take bets on the next company to up their warranty to 5 years?
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
A few points WRT to Samsung:
They're quiet. Not quite as quiet as Seagates, but close.
They're fast (at least the SP161N 8MB cache ones are). Not quite as fast as Hitachi, but close.
They're inexpensive. Not quite as inexpensive as WD, but frankly the WD-buyers of the world get what they frickin' deserve. On the other side, I consistently see Seagate drives in the upper tier of pricing for every product it makes.
They have a proven record of reliability. Samsung made some dogs back in the 4 - 8GB era. Since then they've apparently been golden. I've had a single problem with a Samsung drive out of maybe 200 I've purchased (and the drive in question was received with its defect. It didn't run for a while and crash, or anything). Tannin's volume is way, way higher and I think he's still in single digits for RMAs as well.
I've also had good luck with Maxtor, for what it's worth (5 or 6 RMAs out of probably 500 sold).
They're quiet. Not quite as quiet as Seagates, but close.
They're fast (at least the SP161N 8MB cache ones are). Not quite as fast as Hitachi, but close.
They're inexpensive. Not quite as inexpensive as WD, but frankly the WD-buyers of the world get what they frickin' deserve. On the other side, I consistently see Seagate drives in the upper tier of pricing for every product it makes.
They have a proven record of reliability. Samsung made some dogs back in the 4 - 8GB era. Since then they've apparently been golden. I've had a single problem with a Samsung drive out of maybe 200 I've purchased (and the drive in question was received with its defect. It didn't run for a while and crash, or anything). Tannin's volume is way, way higher and I think he's still in single digits for RMAs as well.
I've also had good luck with Maxtor, for what it's worth (5 or 6 RMAs out of probably 500 sold).
blakerwry
Storage? I am Storage!
Mercutio said:
1) percieved reliability.... maybe seagate realized that with every other major player offering 1 year warranty they could garner some business from the competition.
2)competitiveness. If everyone else is saving money on crappy warranties, seagate doesnt want to miss out.
Buck
Storage? I am Storage!
Here is the Warranty Overview in PDF format. As it mentions, year 4 and 5 are Return for Credit only. Oh, and as to which drives are covered:
2. To whom does the 5-year warranty apply?
The 5-year warranty applies to all customers who purchase drives either directly through Seagate (distributors), or through the Authorized Distribution channel. This includes OEMs, Channel SIs, System Builders, Retail customers, and Bare drive customers. There will be no changes to our OEM agreements.
2. To whom does the 5-year warranty apply?
The 5-year warranty applies to all customers who purchase drives either directly through Seagate (distributors), or through the Authorized Distribution channel. This includes OEMs, Channel SIs, System Builders, Retail customers, and Bare drive customers. There will be no changes to our OEM agreements.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
So they'll give you $3 or whatever they say the drive is worth if it dies in year five.
That's just special.
That's just special.
sechs
Storage? I am Storage!
So all of this is fancy for Seagate sucks, but now you can get $20 back for it?
Perhaps other manufacturers will follow suit. I have nearly 3TB in drives in my system with 1 year warranties from 2003 and 2002. Half of them are expired, so I will be glad when "fresh" drives with longer warranties are available.
timwhit
Hairy Aussie
Three years is fine for me. I never really keep a drive around long enough for a five year warranty to matter.
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
Last year, I had to replace a Fujitsu 20GB ATA drive that was still under warranty despite Fujitsu's departure from the ATA world. They gave me 90$CDN for the drive (must be around 60U$). Not bad for an obsolete defective unit (the drive was close to three years old).Mercutio said:
I believe Seagate will try to match Fujitsu for their refund values. There's no way they'll give you only 3$ for a five years old drive. If they would, it would be like admitting their drives ain't worth shit.
They make it very clear at 4 years it is 25% of the last retail price and at 5 years it is 10% of its last retail price. what you get is dependant upon what prices do over the years. At the rate drives have previously dropped in price I would say $3 wouldn't be unreasonable result for a 5 year old drive that originally cost $100 retail. The question becomes will it be worth the effort to get that $3?
blakerwry
Storage? I am Storage!
yeah, but hard drives hardly ever fall below $60... so you'd get atleast $6.
ddrueding
Fixture
Actually, SCSI drives might fare worse in this system; as they stay on the market longer, their final price might be even lower.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
I'm surprised. Very surprised. And delighted, I hasten to add.
I'm only mildly surprised that a major manufacturer decided to address the short warranty problem — that really needed doing, and they must have been being bled white by the drift to Samsung. Sure, the Seagates and Maxtors of this world were still selling a lot of drives, but they were missing out on a lot too: there is quite a number of places that have switched to Samsung because of the warranty problem.
My real surprise is that it was Seagate that made the move. I'd have expected Hitachi, or Maxtor, or maybe Western Digital, not Seagate.
Moving on now to the "five years" side of it, that's just crap. It's a three year warranty, and calling it a five year warranty is just marketing lies, plain and simple.
But three years is fine. I'm happy with three years — and if really pushed to it, I'd settle for two. Two years is the industry standard for system warranties, after all. (But that means two years plus a month or two of "crossover time". For a shop like us, we provide two years from the day the customer picks the system up. A two year factory warranty usually covers two years from the time the drive is invoiced out to us — which leaves us exposed to replacement cost for the last few weeks of the warranty period. You would not believe how many people put off getting service until the very last moment, so that month or so is actually quite significant.)
Anyway, long and the short of it is that three years is just fine.
I'm only mildly surprised that a major manufacturer decided to address the short warranty problem — that really needed doing, and they must have been being bled white by the drift to Samsung. Sure, the Seagates and Maxtors of this world were still selling a lot of drives, but they were missing out on a lot too: there is quite a number of places that have switched to Samsung because of the warranty problem.
My real surprise is that it was Seagate that made the move. I'd have expected Hitachi, or Maxtor, or maybe Western Digital, not Seagate.
Moving on now to the "five years" side of it, that's just crap. It's a three year warranty, and calling it a five year warranty is just marketing lies, plain and simple.
But three years is fine. I'm happy with three years — and if really pushed to it, I'd settle for two. Two years is the industry standard for system warranties, after all. (But that means two years plus a month or two of "crossover time". For a shop like us, we provide two years from the day the customer picks the system up. A two year factory warranty usually covers two years from the time the drive is invoiced out to us — which leaves us exposed to replacement cost for the last few weeks of the warranty period. You would not believe how many people put off getting service until the very last moment, so that month or so is actually quite significant.)
Anyway, long and the short of it is that three years is just fine.
Bozo
Storage? I am Storage!
Western Digital 'JB' series has had a 3 year warranty for some time now.
So does the Intel. Basically, every box that I put together uses parts with a 3 years warranty. Hopefully I never have to find out how good these warranties are. Although the Western Digital RMA process is relatively painless.
Bozo :mrgrn:
So does the Intel. Basically, every box that I put together uses parts with a 3 years warranty. Hopefully I never have to find out how good these warranties are. Although the Western Digital RMA process is relatively painless.
Bozo :mrgrn:
Tea
Storage? I am Storage!
Ahh, Tannin, but it ws Mercutio who asked the key question:
Mercutio said:
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Bozo said:
That's the only good thing about Western Digital.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Quite right, Little One. It is the key question. And the answer — at least so far as we are concerned — is almost certainly not.
Mercutio again has the nub of the matter: the Samsung three year warranty is only the second (and distinctly the lesser) of the two reasons we like Samsung. The main reason is the outstanding demonstrated reliability of Samsung's drives.
I know for a fact that the horrible U Series things are a million miles away from that standard, and I have no particular reason to believe that the Seagate 7200s are in any way outstanding. When last we used them they were OK. No more and no less: OK. The Samsungs, in contrast, are simply superb.
BTW, Merc, we are now into double figures: 10 failures out of ~3000 drives. Of those, 5 or 6 were non data-loss failures: i.e., a single bad sector, or at most two. Only 5 catastrophic failures, or roughly 2 per 1000.
I see that Seagate are billing themselves as makers of the "world's most reliable drives". In a word, crap. Not even close. (Unless they are talking about their SCSI products: I could believe that.) Their U-Series crud — not a chance in Hell. The 7200s: probably quite a decent product. Hell, the latest ones might just be as good as Samsungs, as I doubt that they would have extended their warranty to 3 years without having some decent return rate figures to make it appear affordable.
But the bottom line is I know the Samsungs are far, far better than the other drives we have sold. Why would I trade a known certainty for a speculative possibility?
Mercutio again has the nub of the matter: the Samsung three year warranty is only the second (and distinctly the lesser) of the two reasons we like Samsung. The main reason is the outstanding demonstrated reliability of Samsung's drives.
I know for a fact that the horrible U Series things are a million miles away from that standard, and I have no particular reason to believe that the Seagate 7200s are in any way outstanding. When last we used them they were OK. No more and no less: OK. The Samsungs, in contrast, are simply superb.
BTW, Merc, we are now into double figures: 10 failures out of ~3000 drives. Of those, 5 or 6 were non data-loss failures: i.e., a single bad sector, or at most two. Only 5 catastrophic failures, or roughly 2 per 1000.
I see that Seagate are billing themselves as makers of the "world's most reliable drives". In a word, crap. Not even close. (Unless they are talking about their SCSI products: I could believe that.) Their U-Series crud — not a chance in Hell. The 7200s: probably quite a decent product. Hell, the latest ones might just be as good as Samsungs, as I doubt that they would have extended their warranty to 3 years without having some decent return rate figures to make it appear affordable.
But the bottom line is I know the Samsungs are far, far better than the other drives we have sold. Why would I trade a known certainty for a speculative possibility?
Tea
Storage? I am Storage!
OK. So let's take this out of the realms of speculation and put it into concrete terms.
Assume a situation like the one you had the other month when there was no stock of Samsung 80GB drives. What would you do?
Last time, Westan offered you Western Digital 80GB drives as a substitute, and you wouldn't even consider them: you bought a box of 120GB Samsungs and accepted a loss of $40 per system while the shortage lasted. You didn't bother ringing around to see about Seagate, Hitachi, or Maxtor 80s either: you just paid the difference.
Has that changed?
Assume a situation like the one you had the other month when there was no stock of Samsung 80GB drives. What would you do?
Last time, Westan offered you Western Digital 80GB drives as a substitute, and you wouldn't even consider them: you bought a box of 120GB Samsungs and accepted a loss of $40 per system while the shortage lasted. You didn't bother ringing around to see about Seagate, Hitachi, or Maxtor 80s either: you just paid the difference.
Has that changed?
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Nope. Given the same situation (no Samsung 80GB 7200s — our best-selling drive) I'd still apply the same solution: pay the $40 extra to use Samsung 120GB units.
But, to save you spamming the thread with yet another question, Tea, if there were no 80GB Samsungs and no 120GB ones either, then I'd have to decide between Samsung 160GB units and another brand of 80GB.
That's tougher. The reality is that the price difference between an 80 and a 160 is probably too big to bridge. So yes, I'd consider Seagate in that circumstance. But I'd also consider Hitachi, and possibly Maxtor.
Guess I'd be advised by the crew here as to which of these would make the best substitute. (Well, by those of the SF crew that handle a statistically significant number of drives at least. Less than 100-odd units just doesn't provide any useful information.) (I was going to add "IMO" to that last, but it's not actually "opinion": I have some training in statistics and it's simple mathematical fact — but writing "IMSMF" might not be very meaningful!)
In the end, faced with a double-step shortage (no Samsung 80 or 120GB drives), I think we would deal with it using a two-part policy:
(a) Offer customers a Seagate/Hitachi/etc drive at the regular price
(b) Offer them the choice of upgrading to a Samsung drive at whatever extra cost stepping up to a 160 involves.
I'd buy in a box each of Hitachi/Seagate/etc 80GB drives, and of Samsung 160s. My guess is that ~50-60% of people would pay the extra. I would, of course, recommend that they do so.
(Or, if I could get Samsung SATA 80GB drives, I'd just use those instead wherever possible.)
-----------------------------------------
So where does that leave Seagate? So far as my business goes, it leaves then in with a rough chance of picking up any emergency shortage trade we happen to have. Pretty small beer, but better than none at all. That's an improvement for them. Prior to this announcement, I had them in the same category as Western Digital: not even on the radar.
But, to save you spamming the thread with yet another question, Tea, if there were no 80GB Samsungs and no 120GB ones either, then I'd have to decide between Samsung 160GB units and another brand of 80GB.
That's tougher. The reality is that the price difference between an 80 and a 160 is probably too big to bridge. So yes, I'd consider Seagate in that circumstance. But I'd also consider Hitachi, and possibly Maxtor.
Guess I'd be advised by the crew here as to which of these would make the best substitute. (Well, by those of the SF crew that handle a statistically significant number of drives at least. Less than 100-odd units just doesn't provide any useful information.) (I was going to add "IMO" to that last, but it's not actually "opinion": I have some training in statistics and it's simple mathematical fact — but writing "IMSMF" might not be very meaningful!)
In the end, faced with a double-step shortage (no Samsung 80 or 120GB drives), I think we would deal with it using a two-part policy:
(a) Offer customers a Seagate/Hitachi/etc drive at the regular price
(b) Offer them the choice of upgrading to a Samsung drive at whatever extra cost stepping up to a 160 involves.
I'd buy in a box each of Hitachi/Seagate/etc 80GB drives, and of Samsung 160s. My guess is that ~50-60% of people would pay the extra. I would, of course, recommend that they do so.
(Or, if I could get Samsung SATA 80GB drives, I'd just use those instead wherever possible.)
-----------------------------------------
So where does that leave Seagate? So far as my business goes, it leaves then in with a rough chance of picking up any emergency shortage trade we happen to have. Pretty small beer, but better than none at all. That's an improvement for them. Prior to this announcement, I had them in the same category as Western Digital: not even on the radar.
sechs
Storage? I am Storage!
The warranty doesn't really make-up for Seagate's failings elsewhere (no longer being the cheapest or quietest or most reliable).
Will people figure this out?
Will people figure this out?
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
Last time I remember facing a dead Western Digital was a 420MB (or similar size) drive in a 486DX-2 box. A few hundred drives passed trough my hands since then (but of course, not all were Western Digital's). WD is no worse than the others. Probably no better either. All companies must be within a few percentage each from another, or else they wouldn't have a business. Take for instance IBM, after their 75GXP fiasco, they had to sell their division because their name was screwed in this business. Don't you think the same would happen to WD if their reliability was that dreadful.
Your brand fetishism is quite funny. As long as the drives feature similar specifications and warranty, paying 40$ more for a certain brand is irrational.
These days, I would rather get a Hitachi than another brand for 7200rpm'ers, because they look better on SR's performance measurements, but there's no way I'm gonna pay a significant premium for this.
Your brand fetishism is quite funny. As long as the drives feature similar specifications and warranty, paying 40$ more for a certain brand is irrational.
These days, I would rather get a Hitachi than another brand for 7200rpm'ers, because they look better on SR's performance measurements, but there's no way I'm gonna pay a significant premium for this.
sechs
Storage? I am Storage!
Why do people still think that IBM left the harddrive business because of the 75GXP?
As did Quantum, IBM decided that there just isn't a lot money in thin margins of commoditised drives. Furthurmore, storage was not considered to be a core or key business to an increasingly software and service oriented company.
As did Quantum, IBM decided that there just isn't a lot money in thin margins of commoditised drives. Furthurmore, storage was not considered to be a core or key business to an increasingly software and service oriented company.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
sechs said:
Well, when you have a long, long line of successful products and then you have a complete lemon that destroys your reputation and costs you an incredibly large amount of money, most people would regard that as a pretty good reason to sell!
Fushigi
Storage Is My Life
Don't forget a good portion of IBM HD sales were enterprise SCSI drives and not the no-margin consumer stuff. IBM's lineup of 10k & 15k SCSI drives went into all of their i-, p-, x-, and z-Series servers not to mention their SANs. Many thousands of high-margin drives a month. That market wouldn't care about a bum ATA design.
If IBM was worried about their reputation they would have sold off the ATA side but kept the SCSI side since that's where the profits were anyway.
If IBM was worried about their reputation they would have sold off the ATA side but kept the SCSI side since that's where the profits were anyway.
Bozo
Storage? I am Storage!
That's odd. Every IBM server that I've seen had Seagate hard drives in them.
Bozo :mrgrn:
Bozo :mrgrn:
timwhit
Hairy Aussie
Bozo said:
Well lots of them do. The IBM divisions are completely separate and the server division will use whatever drive they can get for the cheapest price. They don't play favorites, so many IBM servers have Seagate drives in them.
Fushigi
Storage Is My Life
Prior to the drive biz sell-off, every AS/400 came with IBM drives.