More on IBM 75GXP Drive Fiasco 371
FolkImplosion writes "Internal documents have been released suggesting that IBM was well-aware that its click-of-death 75GXP hard drives had a failure rate of as much as 10 times that of its competitors. IBM apparently sold drives it knew were faulty into distribution, and reportedly planned to deal with any issues with marketing spin rather than a fixing the problem. This new information should help bolster a class action suit that accuses IBM knowingly shipped defective 75GXP drives with abnormally high failure rates." The lawfirm pursuing the class action suit has a page of information, including the latest news report (pdf) on information coming out in the suits. See also our original story about the drive failures.
Reputation (Score:5, Insightful)
Institutional behaviour (Score:5, Insightful)
What happens is that internal politics turn problems into cover ups. Someone, somewhere decides that it's more logical to ignore the issue than to address it. The falacy continues up the line, since decisions are often based on information from 'down the line'.
The best thing IBM can do is to issue a general recall, offer generous replacement policies ("bring it in, we'll fix it on the spot") and try to recover their image as a reliable drive manufacturer. Otherwise their HD business is down the drain.
Oh wait! They sold it to Fujitsu! OK, sue their asses!
Isn't that the way we do things now? (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM... pah! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Institutional behaviour (Score:5, Insightful)
But that's simply not good enough. If it was a graphics card or something then fair enough... it's just another piece of hardware and one is as good as another. But hard-drives are different as the data on them may not be replaceable if the unit fails, and even if you have it swapped for a new one for free then you have to transfer all the data over to the new one... which is a royal pain in the arse if you're multibooting different OSes.
My experiences weren't as bad (Score:3, Insightful)
So, all in all good experiences. The thing is, with capacities increasing as they do, a small problem can have increasingly disastrous consequences. That's why I've started using RAID1 setups for all machines containing non-expendable data. It's just not worth running the risk - failures happen, simultaneous failures are less common.
Re:Institutional behaviour (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate to point this out but should should do the whole backup thing. I mean even a high reliability HD occasionally fails.
Re:Reputation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Institutional behaviour (Score:5, Insightful)
Data recovery gets expensive, though, so if IBM would foot the bill in addition to a drive replacement, that might make up for the gigantic problem they've created.
But then you factor in the inconvenience... really, IBM should replace the drive, WITH your data on it, AND issue you a gift certificate or something to make amends...
Re:Reputation (Score:3, Insightful)
We know that IBM is capable of turning against strategic platforms overnight - they have done so in the past.
We are glad they're here, due to their ability to stabilize the world. But we love their technology (Primarily Designs and Fab's) - but we do not love IBM - we fear them!
Re:Institutional behaviour (Score:5, Insightful)
For this reason it is the user's responsibility to ensure the data is backed up properly. IBM can be blamed for a high failure rate, but not for a hard drive failing. In the end, all hard drives eventually fail. If the data is non-replaceable then no doubt the user has a rigid backup plan in place to ensure safety of the data; if not then the user is acting unwise no matter what type of hard drive is in the machine.
Re:Defective Hardware (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Institutional behaviour (Score:3, Insightful)
So? Its still hardware, legally as equal to a video card. Its up to the user/admin to backup the data. Yes, it is a pain but HDs shouldn't have some special status amongst hardware, if anything we need better consumer reports and reliability data before buying.
Re:Lawyers to pocket $100M, consumers to get coupo (Score:3, Insightful)
So? Class action suits take a lot of time and effort, why shouldn't they get paid for their work?
If you feel you have been wronged by because your 1,000,000 hour MTBF drive will only last 900,000 hours, simply tell 10 of your friends and don't buy any IBM stuff.
Inefficient, useless, and kind of dumb. First of all if my friend tells me that he had a problem with a piece of hardware, I'm not going to assume that manufacturer makes generally shoddy merchandise. I'll just assume he got a bad drive.
Secondly, it doesn't fix my problem, namely that I spent money on a drive that didn't perform as it was supposed to. IBM breached a warranty, they should compensate me for the money I spent buying the drive in the first place.
Re:Lawyers to pocket $100M, consumers to get coupo (Score:2, Insightful)
Shouldn't we?
Good, I want my money back (Score:5, Insightful)
Read the article on the drives being defective, and didn't want to believe it.
Then my drive made a few clicks, but didn't crash imediately.
Turned my computer off, and ordered a new Seagate Barracuda IV. Copied data over. Never used that 75GXP to this day. Still sitting in a box.
IBM owes me. I had to get 2 HD's in a year, rather than one.
Mod parent up (Score:4, Insightful)
I am Jack's obligatory quote (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lawyers to pocket $100M, consumers to get coupo (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Reputation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lawyers to pocket $100M, consumers to get coupo (Score:5, Insightful)
That being said, the class action lawsuit does benefit society with respect to one thing. It strongly influences how often a recall is done on shoddy or unsafe merchandise when it would otherwise not be done. By making not recalling known defective products more expensive than recalling known defective products, the public (which paid for those products in the first place) benefits. Without these class action lawsuits companies would shaft their customers on a far more routine basis than they already do.
Re:Never a problem (Score:2, Insightful)
IBM admit that the failure rate was a maximum of 6.5% - so you are one of the 93.5%, big deal. If everyone of those 93.5% who read these comments respond like you did, then it's going to be a hell of a big pointless thread!
Re:Isn't that the way we do things now? (Score:2, Insightful)
My current drive is 60GB but I'm still eyeing a new 120GB despite not having filled my 60GB halfway. In other words, you'll get the geeks to upgrade no matter what.
Re:Minor correction (Score:5, Insightful)
So anyway, you can chalk me up as a Russian Roulett success story. No complaints here.
Risk analysis (Score:3, Insightful)
I've read of many other industries that participate in these practices
Re:Reputation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:10 drive array working for 1 year (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem was that while idling longer times on the same track the head could be contaminated. If your drives to a few seeks per second, that wont happen
IBM is big (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Isn't that the way we do things now? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't we build cheaper things that are less reliable so that you have to buy new ones more often?
Sure, we build cheaper things, but not for the repeat business. It is because people want to spend as little money as possible.
Your example with the light bulbs are an example of this. The average consumer looking at two bulbs: one at fifty cents and one at ten dollars. Never mind the fact that the ten dollar bulb will save more than ten dollars in energy and last many times longer than the cheap bulb. Average Joe sees that he can light his whole house with cheap bulbs for the price of one expensive bulb.
Better products are available, if you are willing to pay for it.
Re:Reputation (Score:2, Insightful)