Mac look alike?

[Colin Law]

2009/11/30 Odd <iodine at runbox.no>:
> Also, for those who think the survey makes Apple look bad, Apple
> did actually come out pretty well. And the difference from the 3
> ahead of Apple is not that big. Apple is only 1.8% behind the
> best, Asus.
>
> So I don't see what the fuss is about. Why does Apple have to
> be the absolutely best?
>
> Take solace in the fact that Apple is among the 4 best, rather than
> the 5 worst.

In addition there are no statistical details on the figures.  Without
confidence limits we have no way of knowing whether the small
differences seen are real or just down to random chance.
If you back to the original source
http://www.squaretrade.com/pages/laptop-reliability-1109 and download
the report it says that they have enough data to provide statistically
significant data on the two year failure rates but says that the three
year figures are projections (though how they have forecast it is not
clear to me). This says to me that nothing can be read into the three
year figures.  On the two year ones the difference between the first
manufacturers is very small.  The report states that the results are
statistically significant but even that is meaningless without more
information.  What is it about the results that is statistically
significant?  What is the confidence level that Apple is 1% worse than
Asus?
Without more information I think all one might say is that the
manufacturers towards the left of the chart are probably more reliable
than those towards the right, but I would hesitate to say more than
that.

Colin