I have never understood how the Consumer Reports model of self(reader)-reported reliability can produce can statistically valid results.
There are many biases build in to self-reporting surveys. Longtime Consumer Reports readers who buy a Toyota because they believe it is the most reliable make want their choice to have been correct. Their answers about problems with their car will reflect that.
There was a time when CR regularly rated Buick at the top of the charts. At that time, my mom and all her little old lady friends (I'm not using those adjectives lightly) had Buicks and literally used them to drive to Church on Sundays (and occasionally the grocery store, which was about five blocks away). The cars were terrible, but they were treated well.
CR also uses their own tests and maintenance records.
There are definitely flaws with self reporting but it’s just a data source with its limitations.
Statistical validity is based on what is done with the data, not whether it’s self reported or measured accurately. What you may be thinking of is whether their study or logic is sound.
I wish there was something more objective used like to quantify how many vehicles are still on the road after X number years. I guarantee Toyota/Lexus/Honda/Acura would be at the top if you compared how many vehicles would still be daily drivers after 25+ years and 250,000+ miles.
That, in my opinion, best describes a BMW owner. Is it a more reliable car than Alfa? Well, if you service it at the higher requirement and price that a BMW is most often services at then maybe it is.
Data around cars is notoriously complete bullshit. One example is that one of the main metrics used by a very big name, maybe CR, is “reliability compared to *expectations*”. Obviously cars that people have high expectations for (Teslas) are going to score horribly here even if they are objectively more reliable than other brands. And of course they bury this little fact way down in the info and everyone walks away with “welp teslas just fucking break all the time”
The linked article is pretty explicit about how they calculate it. A detailed explanation is literally the first section.
And as they explain, they ask people about the actual problems they've had in the last 12 months with their car; nothing soft or fuzzy or relative to expectations at all.
If I ask you about your experience with a Rolls Royce you'd probably mention in the door rattles a little bit between the speeds of 55 and 60mph. If I ask the same question about an entry level Toyota I doubt people would think anything of it or mention it. This is especially impacted if you're used to buying cars that cost $75k (a lot of Tesla owners) versus used to owning preowned cars bought for $10k
Yet regions ruin dishes and then locals from that region complain if anyone makes a good version of them, so it can be extremely hard to find an edible X, especially as a visiting tourist.
Having a place to go when one has a tech issue is a huge value addition for many Apple users.
Repairs can be expensive (the solutions will lean towards "replace the entire motherboard"). But help at the genius bar from a real human can also be free.
Compare this experience of what options one has if a hardware issue, or some software question, with a dell laptop.
Availability of help at Apple stores is one reason I steer non-tech relatives towards Apple products, and helps justify premium pricing.
Apple stores are a very substandard way of offering/providing support. Here is my real world example: I'm visiting my parents in suburban Pennsylvania when my laptop dies. I just looked up the nearest Apple Store, it's a 45 minute drive one-way, it would take an hour and a half in the car total just to get there, probably about $10 of gasoline too. Thankfully I had a Dell, so I called in the issue and later that day an independent repair man contracted by Dell came to my parents house and replaced the motherboard. Distance traveled by me: 0 miles.
And mind, this was in a fairly densely populated area of an east coast state in America. Apple stores are even further away in most parts of the world.
Here's another example, this time I had a macbook that needed a new battery. I was in Seattle this time, and had no car. The nearest Apple store was Apple University Village, and because I didn't have a car with me then it was a 30 minute bus trip (each way.) 1 hour total, and to make matters worse, I had to do this twice because the first time they told me they didn't even have the right battery in stock (even though I called first and had scheduled the first meeting.) So that's two full hours blown trying to get a new battery for my macbook, in one of the major tech cities of America. Abysmal!
Soo, your dell laptop died, and you decided to checkout how far away an Apple Store was? That's a very odd thing to do.
Apple Stores aren't the only way that Apple offers support, it's one of many. Just because it didn't happen to be convenient for one of your scenarios doesn't mean it's not convenient for thousands of others.
Also, from what I can tell, Onsite warranty support is a paid upgrade for Dells, not a default. I could be wrong on that, though, haven't bought a dell in a while. Apple does also support onsite warranty support for some computers if you pay more as well. So I'm really not sure what the point of your comment is.
> Soo, your dell laptop died, and you decided to checkout how far away an Apple Store was? That's a very odd thing to do.
Since I am comparing the two, it's not odd in the slightest. You're just trying to "gotcha" me without responding to the substance of my claim. To reiterate, making customers drive to an Apple store that is probably a fair distance away is substandard service. Having a repair technician come to you is the standard by which Apple's service should be judged. If Dell can do it, so could Apple. (I never buy upgraded service contracts, the Dell service was standard.)
And again, 30 minute bus ride to get to the Apple store in Seattle of all places. There is no Apple store in downtown Seattle. Apple Stores are a bad joke.
There are many biases build in to self-reporting surveys. Longtime Consumer Reports readers who buy a Toyota because they believe it is the most reliable make want their choice to have been correct. Their answers about problems with their car will reflect that.