[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: ur-Q reliability

> everybody will be a lot happier if the @#$%^&* auto media makes a clear
> distinction between "quality control" and "durability" which is not at all
> related, rather than lumping the two into that idiotic term "reliability". 


Reliability is defined as quality with the respect to time. Another definition
for reliability is the ability for a product to perform its a specified
function for a given period of time.

"quality control" has a direct impact on "durability" as well as "reliability".
The difference between durability and reliability in the way they are termed 
with products, is that durable is a term give to products like plastic tubs
and carpets....things with relatively few moving parts. Reliable is used for
more complex products like cars, stereos, etc..

The fact is, reliability is not an idiotic term, but rather a very important
term for companies who want to remain in business.

The reson why the auto media and the such have taken to reliability is because
it is the single most important factor considered when the typical auto 
buyer is making a decision. "everybody" is more concerned with getting around
than with the finer points of driving a "temperamental, joy-to-fix, joy-to-drive".

Just look at sales for VW/Audi vs. Honda or even (gulp) Chrysler. Now while you
can't compare these cars to an Audi in terms of driving experience, or even
extra-long term integrity (>150K), the other automobiles do a very good job of
doing what they were intended to do which is to provide enough decent 
transportation so that a numb driver will come back and buy another one.

Audi's are like garlic or even chili peppers ....... Some people will never
go near them, while others can't get enough. (I love my garlic, I love my
chile peppers, I love my Audi).