Reliability is definitely important but it's notoriously hard to market. Miele appliances are reputed to last twice as long as most competitors, but that's not actively marketed either, much less given awarded on.

Generally the only place where you'll find this information is during highly detailed teardowns in which a highly experienced professional will comment on the selection of components and rationale for certain internal designs, and that doesn't guarantee high reliability either as defects are rarely obvious at a glance like that Lenovo phone that easily snaps in three. So you can look for a reputable  brand, identify additional costs that go toward reliability, but everything must stand the test of time.

And I really wouldn't count on a warranty. It varies greatly with many factors and a brand that doesn't vary...probably provides very poor value enforcing that uniformity of service.

Anyone remember the CES sex toy award controversy? Fun times. I wonder if the reinstated award was given for long-lasting and long-term end-user experiences.

I've noticed that people working in IT have no taste in things (anything really - from clothing to cars) and they see things for their practicality only. I don't. I do like to buy and use things that look nice, up to date, original, etc. Create your own awards for Service and leave awards for design alone. People will decide. Also you can't make assumptions that you just did based on one brand or few products. Go through all design award winners and compare them with products that didn't win anything (didn't even participate). I can guarantee 100% that products that won design awards will outperform the other category a lot. That's because if you invest into design (which cost a lot) then you most likely invest into everything else as well. Also, different brands in different markets have completely different Service so that's also an issue.

I agree. The awards are not based on any objective criteria like if the laptop improves usability or has practical well-thought out features. They just give them to "sexy" and gimmicky but different stuff.

I think the industry misunderstands what innovation means. Gimmicks are given undue importance. Simply building new and different things is technically innovation but not everything novel that stands out is well designed or make sense (e.g. ASUS screenpad or more screens in the keyboard area which are awful ideas that compromise keyboard and touchpad functions for gimmicky displays).

Awards should definitely be given on repairability, sustainability, warranty, build quality, after-sales service and practical design. But those days are long gone when designers focused on usability. Today it's all about sexy looks.

💯 agreed. All it takes is to browse the gigabyte subreddit amongst many others to gauge how rubbish their customer service is.

I would be willing to fork out extra cash to companies who respond quickly to faulty products even if their product is slightly inferior depending on how inferior it is.

Cougar is another despicable company. I am having some issues with their fans but they are not responding to me on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter or email. I would very well like to know how they scale on a customer service scale.

Dell, apple and other such companies would be on top of such a list

I agree long-term product quality should be a consideration when giving out design awards, but what does warranty have to do with it? And if you're considering warranty and repairability a measure of good design, Apple would be the biggest loser here since it'll receive 0 score for repairability (which has the best service according to your survey).

Those awards are products bought and paid for by the winners.