data-medics wrote:
I find it very interesting too that they launched the data recovery service right around the time of the ST3000DM001 debacle. They could see the fallout that was about to happen and decided to find a way to capitalize on their own screw up at their customer's expense.
Let's try to be objective.
On one hand you have a HDD manufacturer who doesn't have an in-house service to recover their customers' data. Instead they send their customers to "data recovery partners", none of whom have any recognised accreditation (because there isn't any), and who rely on tools produced by Russian and Chinese hackers. These partners scrounge their spare parts from eBay and computer recyclers, and rely on the technical information available in the documentation for their tools and on the Internet.
Other HDD manufacturers don't even offer that much.
Now you have a manufacturer who does provide such a service, hopefully with access to in-house information and technology, and who offers to mitigate the cost of such services via an insurance plan. (From a moral viewpoint, this service should be run on a non-profit basis, otherwise it may be seen as exploitation.)
ISTM that this gives rise to a dilemma. If you don't provide a data recovery service, the implication is that you don't care. If you do provide a service, then you may be seen to be profiting from failures in your products. This then begs the wider question, should any manufacturer be allowed to profit from their service business?