True with enough redundancy it's fine, and if they have special terms with SG such as free replacements and heavy discounts then it's little wonder they use so many.

Myself though, for SoHo use, I'm willing to pay more for less stress because I don't have the sheer volume of devices, and the time to replace is time spent doing something useful instead of shuffling HDDs and rebuilding RAID arrays. A 5% saving on a handful of drives is not worth it, but a 40% saving on thousands makes them competitive.

Every time I look at HDD price it seems Seagate is always a little more expensive. But the difference is less than 5% to the point one may argue they are all priced similarly.

I dont want to save a few dollars for potentially 4x the chance of failure and hassle.

And even if we ignore the outlier to 2%+ from two models, Seagate is still on average 2-3x more likely to fail.