Garish LEDs aside, marketing that sort of blatantly false exaggerated spec should be illegal. 1M hours is over 100 years.
Also, keep in mind that MTBF is not expected lifetime or anything at all like that.
What a 1 million hour MTBF actually means is that if you had 1 million of these drives running at the same time, you'd expect one failure per hour. (Or similarly, if you had 1000 drives, you'd expect a failure every 1000 hours).
100 drives - failure every 10,000 hours
10 drives - failure every 100,000 hours
1 drive - failure every 1,000,000 hours...
How is this not expected lifetime?
[edit: split lines]
It would be nice to know the time window, but I'd expect it to be somewhere in the 5 to 10 year range.
That equals 0.86% Annual Failure Rate (AFR).
Backblaze regularly provides their real-world-usage drive stats: https://www.backblaze.com/blog/backblaze-hard-drive-stats-q1...
Seagate announced they would use AFR instead of MTBF in the future: https://www.seagate.com/de/de/support/kb/hard-disk-drive-rel...
Of course, it also depends on what you count as a failure. Is a drive that can no longer write but can still read a "failure"? Probably - but that's a considerably softer way to fail than a hard drive with a bad bearing or head.
So my comment is 100% nitpick but I do want to make a point here.
X year failure rate divided by X is not the same as AFR. AFR will always be higher, because it has to compensate for each year's pool of potential failures shrinking.
The correct equation is already there, 1-e^-(n/114), and the correct number is .87%. And while that's only a percent off, it's lucky to only be a percent off. If MTBF was 113 years it would be .86 vs. .88, which is the difference between two digits of accuracy and one and a half digits of accuracy. Losing a quarter of your accuracy is not great!