The problem is you can't trust a model number of SSD. They change controllers, chips, etc after the reviews are out and they can start skimping on components.
This needs to be cracked down on from a consumer protection lens. Like, any product revision that could potentially produce a different behavior must have a discernable revision number published as part of the model number.
>Like, any product revision that could potentially produce a different behavior must have a discernable revision number published as part of the model number.
AFAIK samsung does this, but it doesn't really help anyone except enthusiasts because the packaging still says "980 PRO" in big bold letters, and the actual model number is something indecipherable like "MZ-V8P1T0B/AM". If this was a law they might even change the model number randomly for CYA/malicious compliance reasons. eg. firmware updated? new model number. DRAM changed, but it's the same spec? new model number. changed the supplier for the SMD capacitors? new model number. PCB etchant changed? new model number.
That's why the examples I listed are plausible reasons for changing the model number. For firmware, it's plausible that it warrants changing the model number because firmware can and do affect performance, as other comments has mentioned.
Also I really don't see this being something that judges will stop. You see other CYA behavior that has persisted for decades, eg. drug side effects (every possible symptom under the sun), or prop 65 warnings.
Doubtful. That already happens with the "known to the state of California to cause cancer" labelling on products sold in California. Some companies just put that on everything when they have no idea if it contains those chemicals or not.
No fine prints. The first line is the same font size as the second line. You think that's going to help the average joe figure whether it's been component swapped or not? Oh, by the way, "MZ-V8P6T0B/AM" isn't the model number from the last comment. I swapped one digit. Did you catch that? If you were already on the lookout for this sort of stuff, you'd be already be checking the fine print at the back. This at best saves you 3 seconds of time. It also does nothing for the "randomly changing model numbers for trivial changes" problem mentioned earlier. In short, the proposed legislation would save 1% of enthusiasts 3 seconds when making a purchase.
Actually yea, a random joe will be able to see that 980 isn't the whole deal, and if he does care, might dig in. Most people dont even realise that this is a possibility
>Actually yea, a random joe will be able to see that 980 isn't the whole deal, and if he does care, might dig in.
If that works that'll probably be because of the novelty factor. Once it wears off everyone will just tune out the meaningless jumble of letters and only look at much memorable marketing name. See also: prop 65 warnings.
The PC laptop manufacturers have worked around this for decades by selling so many different short-lived model numbers that you can rarely find information about the specific models for sale at a given moment.
This does mitigate the benefit. But it still provides solid ground for a trustworthy manufacture to step in and break the trend.
Right now if a trustworthy manufacture kept the same hardware for an extended period of time they would not be noticed, and no one could easily tell. Because many manufacturers are swapping components with the same model number it is poisoning the well for everyone. If the law forced model number changes then you could see that there are 20 good reviews for this exact model number and all of the other drives only have reviews for different model numbers. All of a sudden that constant model number is a valuable differentiator for a careful consumer.
True. It’s the Gish Gallop of model numbering. Fortunately, it is the preserve of the crap brands. It’s sort of like seeing “in exchange for a free product, I wrote this honest and unbiased review”. Bam! Shitty product marker! Asus GL502V vs Asus GU762UV? Easy, neither. They’re clearly both shit or they wouldn’t try to hide in the herd.
I agree that long model numbers can be used to obscure a product, but a wide product line with small variations between products sensibly encoded in the model number isn't necessarily bad for the consumer. MikroTik switches and routers have long model numbers but segments of it are interpretable once you get to know them, and the model number is also the name of the product with a discoverable product page that describes its features in detail.
Don't throw the "meaningful long model numbers"-baby out with the "intentionally opaque model numbers"-bathwater.
>Shitty product marker! Asus GL502V vs Asus GU762UV? Easy, neither. They’re clearly both shit or they wouldn’t try to hide in the herd.
Is this based on empirical evidence or something? My sample size isn't very big, but I haven't really noticed any correlation between this practice and whether the product is crappy. I just chalked this up to manufacturers colluding with retailers to stop price matches, rather than because "clearly both shit or they wouldn’t try to hide in the herd".
Years ago, that kind of behavior got Dell crossed off my list of suppliers I'd work with for clients. We had to setup 30+ machines of the exact same model number, and same order, and set of pallets -- yet there were at least 7 DIFFERENT random configurations of chips on the motherboards & video cards -- all requiring different versions of the drivers. This was before the days of auto-setup drivers. Absolute flaming nightmare. It was basically random - the different chipsets didn't even follow serial number groupings, it was just hunt around versions for every damn box on the network. Dell's driver resources & tech support even for VARs was worthless.
This wasn't the first incident, but after such a blatant set of quality control failures I'll never intentionally select or work with a Dell product again.
What has changed is that most of the drivers are self-updating, so they can configure that at the factory. So, yes, the basic configuration has gotten better.
What has not changed is that Dell basically does grab-bag components in their systems and just because you have two machines of the same model# and rev#, does NOT mean that you have the same two machines.
This means that Dell has substandard abilities to 1) control their supply chain, 2) track and fix problems, 3) diagnose problems in the field, 4) prevent problems.
But sure, because Microsoft is now doing a far better job of auto-configuration in it's OS products, the setup problem is mitigated.
I avoid Dell like the plague, and advise everyone else to do the same. Sure, you may know someone who got away with it for a long time — there's usually some good items in a grab-bag — but the systemic reliability is just not there.
Exactly. This was not the first such trustworthiness problem I saw with Dell, only the culmination of many over the years. So there is no reason to believe that Dell has changed one iota in this regard, and they should still be regarded as untrustworthy.
While I agree with the sentiment, even a firmware revision could cause a difference in behavior and it seems unreasonable to change the model number on every firmware release.
Er, no? Whataboutism is an attempt to claim hypocrisy by drawing in something else with the same flaw. This is pointing out a way for this exact proposal to fail.
Okay, I thought it was something along the lines of argumenting against a proposal that is better but not perfect because "what about this edge case". Had a colleague who was a master at this craft and managed to get many good ideas shot down this way.
It seems unreasonable to me that there is unknown proprietary software running on my storage devices to begin with. This leads to insanity such as failure to report read errors or falsely reporting unwritten data as committed. This should be part of the operating system, not some obscure firmware hidden away in some chip.
It's complicated. Nowadays we have shortage of electronic components and it's difficult to know what will be not available the next month. So it's obvious that manufacturers have to make different variants of a product that can mount different components.
That complicates a lot of things. You are basically making a new product, with all the complications (and costs) associated with it. And where do you stop? What decides if it has impact or not? If I change the brand of a capacitor do I need a new model? Of course not. If I change the model of a switching controller? Well, still shouldn't change anything, but let's obvious. If I change another integrated circuit (i.e. a small SPI flash used to hold the firmware, or a i2c temperature sensor, or a supporting microcontroller)? Likely doesn't impact that much.
I don't want to live in a world where electronic components can't be commoditized because of fundamentally misinformed regulation.
There are alternatives to interchangeable parts, and none of them are good for consumers. And that is what you're talking about - the only reason for any part to supplant another in feature or performance or cost is if manufacturers can change them
!
"The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is an agency of the United States government responsible for consumer protection in the financial sector. CFPB's jurisdiction includes banks, credit unions, securities firms, payday lenders, mortgage-servicing operations, foreclosure relief services, debt collectors, and other financial companies operating in the United States. "
It's definitely fraud. The only reason to hide the things they do is to mislead the customer as evidenced by previous cases of this that caused serious harm to consumers.
What do you expect? These companies are making toys for retail consumers. If you want devices that guarantee data integrity for life or death, or commercial applications, those exist, come with lengthy contracts, and cost 100-1000x more than the consumer grade stuff. Like I seriously have a hard time empathizing with someone who thinks they are entitled to anything other than a basic RMA if their $60 SSD loses data
There's a big difference in this depending on why the SSD lost the data.
If it was fraudulently declaring a lack of write-back cache despite a lack of observed crash-consistency, due to not just innocent negligience in firmware development, that's far different from some genuine bug in the FTL messing up the data mapping.
Personally, I expect implementing specifications properly. That's it.
About "commercial applications", let's face it. Those "enterprise solutions" cost way higher not because they are 10-1000x times "better", but because they contain generous "bonuses" for senior stuff.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/adata-and-other-ssd-makers...