SSD Bait-and-Switch?

[bgelfand]

<p>An interesting article about some under the cover changes to SSD drives by Kingston and PNY:</p>

<p>http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/184253-ssd-shadiness-kingston-and-pny-caught-bait-and-switching-cheaper-components-after-good-reviews</p>

<p>I wonder if any of the other manufacturers are doing it.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Bait and switch suggests dubious manufacturers' intent which is probably unfair without knowing their side of the story, although understandably it's something manufacturers will not disclose. </p>

<p>It could be as simple as a global shortage of key components making the change necessary. </p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Terrible article, zero understanding of a) manufacturing, and b) business practices.</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>Plus One, Jeff. I don't really know what the author was trying to prove.</p>

 

[MichaelChang]

<p>To be fair, manufacturing and business practices at that scale is not common knowledge; even branches within high-tech manufacturing and in different countries will differ.</p>

<p>I don't know why the changes occurred in the OP drives but given the widely publicized manufacturer negligence and profit driven motives in other industries, it doesn't come as a surprise that a few self-proclaimed tech savvy individuals will assert such attributions irresponsibly. </p>

 

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>manufacturing and business practices at that scale is not common knowledge</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

It doesn't require knowledge at any scale. You buy a product and either it does what the manufacturer says or it doesn't. If some review says it is based on some piece of software or technology, that's not the manufacturer's problem and most consumers understand the difference between a review and a product specification. <br>

<br>

And this is ridiculous:<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Imagine buying a high-end Core i7 or AMD CPU, opening the box, and finding a midrange part sitting there with an asterisk and the label “Performs Just Like Our High End CPU In Single-Threaded SuperPi!”</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

There is a difference between selling someone a mislabeled part vs a company using OEM components and software in their product. This is so basic that it's amazing the article even got written.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

I don't know anything about these specific drives. But i do know that it is not a ridiculous notion, and far from uncommon business practice to introduce a high spec product, let it settle in the market and then gradually reduce costs, increase margin, at the cost of the spec and performance.<br>This practice can take many forms, from introducing new packaging that looks bigger but contains less to swapping components that do indeed change the product, reduce the product even (not the reputation - yet) to the level of a cheaper, less capable product.<br>Some people may notice. Most will not - new buyers without previous experience with the original version to compare the product to - and going by 'what other users say' still pay the price for what then is effectively something not quite worth that. By the time people would begin to notice enough to stirr, they aren't interested in the product anymore because new generation products already promise much more. So quite safe in the consumer 'high-tech' business.<br>Want to see it at work? Take any 'complex' product you will use for a while to come, say your favourite shampoo, look at the list of ingredients and see how often the formulation changes. You will still 'feel' that you get the same great product, not enjoy it less.You may notice a difference, but it will not be enough to make you abandon 'your' shampoo for another product. And you will get used to the changed product very quickly, so even when you noticed the 'glitch' you will continue to accept the product as your favourite. So again: quite safe. But it will not be the same, and the change is never to make it even better (they will let you know when they managed to do that, no worries!), always to make it cheaper. For the manufacturer, that is.<br>The article mentions that the performance of the changed product is indeed less than what it was at one time, less than what it was reported being when reviewed at the time the company introduced it in the market. And then it indeed is an issue, not ridiculous, but worth bringing to the attention of potential buyers.<br>Bait and switch indeed. More common than some contributors to this thread know apparently. That's why it works so well.

[ant_nio_marques]

It's one thing to replace components for good reason, or to do some small reengineering. But to silently do essential

changes to a product is quite another matter. If something changed so that they can't deliver the same product, then

rename it. As it is, I find no fault with the article.

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>If something changed so that they can't deliver the same product</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> If it meets the specs and feature sets, it's the same product. They didn't tell people to tear it apart and look at the internals. Most companies do things like this.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I find no fault with the article.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> There is no bait and switch, which is what the article claims. The company delivers the product they say they deliver. If some reviewer states it has some characteristic that the company doesn't claim it has, that's the reviewer's problem.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The article mentions that the performance of the changed product is indeed less than what it was at one time</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

<br>

If it meets the specifications, then it doesn't matter. A reviewer claims it met some higher spec, which has nothing to do with what the company is supposed to deliver.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

That's much too naive, Jeff.<br><br>These reviews don't just happen. The manufacturers have quite a lot to do with them. They facilitate reviews at the time they launch a product. They know those will be more important for their sales than their product sheets. And they do their best to make sure those reviews will at least not be unfavourable.<br>They also know that products are reviewed when they are launched. Magazines have better things to do (i.e. introduce their readers to the latest and greatest, and do that before anyone else) than review two year old products. So they don't. Again something the manufacturers are very aware of.<br>So what a product delivers, what a reviewer says it delivers, has quite a lot to do with what the company wants us to think their product delivers<br>And very often their products do deliver what the reviewed sample did, and will continue to deliver something quite close to it - it's not all bad. Not by far. Yet, and as i mentioned before, it is also far from uncommon to cut corners later on, in many ways, as mentioned. One of which is the way the article mentions.<br>It's not a matter of a reviewer claiming one thing, a company promising another. They are not that separate as you think/claim.<br><br>You must also have noticed that the article complains about hiding behind specs that are far from clear, using tests that are rather questionable. Also not uncommon. Motor car fuel consumption figures are a prime example of such practices. There is not a single car that consumes as little as the specs say, under no circumstances found outside of the test used to determine those figures. The test that says they all are within spec. So what exactly does a company promise when they present us with their specs? Could be what we expect. Could be something else entirely, or more specific: nothing we can make sense of.<br>Again, not always the case. But also not uncommon.<br><br>When a product is changed without that changing the performance, it's no problem. The colour of people's favourite shampoos may matter to some, but it doesn't matter for what a shampoo is intended to do. Unless it was at one time put forward (by the company directly or through the reviewer/middle man) as one reason why we should pay what we have to pay for the product. Then it does matter. But who does not notice the colour of the shamppo they use? What if it isn't that obvious (and see what i wrote about that - irrational brand loyalty, basically - above)?<br><br>In this case, a reviewer did what most don't: review a new sample of an 'old' product. And noticed that the performance isn't there anymore.<br>And that does matter, whether it was deliberate or not. It is a main selling point of this type of product.<br>Whether it is deliberate or not also matters. If the change is made knowingly, aimed at reducing the cost/increasing the margin at the cost of the quality the customer receives the manufacturer could do two things. The first is what they always do immediately when the change is not for the worse, but the opposite: tell everyone. The other is (indeed) not tell anyone.<br>You don't have to have a first class degree from a business school to figure out what the effect of either option will be. Hence it is indeed not uncommon that these changes are made without being brought to anyone's attention. Without, that is, doing damage to what the manufacturers were indeed much involved in when they first launched the product: the good reviews and the effect of those on people's readiness to hand over money.<br><br>It really is not uncommon. And they do know what they are doing, both when ensuring that they get good reviews and when they change what is hiding behind spec sheets. <br>Is it also reprehensible? Well, we consumers should not be naive and should expect things to work this way more often than not (again: this is widespread, but not practiced by every manufacturer, or not to the same degree). But even so, even though we should be thoroughly aware that people will be trying to deceive us (that age old caveat emptor thing), it still is an attempt to deceive us.

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>When a product is changed without that changing the performance, it's no problem. </p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />It's not a problem as long as it is compliant with what the manufacturer states.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>They facilitate reviews at the time they launch a product</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Where in the article does it state that?<br>

<br />This happened a few years back when Intel started making some processors so they didn't overclock anymore. People got upset because everyone said their processors could be overclocked. But Intel never told them they could overclock the processors.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p> it still is an attempt to deceive us.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Changing vendors on internals is not an "attempt to deceive." Try taking that to court and listen to the laughter. There are a million reasons companies change vendors and unless they say that it has some specific vendor's part, it's not the consumer's choice.<br>

<br>

It's clear from the complete misinterpretation of bait-and-switch that I pointed out before that the people writing the article are wrong. Just wrong. </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

The article doesn't mention the way manufacturers cooperate in reviews. Why should it have to, Jeff? Did you not know already?<br><br>You still see this as "changing vendors" and no more. Even though the effect of "changing vendors" is (if the article is to be believed - and there is as yet no reason given why it should not be) rather important. In this case a change for (from the perspective of the customer) the worse.<br>A company is of course free to do to their product whatever they like. And it is indeed up to us to decide what to make of that, whether it then still is (or has become) something we want to buy. But we have to know that changes were made that effect the performance. Because, Jeff, it is the customer's choice, not the company's, whether the product then still is something worth buying or worth paying for what the company wants to get.<br>And again, companies aren't as innocent as far as what we think their products can do is concerned as you would have us believe. Nor are they ignorant of the fact that any change for the worse will effect their revenues - if (!) we know about those changes. And it is a concious decision not to inform us.<br>Is it their obligation to do so? You could argue that it is not. But i don't think you would win that argument. By not telling, they remove the customer's choice.<br><br>And no, Jeff: though you have said that the people writing the article are wrong, you have yet to provide a convincing reason why we should agree that they are. I'm afraid that so far, you are the one who appears to be wrong.<br>Bait and switch, Jeff, is leaving us believing their products can deliver something they knowingly, and quite possibly deliberately, made impossible for that product to deliver. Did they? The report strongly suggest they do. Performance about halved? That just equals "changing vendors" and it is none of the customer's business to even know about it? Hence the article must be condemned?

[sebastianmoran]

<p>The assertion in the article is that the manufacturer distributed fast drives, got excellent reviews, then changed components reducing performance. </p>

<p>I have no idea if the assertion is true. But, if it is, that sounds shady to me. If it is, that's a sophisticated bait and switch. Who cares about minimum standards of performance. Reviews are important; all the manufacturers look for good reviews.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Sebastian makes the right point in my view. The assertion that there was bad intent in what the manufacterers did, is just an assumption. It might be true, but there is no real evidence.<br /> To which extend a product is still identical after component changes, is hard to say, and as a manufacterer it is easy to go wrong as customers are easy to complain and hard to please generically. Internet amplifies complaints easily. A reverse example of "customer outrage": some time ago, Microsoft introduced a slightly faster CPU into its Surface 2, and started selling it without name change. People who had their product exchanged (for service) complained that they didn't get a model with the faster CPU instead - even if they originally had the slower one. And this got picked up by some boulevard-tech-press, and presto... the manufacterer is the bad guy.<br /> I'm not saying consumers should not be protected against bad business practises, but in sane judgement (in the above example, MS really is hard to fault in my view, and those customers are unreasonable). This SSD case is in a very muddy grey area, though.</p>

<p>Would it have been better <em>for customers</em> if, for example, Kingston had renamed the drive to something like V300b? Probably yes. But equally likely, <em>for all shops, logistics and Kingston itself,</em> it would be facing managing an additional pile of SKUs, with more stock managing issues - added complexity, added cost. So, who do you please, and how big is the impact really, and can you keep the product available at the same price? (I have no answer, but these are judgement calls plain and simple).</p>

<p>It's very much a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation. No solution that is workable and perfect for all. Did they willingly rip off customers? I really do not believe they did, and the article is very pretentious in this sense and can be condemned for that (no, it does not deliver solid proof and SSD performance isn't summarised as easily as this article pretends). Did they handle the situation with too little transparency and lack of communication, and hence cause this bad publicity? I think so, but it's hard to hit the right balance there.</p>

[ant_nio_marques]

<p>A lot of a product's value is in how it 'handles'. Change that and you're changing the product, regardless of what the specifications say. All of this discussion, and the article's merit, hang on that.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Not quite that much of a damned if you don't [etc.] thing, Wouter. At least not in the way you describe.<br>Sure, it is unreasonable to expect to get an upgrade for free, as in the case of the Surface 2. Just as it is unreasonable to expect customers to accept a downgrade.<br>If being open about that would entail an logistics nightmare, it's the problem of the manufacturer to solve. And that can be solved by not being open about it. But as apparent from the fact that such an article is published, it's not a problem-free solution. Out of the frying pan, and all that.<br>You're much too quick in deciding that there is no solution that is workable (and nothing is perfect) for all.

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Just as it is unreasonable to expect customers to accept a downgrade.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Unless someone sent in a defective product and got back a slower one, they didn't get a "downgrade." The article mentions nothing about that happening. </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>QG, I'm not that quick to judge... You seem convinced the article is right in blaming the manufacterers, and OK, that's your opinion. I just do not agree with it (yet); that doesn't mean I am quick to judge, it means I contemplate a number of other considerations that do come into play in business decisions as these. For example, it's easy to write this:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If being open about that would entail an logistics nightmare, it's the problem of the manufacturer to solve.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This already assumes the manufacterer is wrong in the first place... and that verdict is still out, isn't it? It's not easy to say who will take the cost of these things too - and cost there is, serious cost. Work with retailchannels and tell them you double the number of SKUs, and they're not going to like you. Not at all. And these two brands in the articles aren't big enough players to make that worth the while of large retail chains - so they do have to consider their partners in cases as this; moreover they may have contractual obligation to deliver fixed quantities which force them to change production process while maintaining the same SKU. Scale of business does play a huge factor here (Michael was very right about that many posts ago) and the complexity of that indeed isn't common knowledge.<br /> As for the customer having to accept a downgrade: that is exactly why I stated earlier this is muddy grey area. Yes, a manufacterer collaborates in reviews and get benefits from positive reviews. That does not mean that findings of reviews are promises made by the manufacterer. And a lot of your logic (and the one used in the article) is acting like it is the manufacterer who promised a customer the performance found by a review on site X or Y. This is too black and white and not an assumption that will keep up as companies such as Kingston and PNY are trying to decide how to handle it.</p>

<p>I am <em>not</em> defending their choice. I am just saying that there are plenty of factors involved. One single reviewsite calling out these manufacterers as liars is, in my view, journalism worthy of tabloids and gossip; fat headline, little meat. In my opinion, one cannot draw any conclusions yet (for or against whoever involved) with the information at hand. It is justifiable these companies take a backlash now, but that might have been a calculated risk all along. We simply cannot (and will not) know.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Jeff, too simplistic.<br>>br>Wouter, i'm not at all convinced that the article is right in blaming the manufacturer. I do know that it is far too soon to say it is nonsense, showing "zero understanding of manufacturing and business practice". Because anyone who has even the least understanding of manufacturing and business practice will know that what the article asserts is at least rather probable. It's known, and fairly common, manufacturing and business practice.<br>That does not mean the manufacturers named in the article are guilty as charged. But it is quite possible, and they did offer some sort of proof that merits investigating before calling it nonsense.<br><br`The logistics of bringing a product to the market, Wouter, is indeed something the manufacturer has to solve. Noone else's problem. No matter why.<br><br>That grey area. Reviews and manufacturers. Sure, noone can accuse the manufacturer of a product of promising something to customers in a piece they didn't write themselves. We wouldn't believe such promises written by themselves anyway, would want to have those corroborated (or falsified) by someone else. That's why things work the way they do.<br>It would really be (and i'm sure you agree) far too naive to think the manufacturer has nothing to do at all with what a review says, or that manufacturers do not know the value of such 'independent reviews' and thus neither make good use of it. As described above, articles in magazines are only a part of it. User reviews on internet sites, mouth to mouth, etc. everything that spreads the word about the quality of a product is important. And once the word is out, there is an opportunity to downtune the product, increase margins, without - when done properly - damaging the reputation of the product. An opportunity many manufacturers do not leave unused. And that does begin with marketing: making sure we get the 'right' impression. Muddy grey it may be. But manufacturers aren't that 'innocent' regarding that. <br><br>You talk about black and white, but i thought i had already adressed the fact that it is neither when i asked whether it was a reprehensible practice. So perhaps less disagreement between our positions than you may think there too.<br><br>Back to the article.<br>First the question about the type of journalism: we may not like sensationalist, tabloid journalism. But that does not mean that a tabloid journalist must be wrong all the time, even when he is not.<br>It may not be very nice, civil, to call someone a liar. But that again does not mean it could not be correct.<br>The fact that it is only one report (we know of) also does not mean it cannot be right.<br>With those red herrings out of the way: the article reports something that, whether it is true or not, is indeed quite probable, because nothing unheard of before. They also mention some evidence that both indicates that the change was more than just swapping parts for other parts without changing the important (to their customers) characteristics of the product and that, because the effect of the change is rather big, thus obvious, also indicates that the manufacturer must have known what they were doing, even if they hadn't set out to achieve that effect.<br>Suppose the evidence put forward is correct (and the writers of course do), the real question is not about manufacturing and marketing logistics. It is a moral one: should they inform their customers who are considering buying product X today that, in an essentisal way (and for whatever reason), it is not product X someone else bought yesterday? If you'd ask me, if the product indeed has changes as much as the article reports it has, i'd say they should. Even though we, consumers, should not be naive, should know that caveat emptor thing.<br>But i do agree that we cannot draw conclusions yet. Except about some of the initial reactions in this thread. I did not set out to do more than point out that those were rather "Terrible".

[steven_clark]

In terms of real-world

responsiveness controllers matter a

lot! Still, none of these look

like they're replacing a high-end

chip with a bargain part. The good

disk vendors know better than to

change parts without changing SKUs,

no Kingston and PNY are not the

good vendors.

[Richard Williams]

<p>This wouldn't tbe the first time that manufacturers have allegedly attempted to game reviews. According to one investigation, many Android devices detect when the bechmarking software typically used by reviewers is running and artificially optimise for it, e.g. by boosting CPU speed at the expense of running hotter than normal:<br>

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7384/state-of-cheating-in-android-benchmarks<br>

When choosing a product like a PC component I don't download the manufacturer's spec sheet, I just read a comparative review. I've no idea what motivated the change in components in these drives, but it hardly seems beyond the realm of possibility that a desire to perform well in early reviews while saving money in the long term (at the expense of performance) is a factor.</p>

[angkordave]

<p>Apple played a similar game with the fusion drive; a combination SSD and hard drive. The 128gb SSD was very fast when new. but once data shifted to the 1TB HDD the performance dropped. The testers used new Fusion drives.<br>

My experience bears this out.</p>

[ant_nio_marques]

<p>I don't think that's really comparable, was the caveat not there from the start for everyone to see?</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>This wouldn't tbe the first time that manufacturers have allegedly attempted to game reviews.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Nobody has provided any evidence of that. They changed an internal component. </p>

[Brad_]

>>> Apple played a similar game with the fusion drive; a combination SSD and hard drive. The 128gb SSD

was very fast when new. but once data shifted to the 1TB HDD the performance dropped. The testers used

new Fusion drives.

 

How is *Apple* playing a "game?"