Comment by infogulch
4 years ago
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.
"If this was a law they might even change the model number randomly for CYA/malicious compliance reasons. eg. firmware updated? new model number."
Judges are a bit smarter than linters, they can tell when someone is fucking with them
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.
The model should be required to be “most prominently displayed.”
Okay, suppose the packaging looks like:
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.
2 replies →
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".
Which laptop makers (other than Apple) don’t do this?
Right.
And no switching the chipset to a different supplier requiring entirely different drivers between the XYZ1001 and the XYZ1001a, either.
If I ruled the world I'd do it via trademark law: if you don't follow my set of sensible rules, you don't get your trademarks enforced.
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.
Is this like 5 years ago or more li3le 20? Trying to judge relevance today
4 replies →
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.
I don't think its unreasonable to just add a date next to the serial number that has when the firmware was released. It's 6 extra numbers
But firmware can be updated after the unit was shipped; a date stamped on the hardware can't promise accuracy.
8 replies →
It's 8 extra numbers
FTFY, unless you use the YYYY-WW date format. But please don't use just two digits for year numbers, we should have learn from Y2K years ago.
1 reply →
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.
Nothing wrong with that, but give them different model numbers.
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.
What if it's not a board revision, just a part change?
What if it wasn't at the manufacturer's discretion; the assembler just (knowingly or unknowingly) had some cheaper knock-off in?
usually the manufacturers are careful not to list official specs that these part swaps affect. all you get is a vague "up to" some b/sec or iops.
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 !