Slashdot Mirror
Are Review Units Better Than Store Versions?
Anonymous Howard writes "Every now and then you hear about hardware manufacturers optimizing their hardware for certain tests or games to make their hardware look superior. I was surprised to hear of a new controversy brewing over reviewer units sent to hardware reviewers. This article claims that Samsung is sending LCD monitors with a contrast ratio of 700:1 when the consumer version of the same monitor has a contrast ratio of 450:1. Various sites list different specs for the same model, so it's somewhat confusing to know for sure which is correct. I don't doubt this happens, but I'm surprised that it would be this blatant. Has anyone heard of other stories of manufacturers being deceptive so that they could get better reviews?"
buy their stuff off the shelf to use in reviews. Otherwise companies will send the cherries to reviewers.
I worked for a couple of electronic manufacturers that had a standard operating policy to do this very thing.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
This is a crummy thing for the companies to do but it also makes you wonder about the reliability of reviewing companies. Like how he stated that designtechnica prided itself on reviewing retail products, but then never explained why they were using a review unit, and after noticing the discrepency did a lot of talking but still did not bother to pick up a shelf unit and test it, to see if it was true. Most of the hardware reviewers seem really flakey to me, more fan boys than reliable testing labs.
Unfair tweeking is part of the reason why Consumer Reports never accepts review units from companies, but rather buys them from retail stores, just like anyone else would. The other reason is that receiving free stuff creates a potential conflict of interest which is why they also do not have any advertizing in their magazine or their website. This means that you won't have reviews out before products are released, and operating this way is more expensive, relying on subscribers to run, but it is worth it. I don't always agree with CR's subjective descriptions of products (cars especially), but the hard numbers they provide are the most usefull I have found, and have saved me plenty of money.
I really wish that there was some site equally trustworthy in the computing world. For providing informative analysies there are usefull sites (I have always been impressed with anandtech). But for reviewing components, I have yet to find one I trust.
has the same model number as other retailers, but a lower price. If you look at the Bestbuy HW vs the other retailers, the best Buy HW actually is missing some 'components/functionality'.
Take a look real hard at that stereo reciever before you buy it....
A while back, I bought a 17" samsung monitor which had 102kHz vertical refresh listed in the online "review" of the reseller, but upon closer examination, I discovered that it was, in fact, only 96kHz, so I informed them of this.
What they told me was quite strange at the time, they said their review unit had a different refresh rate and that they checked with Samsung, but that there was no definite answer as to how this could have happened. All in all, they gave me a 19" for free for the trouble (which they apparently had no part of.)
This happened in Toronto, Canada in 1998.
It is good to know SlashDot picks up on such small things.
And there's even an advertisment campaign for Gainward's line of graphics cards that specifically pokes at this concept, and doing so for quite some time ... here's just an example, and a Google search turns up many more results of this advertising campaign and the resulting products from it ...
...
Perhaps I'm just overly cynical, but I tend to trust reviews where the reviewer went out and purchased an off-the-shelf retail copy of X rather than those where the company sent something. Of course, this is hard to do in print publications, because of the time-lag that magazines run through (ie, two months after it's released on the shelves, they have a review of it), but I see no reason (aside from money, which is a big reason) that online reviewers can't do things such as this. I also tend to look towards user-reviews and give those a pretty good weigh-in when I'm making a purchase decision. This is the first instance that I can recall where products are blatently better when given to reviewers than those that are store-bought, but I get the feeling that it's been done in the past.
The above paragraph reflects what I do for my personal buying choices and should in no way construe that that's the optimal/correct/whatever way for large corporations/organizations/whatever to buy-in-bulk
topreacher@signature.slashdot.org 1% rm -rf sig
Every once in a while i read the Auto comparisons on Consumer Reports to get myself all worked up.
Consumer Reports will not accept donations of vehicles or products from manufacturers or vendors just for this reason. They will discreetly send someone out 'under cover' to go acquire the products in an "off the lot" or "off the shelf" state.
This is good, and commendable.
However, i see a lot of times they will end up mis-matching the cars and trucks they compare. Usually it is simply a matter of trim levels on similar classed models. This *will* have an impact on the final outcome. Obviously it's difficult to do things *exactly*.
Less often, but still wrongly, they will compare vehicles from incompatible classes- things like Buick Century vs. E-class Mercedes vs. Toyota Camry. Or the classic truck comparisons with the 3/4 ton, V8 powered Dodge and Chevy fullsize trucks, against a V6 F150, against V6 Toyota Tundra and Nissan.
Consumer Reports might do this to other product reviews too, but i only pay attention to their auto ads for `entertainment'.
I guess that no matter what, *any* test can be flawed.
do() || do_not();
The early Samsung 955DF was a perfect 19" flat-black screen CRT with .20mm dotpitch. The control panel was a rectangle in the center that when pushed, slowly slid diagonally down to reveal the control buttons. Very slick.
Early Samsung 955DF
Now the "Samsung 955DF" has controls on the front, the screens are much more reflective and oily-looking, and black appears grey even when the brightness is all the way down. More recent Samsung 955DF
You've never bought a digital SLR camera from New York -based website, have you?
Yes, great price, 15% to 30% below everyone else. Then once you order it, they call and mention that the camera doesn't have a warranty, that's extra. You know, the plastic lens mount is of lesser quality, you'd be much better of with model with the metal mounting ring. Of course the battery charger and battery is not included in that model.
Whoops, the price is now 25% above everyone else, and you have the standard package that everyone sells. Those other models you've upgraded from don't exist.
Of course, if you stick to your guns and insist on the advertised price, it's mysteriously never in stock or gets lost in the shipping system.
BTW, there are 3 or 4 genuine web shops in NY, check DPReview forums, etc to find them.
Fuzzbuster gets busted by Escort and Car And Driver Mag for stuffing Escort guts inside of the Fuzzbuster supplied for radar detector review (1979):
:)
http://www.valentine1.com/lab/MikesLabRpt5.asp
While you're there, please check out a Valentine One. Mike Valentine makes by far the best detector on the planet, and he's a heck of a nice guy!
--
Out of order? Fuck! Even in the future nothing works! - Dark Helmet (Rick Moranis) "Spaceballs"