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?"

Comments

Are Review Units Better Than Store Versions?

[Pingular]

Well, you know how some radeon graphics cards can be 'unlocked' and some can't? I'll give you one guess at which I bet radeon sent to all the reviewers.

Ethics

[Shadow2097]

Why is it that more and more companies believe that turning a profit and being honest are mutually exclusive? Is there some secret, black ritual to remove ethics from the thought process during MBA classes?

-Shadow

Re:Well

[dnoyeb]

A review is supposed to be done on a random sample anyway.

Consumer reports had the right idea, that is why they have been so successful.

pressure on reviewers

[frovingslosh]

What ever happened to the ancient art of bribing the reviewer?

Like in "here's a free expensive item for review that you get to keep. We'll be watching the review to see if you get anything else to review? Oh, it's still happening, but sending the reviewer a item that isn't the same as the crap they intend to sell you and me is just a little added insurance.

You can pretty much see this in a lot of reviews that are written too. The only reviews that merit much trust are the independent ones where the reviewer actually went out and got an off-the-shelf item to review; but this is an almost dead pratice. No only does the reviewer not get neat fre stuff then, but his review may be months after the reviews by the company shills come out, and he ends up with the same crap you and I get rather than the free good working versions.

Re:pressure on reviewers

[kfg]

My mom is a freelance travel photographer. Nobody "bribes" her, but she sure gets to travel a lot for "free."

Now what do you suppose happens to her free trips if she publishes unflattering copy about her "hosts?"

You don't have to be bribed to be beholden.

She could, of course, simply take her own trips on her own dime. . .if she were independantly wealthy and just playing at it instead of trying to make a living.

And thus the media is corrupted without any application of coercion at all. No threat to remove advertising or anything. Just a loose understanding by everyone involved as to what's in their own personal interest.

KFG

KFG

It cuts both ways

[Dr. Spork]

Yes, companies will send their best stuff to reviewers, but there is a push from the opposite direction: they want reviewers to get their stuff early. In the computer world, this means that reviewers often get essentially prototypes. I've found that "first test" reviews of CPU's get processors that are worse than what the consumer will buy once production ramps up, because by then, many bugs get ironed out. AMD chips overclock much better later into the production process compared to the "for review only" samples. That's just one example.

Re:Well

[diersing]

And why aren't the reviewers performing their tests with retail purchased equipment for integrity sake anyway?