Originally Posted by DefQon
There are no re-brands in the computing world, ever. A manufacturer can tailor a specific piece of hardware for an OEM (i.e RAID controllers and non consumer drivers such as Seagate SCSI and SAS drives) meeting there needs but these are not available to consumers so it's ruled out of the equation, let alone being shipped to different countries.
Another thing I see massively wrong with that blog is as if they are continously forcing hard drives to work to a certain degree until it fails in there pod environment. This does not mimic the variable and daily usage regular users and consumers have when they turn on there computers. Also the faults I have stated with G.Skill and OCZ are IC fault related, conventional hard drives are mechanical and work by using moving parts, moving parts are always going to wear out faster (but it is arguable the IC's can fail faster due to random memory seek and load access but they have higher tolerance), it is still a different perspective of comparison between the two and shows no justification in your original point was that you were saying.
That's the type of thing I am talking about. Variables.
Like I said below. you guys are taking it out of proportion. I'm just referring to perception, theoretical variables, direct variables, and all of their coorelations with each other. It has little to nothing to do with the examples (poorly chosen ones) that I have used.
Originally Posted by HybridCore
I'm sorry, but are you a ****ing idiot?
One product is aimed at one market and is stuck with one model #. As far as I've seen, companies don't use identical models and label them as two separate products as far as computers go.
And don't argue about chip architectures and such (ex. FM2/FM2+ Athlons which are basically APUs with the iGPU disabled/lasered to death or Xeons which are basically i7's with no iGPU or with a different iGPU). That's different.
I don't think you guys are getting what I mean.
Those were poorly worded examples. The point isn't in the examples but rather in perception, theoretical, and direct numbers and the coorelation between them with failure rates.
I'm not leaving this to just computers.
A slightly better example may be some workstation GPU's. There is evidence that a few GPU's in the past that were labeled as proffessional workstation cards were but the same 'gaming' GPU except targeted towards professionals who will pay for the certifications, software targetting etc.
There are a few other cases of one same product being re sku'd etc for one company as opposed to another. Such as Laptops being SKU'd for a specific retailler. ind The point of these cases NOT being in the product or example BUT in variables of models and the perception and theoretical and direct coorelation between all of those and failure rates