drummerman1
100+ Head-Fier
It's no secret, manufacturers do 'silent' revisions/updates to products. Reasons could be parts availability, change of production technology or/and review/test feedback. This seems more (but not exclusively) widespread with some Chinese manufacturers which seem to release products to be 'field tested' by the buying public.
I personally don't like the practice but as said, it has and will always happen. The problem is that it is not always easy to determine what you're getting without any product suffix(es) and often leads to confusion. The other thing is that second hand values can take a dive before an official new model is released. 3rd issue is pride of ownership or lack thereof once one finds out that the silently revised product is now 'night and day' 'better' than the (same model) iteration one acquired with their hard earned.
Manufacturers don't like to admit to silent revisions for some of the above reasons. Punters like to know what they get and where they stand. - Easier to just send a few products out again to some malleable ... reviewers which then (usually) say the previous review unit was 'probably' a pre-production unit ... seen that one? I'm sure you did.
It's a common way to improve (for whatever reason, read 1st paragraph) without introducing more substantial (read 'visible' and ... likely more expensive) revisions to warrant an official new model.
Should we be glad that these, let's call them 'more quiet' revisions happen? After all, one would assume you get a better/improved product ... or would we prefer a more open approach from manufacturers with easily accessible clear (time stamped) revision/update logs ... akin to software updates?
Going one step further, should revisions come with a model suffix?
I'd be interested in what you think.
Do you want to name a manufacturer or a product you know had silent updates?
I personally don't like the practice but as said, it has and will always happen. The problem is that it is not always easy to determine what you're getting without any product suffix(es) and often leads to confusion. The other thing is that second hand values can take a dive before an official new model is released. 3rd issue is pride of ownership or lack thereof once one finds out that the silently revised product is now 'night and day' 'better' than the (same model) iteration one acquired with their hard earned.
Manufacturers don't like to admit to silent revisions for some of the above reasons. Punters like to know what they get and where they stand. - Easier to just send a few products out again to some malleable ... reviewers which then (usually) say the previous review unit was 'probably' a pre-production unit ... seen that one? I'm sure you did.
It's a common way to improve (for whatever reason, read 1st paragraph) without introducing more substantial (read 'visible' and ... likely more expensive) revisions to warrant an official new model.
Should we be glad that these, let's call them 'more quiet' revisions happen? After all, one would assume you get a better/improved product ... or would we prefer a more open approach from manufacturers with easily accessible clear (time stamped) revision/update logs ... akin to software updates?
Going one step further, should revisions come with a model suffix?
I'd be interested in what you think.
Do you want to name a manufacturer or a product you know had silent updates?
Last edited: