I don't know the details of the warnings either, but from the original articles it sounds like they had moved to a QVL list that didn't include 3rd party device

I don't know the details of the warnings either, but from the original articles it sounds like they had moved to a QVL list that didn't include 3rd party devices, only their rebranded ones. Which is possibly because they got seagate/wd/etc to tweak something in the firmware. Which isn't unheard of for large vendors. And it is somewhat fair, qualifying drive persistence is probably some ugly unit test that takes hours to run, and requires being able to pull power on the drive at certain points. So the warning ends up being the equivalent of "we don't know if this drive works, lots of them don't we are going to disable this aggressive cache algorithm to assure your data is persisted" and that kills the performance vs the qualified drive. But because some non technical PM gets involved the warning shown to the user is "This drive isn't qualified". The other take though, was that it was just a $ grab by rebranding and charging more for drives that were functionally the same. Which for logical people made sense because otherwise, why not say why their drives were better. But sometimes the lawyers get involved and saying "our rebranded drives are the only ones on the market that work right when we do X, Y, Z" is frowned on. Hard to really know without some engineer actually clarifying.