4 ms·

Would you be ok if a car manufacturer put a smaller motor in a car you bought because car reviews said "it had great ability to get up and hold freeway speeds"?

Would you be ok if a car manufacturer put a smaller motor in a car you bought because car reviews said "it had great ability to get up and hold freeway speeds"? Is it ok as long as they didn't sell based on horse power? Or maybe it's handling: reviewers say it corners great, but then you find the suspension has been massively downgraded. How do you even advertise a spec'ed suspension? It's dirty business if you are giving reviewers something better than the people who are reading the reviews. People don't buy computer parts (or cars) based on the advertised spec sheet, they buy them based on what they can really do.

theworst 12y ago
> Would you be ok if a car manufacturer put a smaller motor in a car you bought because car reviews said "it had great ability to get up and hold freeway speeds"? Is it ok as long as they didn't sell based on horse power? If they lie about the engine performance, then its wrong. If they change the components underlying (admittedly weasel-wording-marketing-speak) marketing phrasing, then it's not as clearly wrong. >Or maybe it's handling: reviewers say it corners great, but then you find the suspension has been massively downgraded. How do you even advertise a spec'ed suspension? This is why specifications, and often component information, exists. I'm not saying that these companies are in the right, or that this doesn't happen. It clearly does, in some cases. In other cases, it's probably due to the fact that the manufacturing supply chain is more complex than most people understand. In all cases, it's not a great idea to paint with a broad brush. Especially when creating somewhat comparable analogies than are also pretty general.
sigterm 12y ago
> dirty business if you are giving reviewers something better than the people who are reading the reviews It isn't clear if this is what's happening behind. I think the Dell rep was being very frank about it, that Dell did not intend to supply an IPS monitor and reserve the right to be flexible regarding what panel to use. If IPS panel really matters, then one may want to choose a monitor that clearly says so in the spec. In fact, if you look at the link [3] in the root comment, some people clearly understood that it was possible to receive the cheaper, inferior panel, yet would like to participate in the gamble. [3] http://en.community.dell.com/f/3529/t/18286693.aspx http://en.community.dell.com/f/3529/t/18286693.aspx The challenge of engineering physical goods is that, unlike software, many things vary. That is why in electronics industry, manufacturers publish detailed datasheet that lists nearly all the parameter one will care about, including all the tolerances. It is quite uncommon for the customer to actually test each of those parameter to ensure they are within spec, but it is a contractual constraint placed on the supplier in case things go wrong. I think the same idea can be applied to your car example. Ideally, even if most customers don't read the spec sheet, the manufacturer should still provide it. Customer can have peace of mind by knowing that his/her experience will not be too far off from the review others published online. If what you care about is absent from the spec, think twice before buying the product.

theworst 12y ago

> Would you be ok if a car manufacturer put a smaller motor in a car you bought because car reviews said "it had great ability to get up and hold freeway speeds"? Is it ok as long as they didn't sell based on horse power? If they lie about the engine performance, then its wrong. If they change the components underlying (admittedly weasel-wording-marketing-speak) marketing phrasing, then it's not as clearly wrong. >Or maybe it's handling: reviewers say it corners great, but then you find the suspension has been massively downgraded. How do you even advertise a spec'ed suspension? This is why specifications, and often component information, exists. I'm not saying that these companies are in the right, or that this doesn't happen. It clearly does, in some cases. In other cases, it's probably due to the fact that the manufacturing supply chain is more complex than most people understand. In all cases, it's not a great idea to paint with a broad brush. Especially when creating somewhat comparable analogies than are also pretty general.

sigterm 12y ago

> dirty business if you are giving reviewers something better than the people who are reading the reviews It isn't clear if this is what's happening behind. I think the Dell rep was being very frank about it, that Dell did not intend to supply an IPS monitor and reserve the right to be flexible regarding what panel to use. If IPS panel really matters, then one may want to choose a monitor that clearly says so in the spec. In fact, if you look at the link [3] in the root comment, some people clearly understood that it was possible to receive the cheaper, inferior panel, yet would like to participate in the gamble. [3] http://en.community.dell.com/f/3529/t/18286693.aspx http://en.community.dell.com/f/3529/t/18286693.aspx The challenge of engineering physical goods is that, unlike software, many things vary. That is why in electronics industry, manufacturers publish detailed datasheet that lists nearly all the parameter one will care about, including all the tolerances. It is quite uncommon for the customer to actually test each of those parameter to ensure they are within spec, but it is a contractual constraint placed on the supplier in case things go wrong. I think the same idea can be applied to your car example. Ideally, even if most customers don't read the spec sheet, the manufacturer should still provide it. Customer can have peace of mind by knowing that his/her experience will not be too far off from the review others published online. If what you care about is absent from the spec, think twice before buying the product.