tomyam80: The sad fact is unless the Govt is willing to step in to enact this into law, there is no way the companies themselves will enforce such ruling. We can only hope that one day it will happen but as of now it remains but a pipe dream. :(
I guess the different companies would, if users were clear about their purchase preferences. And in practice you won't get legislation through any parliament unless it can be convincingly argued to benefit businesses directly anyway. I.e., see: "in an answer to customer dissatisfaction", at best. A phrase often used in reports from consulting firms when introducing legislation that encourages and at least makes it appear that concerns are taken care of, but often mandate very little actual change in practices.
The problem is that most.. all, probably... businesses (including companies that sell games :p, for example) have caught on to that the businesses with the highest customer satisfaction and retention rating are the companies that don't necessarily sell the best product, or what ultimately is the best tool, etc., but those who have the most conform and predictable sales-pitch. It's a well-known phenomenon that cutting out features that might be useful, and focusing on less frills and extras, for example, makes the product an easier sell - and therefore objectively have more appeal (statistically speaking).
More practically - the less details the customer is introduced to, the more genuine they believe the sales-pitch is (statistically speaking). It's "brand confidence" building 101, and it's something you have to think about.
And in that respect, selling something that encourages you to be critical, learn what the product is, and consider carefully what you actually need, while showing lots and lots of technical details - this is counterintuitive. For example: do you want to buy an ssd with a very high instruction queue-depth, RAM transfer speeds scaled for the maximum sata3 rate, along with a controller that is deliberately programmed to maximize parallel read and write efficiency over theoretical peak performance for single 4 Gb+ files? Or do you want to buy something that "makes your daily tasks easier"? Do you want something that "conforms to all security and access restriction standards to allow yourself immunity from potential abuse" by this very company that's selling you the product - or do you want "the most modern encryption suite and cloud service available". Etc.
It's the same thing. A company doesn't need or want to cater to special public interests. You would think that there's a synergy here, though - that specialist concerns would guide the market somehow. In the same way that companies striving to actually compete with others are interested in making the product technically better over time, while avoiding pitfalls that specific customers might run into. But it's not the case - what you want is a product that a large part of your customers are satisfied with to a very high degree. And if you can consistently avoid complicated things in your sales-pitch, and adjust the product towards that simple pitch - then it's been proven, over and over again, that the actual technical solution is almost irrelevant.
In fact, it's beneficial for many companies to ditch knowledgable and critical customers very deliberately. Because they are difficult to sell something new to, they are going to complain, and they will be unsatisfied if the product doesn't actually benefit them, rather than - say - help the company sell a very similar product to them every single year.
Specifically for Samsung, for example - they have sold a "consumer market" ssd line for a very long time now, and it's been popular basically because of the price. In the meantime, though - if Samsung wanted to, they could actually make new NAND and replace their very bad controller, increase the write speeds significantly, etc. - and actually produce that product for less money than what they are doing with their "first gen" tech, so to speak.
But differentiating out the low performance product as something cheaper than their premium product has worked brilliantly for a long while to get a portion of the market where people buy the most products. So even if they might actually earn more money by creating a better product and sell it for less money, they would likely be wary of giving up the "consumer-level" vs. "top performance premium" differentiation.
In the same way, an actually good product, like the Crucial ssds witht he marvell controller, and all of their reboots over the last couple of years, this competes in some way with a marginally cheaper and massively worse product technically -- but they do get suspicion from users for introducing new hardware, new controllers, and different NAND layouts. When that product is not significantly more expensive than the competition. I.e., that they have supreme technical expertise with their solution, and that they made the absolutely best product you could technically get into your computer at basically every single iteration (and then went on to specialize the products for different user-bases), is something that is seen with suspicion.
Basically, what happens is that they require of reviewers, and users, to learn too much about the products before pitching the appeal.
So yes. Companies know that most of you are lazy and easily coaxed. Until the point where you happily spend money on something that makes you subjectively fell better, rather than what might be thought to have the most utility. And you can't force people to change that approach via legislation in parliament. In fact, that's more "dangerous" than pitching niche-products in the private sector. Because at least some of those products do have a market.
