I'm a little confused why we expect people to be hostile to friendly requests in the absence of back-room dealing... what's the harm in saying "sure" and including that footnote? And don't we expect enough human decency for them to mention if there were financial considerations in the reporting?
The "harm" is in misinformation, and damage to the brand.
The Hitachi 5K3000 and Hitachi 7K3000 are amongst the most reliable hard drives in the report. Those drives are 3 years or more old and yet have some of the lowest failure rates in the study.
Unfortunately, Hitachi doesn't exist anymore. Hitachi as a company was split and sold in pieces. It is either HGST (owned by WD) or Toshiba.
I want to buy the 7k3000 today. Which hard drive manufacturer is making the modern equivalent? Is it the Toshiba DT01ACA300, or is it the "HGST Deskstar" ??
Despite sharing the same branding, I don't think HGST Deskstar is in fact from the same factory as the Hitachi Deskstars. When you look at the HGST Deskstars, they have WD Technology in them ("Coolspin" RPM).
The Toshiba DT01ACA300 has very similar performance characteristics to the old Hitachi 7k3000 drive.
So its a confusing situation. Which is why I'd like clarification. I bet that the Toshiba DT01ACA300 is actually the super-reliable hard drive that I want, but I admit that I'm a bit ignorant on this front.
Switching factories could certainly happen without a corporate structure change, though, right?
If it's important to track this information, I think it's relevant to mention it specifically, and I'd expect an honest review to discuss important changes like this (if they're aware of them), regardless of the brand names mentioned. If HGST requested that the review not mention a change in factory or technology, or refused to answer questions about it, then yes, I'd suspect malice somewhere.
