14 months between his exit and bankruptcy, and it is Ryan Peterson's fault? Talking about a tiny company like it is some IBM or US government? Gimme a break. Where was Ralph Schmitt when OCZ could not fix firmware for Vertex 3 for a year after release? Oh, the board member? So he did not approve hiring more software engineers?
Not native advertising. Kristian sat down with the CEO, just like I have done with others in the past, and had complete control over the questioning. Kristian dictated the direction of the discussion, and had editorial independence on what he wrote. Kristian went looking for a story, in order to help our readers better understand the inner workings of the man in charge of a company that we review the products, as well as the company itself. Not everything is a faceless corporation, which is a fact sometimes lost. Rather than benchmarking a product, it's testing and probing an individual and a company, which is something I hope we expand into more as and when we get the opportunities to do so.
Any worse than anytime they cover anything Apple-related? Sure, Apple makes nice hardware, but sweet christ, you'd have thought Anand was working for...wait, never mind.
Looks like it's time to find another tech review site. It's been a good run. The deals and other hardware related sub-forums should still remain useful though...
I recommend you reconsider the format of the articles to include a lot more direct quotation from the interviewee or at least a lot more qualifiers such as "Mr. Schmitt claims" or "According to Schmitt ...". The way it is currently written it is difficult to tell which facts and opinions come from Schmitt and which come from the reporter's independent research and analysis.
wmansir2 is spot on. I became suspicious when I got to "(for what it's worth, I'm still working with the same people as I was before the acquisition)". At this point I wasn't sure who had actually written the article. Overall I appreciate the article for curiosity's sake, but would have like more information on future products or just more technical information.
It's not terribly informative, but a decent piece nonetheless.
I would only like to address the Vector remark, how not all users are as well educated as AT readers. The underline is as far as I get it, that Vector is a tarnished brand. I agree with that. AT probably agrees too that an educated user looks a bit deeper than the brand of a piece of plastic. Some OCZ line of drives have been less reliable, some have been very reliable and they have all been cheap. Here's how I see things: OCZ for Sandforce drives in general and Samsung for TLC are tarnished brands due to various technical mistakes and general neglect of their customers. An AT reader should think twice upon buying them, but if they make sense or if the risk is acceptable, why not buy a Vector? Or an Agility-branded drive?
Same here. "Before we get to the actual interview.." must have been sticking in my mind, and at the end I felt something was missing. Basically this kind of article is not a bad idea though IMO.
"The reason why Toshiba wanted to keep OCZ independent was to ensure that the company's talent doesn't get buried into Toshiba's massive organization."
You mean the talent for bait and switch, like when the company started selling Vertex 2 drives with half the NAND chips without telling anyone, resulting in lower performance, lower capacity, and a strong predilection toward bricking?
Oh, and OCZ did not offer a replacement for the most expensive one, the 240 GB model, after being pressured once its tactics were exposed.
Or, perhaps, the talent for releasing extremely buggy SSDs, like both the Vertex 2 and Vertex/Agility 3 lines – where dozens of firmware patches never fixed things like the sleep panic bug and it was rumored that drives shipped with randomly sourced NAND, including substandard OCZ-branded stuff that failed prematurely? People had all sorts of explanations for why these drives were so unreliable, but the bottom line is that they were.
And, OCZ's wonderful talented customer service amounted to a forum where people who told "RMA or send to DriveSavers".
As others have mentioned, this reads like a hagiography, with zero distance between the writer and the interviewee. Even if you were thoroughly convinced by Schmitt that OCZ was on the right track but was running on fumes due to their capital situation, the fact that the only attribution of claims to Schmitt in the piece is a discussion over product branding is totally inappropriate. There's nothing here of substance beyond the same PR points OCZ has been pushing the last month. I think they even have a whole slick marketing page dedicated to it but I can't find it right now.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
21 Comments
Back to Article
etamin - Tuesday, January 27, 2015 - link
As a consumer, I am ready to give OCZ another chance.As an investor, Ryan Peterson can burn in hell.
UltraWide - Wednesday, January 28, 2015 - link
I was an investor, got some nice pink slip OTCs now. :(Railgun - Wednesday, January 28, 2015 - link
You and me both. Like a smokin' crater in my portfolio. Maybe those tides will bring in some nice compensation.peevee - Saturday, January 31, 2015 - link
14 months between his exit and bankruptcy, and it is Ryan Peterson's fault? Talking about a tiny company like it is some IBM or US government? Gimme a break.Where was Ralph Schmitt when OCZ could not fix firmware for Vertex 3 for a year after release? Oh, the board member? So he did not approve hiring more software engineers?
gostan - Tuesday, January 27, 2015 - link
Native advertising at its best. Good job AT!Ian Cutress - Tuesday, January 27, 2015 - link
Not native advertising. Kristian sat down with the CEO, just like I have done with others in the past, and had complete control over the questioning. Kristian dictated the direction of the discussion, and had editorial independence on what he wrote. Kristian went looking for a story, in order to help our readers better understand the inner workings of the man in charge of a company that we review the products, as well as the company itself. Not everything is a faceless corporation, which is a fact sometimes lost. Rather than benchmarking a product, it's testing and probing an individual and a company, which is something I hope we expand into more as and when we get the opportunities to do so.michal1980 - Tuesday, January 27, 2015 - link
whats the story here? How great OCZ is? gostan is right, this 'interview' reads like a puff/pr piecefluxtatic - Wednesday, January 28, 2015 - link
Any worse than anytime they cover anything Apple-related? Sure, Apple makes nice hardware, but sweet christ, you'd have thought Anand was working for...wait, never mind.chrnochime - Thursday, January 29, 2015 - link
Looks like it's time to find another tech review site. It's been a good run. The deals and other hardware related sub-forums should still remain useful though...Antronman - Monday, February 2, 2015 - link
It seems Anandtech has gone the way of Tom's Hardware, except the hardware reviews are still relevant.wmansir2 - Tuesday, January 27, 2015 - link
I recommend you reconsider the format of the articles to include a lot more direct quotation from the interviewee or at least a lot more qualifiers such as "Mr. Schmitt claims" or "According to Schmitt ...". The way it is currently written it is difficult to tell which facts and opinions come from Schmitt and which come from the reporter's independent research and analysis.superunknown98 - Friday, January 30, 2015 - link
wmansir2 is spot on. I became suspicious when I got to "(for what it's worth, I'm still working with the same people as I was before the acquisition)". At this point I wasn't sure who had actually written the article. Overall I appreciate the article for curiosity's sake, but would have like more information on future products or just more technical information.Ralos - Tuesday, January 27, 2015 - link
_Mr. Schmitt has been OCZ's CEO since October 2011_[...]
_in September 2012 when Ryan Petersen, the founder and CEO at that time, resigned._
So... OCZ had two CEOs between October 2011 and September 2012?
And yeah, this article is more an elaborate piece of advertising than a factual and interesting piece of information.
nevcairiel - Tuesday, January 27, 2015 - link
He was a director since April 2011, and CEO as of September 2012 ... something surely has gone wrong here.Pheran - Tuesday, January 27, 2015 - link
Minor typo - 'intact' is one word.dragosmp - Wednesday, January 28, 2015 - link
It's not terribly informative, but a decent piece nonetheless.I would only like to address the Vector remark, how not all users are as well educated as AT readers. The underline is as far as I get it, that Vector is a tarnished brand. I agree with that. AT probably agrees too that an educated user looks a bit deeper than the brand of a piece of plastic. Some OCZ line of drives have been less reliable, some have been very reliable and they have all been cheap.
Here's how I see things: OCZ for Sandforce drives in general and Samsung for TLC are tarnished brands due to various technical mistakes and general neglect of their customers. An AT reader should think twice upon buying them, but if they make sense or if the risk is acceptable, why not buy a Vector? Or an Agility-branded drive?
valinor89 - Wednesday, January 28, 2015 - link
I don't know why, but I read to the end of the article and I still was expecting the actual discussion...we - Friday, January 30, 2015 - link
Same here."Before we get to the actual interview.." must have been sticking in my mind, and at the end I felt something was missing. Basically this kind of article is not a bad idea though IMO.
Oxford Guy - Monday, February 2, 2015 - link
"The reason why Toshiba wanted to keep OCZ independent was to ensure that the company's talent doesn't get buried into Toshiba's massive organization."You mean the talent for bait and switch, like when the company started selling Vertex 2 drives with half the NAND chips without telling anyone, resulting in lower performance, lower capacity, and a strong predilection toward bricking?
Oh, and OCZ did not offer a replacement for the most expensive one, the 240 GB model, after being pressured once its tactics were exposed.
Oxford Guy - Monday, February 2, 2015 - link
Or, perhaps, the talent for releasing extremely buggy SSDs, like both the Vertex 2 and Vertex/Agility 3 lines – where dozens of firmware patches never fixed things like the sleep panic bug and it was rumored that drives shipped with randomly sourced NAND, including substandard OCZ-branded stuff that failed prematurely? People had all sorts of explanations for why these drives were so unreliable, but the bottom line is that they were.And, OCZ's wonderful talented customer service amounted to a forum where people who told "RMA or send to DriveSavers".
eightspancrow - Tuesday, February 3, 2015 - link
As others have mentioned, this reads like a hagiography, with zero distance between the writer and the interviewee. Even if you were thoroughly convinced by Schmitt that OCZ was on the right track but was running on fumes due to their capital situation, the fact that the only attribution of claims to Schmitt in the piece is a discussion over product branding is totally inappropriate. There's nothing here of substance beyond the same PR points OCZ has been pushing the last month. I think they even have a whole slick marketing page dedicated to it but I can't find it right now.