I'd advise against throwing accusations without proof. Looking for reliable hardware vendors is hard enough, there is no need for people unintentionally muddying the waters.
Have you checked the performance difference or are you just venting based on click-bait articles?
According to benchmarks, the difference in performance is negligible, in fact the new SKU is sometimes better than the old one in most benchmarks, so there's really nothing to worry about.
> In longer tests, both drives decrease sharply in performance as cache fills, which is expected. But while the older drive retains nearly two-thirds of its original performance, the newer version craters to less than a third. We can see this effect not only in artificial benchmarks, but also in large file copies [1]
While changing SKU is one step better than other manufacturers, it's still a shaddy behavior keeping the old name.
They had a lot of SKUs (6) for one part, and despite on paper some of the numbers being lower, and in synthetic benchmarks the drives performing differently, some of the “slower” parts actually performed better than the original reviewed/released samples.
This doesn’t excuse what some people consider bait and switch. But it’s more complicated than many outraged gamers made it seem.
Then they shouldn't have anything to fear from being honest about the situation, releasing it as the "second edition" or something, and letting it go through the regular review pipeline like any other new product or revision.