[ippisl]

I doesn't have to be dishonesty. It might just be bias(conscious or subconscious) not to waste time on this question.

Even doctors show this kind of biases when advising people on choosing treatments(which is a much bigger moral issue).

[scott_s]

Their conclusions on "white boxes" are based on relatively straightforward statistical analysis of their data. In order for there to be bias against white boxes, one of the following has to be true:

1. Their data collection methods are biased against white boxes. Given the large sample size and the method of retrieving samples - automatically generated crash reports from users - I find this unlikely. They cover this point in section 3.2.1.

2. Their statistical analysis is flawed. I see no issues with it, nor did the reviewers. (Otherwise it wouldn't have been accepted.)

3. They lied. I am most skeptical on this one.

It's disingenuous to gesture at researchers and allege bias based on their employer without actually saying how they are biased. Doing so is not valid skepticism, but prejudice.

[dredmorbius]

My suspicion is that branded hardware manufacturers are uniformly reasonably good in quality. White box vendors may vary widely: some are good, but some (many? few?) are really, really bad. This can skew data.

It's also possible that it's getting more difficult to accurately spec systems, to enforce vendor quality (Dell gets a bad batch of drives, they can 1) detect it and 2) tell the vendor to stuff it, Ahmed's Boxez'R'Us may not have that leverage or depth of experience), and to do burn-in testing of their own systems.

That said, I've had good and bad experiences with big-name and white box vendors alike.

[flomo]

One question is what happens to a component that fails a major OEM's QC standards, where does it go? In to the garbage? Or into the whitebox channel?

For example, some have speculated that "Gamer RAM" with mean looking heatsinks is actually poorer quality stuff that requires additional cooling to work correctly.

[ippisl]

The problem is that they didn't wrote in their paper :"white boxes are known to have large variability in their level of reliability. We leave it to further study to compare the reliability of white boxes built with quality components to brand boxes".

Do you think they haven't known that ?

This kind of remarks of the incompleteness of research done is common in many research papers. And they definitely contribute to readers not getting the wrong impression.

[scott_s]

The problem with your statement is that it's based on anecdote. From their related work section: "The effect on failure rates of overclocking and underclocking, brand name vs. white box, and memory size have not been previously studied." You assume that white boxes have a large variability in reliability based on your personal experience and anecdote. But, according to the authors, there is no systematic study backing that up. "Quality components" is similarly difficult to pin down.

The authors stated a conclusion, but did not speculate on the cause behind the conclusion. I see no bias in them not calling attention to the fact that they have not studied the cause - that is self-evident.