GIGABYTE ripped me off

Eish, I don't know what more to say. Distributors don't order through EAN numbers commonly called barcodes. They use product codes and you can't order a rev.3 board with a rev.2 product code. It really is that simple.
 
Swa said:
Nothing new. The article is incorrect though. The EAN codes are the same as they probably should be. The product codes are not the same however.
Click to expand...

What are these 'product codes'?
 
Anyone here actually have a rectum/Mustek price list (these are the distributors) to verify the product codes listed there? IIRC the distributors that did use the original manufactures codes did most definitely include rev numbers on there. It isn't perfect but can help us a bit (assuming the disti's don't make up their own product codes).

Either way, this is going to be a big "hoo ha" with lots of smart people linking to smarter links. The distribution chain is not perfect, I have a 15k APC ups which just appeared out of thin air. I ordered a UPS and a battery pack and received 2 UPS's, the box the second UPS came in was labeled to be a battery pack but the stock inside differed, by the time we got everything sorted the box had been tossed and the disti had no interest in the UPS as they had it listed as a battery pack.

That's a fokop between manufacturing and distribution, the resellers are even more prone to stuff ups as they do not receive stock images on everything, that means most of the time they end up grabbing a product name, heading over to the manufacture's site and grabbing the first best image they can find which could also be something with the same name but a different product code or barcode or revision.
 
Hmmm ... no revision numbers on Rectron pricelist that I can see...

Rectum.jpg

Ipwn 4 said:
Anyone here actually have a rectum/Mustek price list (these are the distributors) to verify the product codes listed there? IIRC the distributors that did use the original manufactures codes did most definitely include rev numbers on there. It isn't perfect but can help us a bit (assuming the disti's don't make up their own product codes).

Either way, this is going to be a big "hoo ha" with lots of smart people linking to smarter links. The distribution chain is not perfect, I have a 15k APC ups which just appeared out of thin air. I ordered a UPS and a battery pack and received 2 UPS's, the box the second UPS came in was labeled to be a battery pack but the stock inside differed, by the time we got everything sorted the box had been tossed and the disti had no interest in the UPS as they had it listed as a battery pack.

That's a fokop between manufacturing and distribution, the resellers are even more prone to stuff ups as they do not receive stock images on everything, that means most of the time they end up grabbing a product name, heading over to the manufacture's site and grabbing the first best image they can find which could also be something with the same name but a different product code or barcode or revision.
Click to expand...
 
Ipwn 4 said:
Anyone here actually have a rectum/Mustek price list (these are the distributors) to verify the product codes listed there? IIRC the distributors that did use the original manufactures codes did most definitely include rev numbers on there. It isn't perfect but can help us a bit (assuming the disti's don't make up their own product codes).

Either way, this is going to be a big "hoo ha" with lots of smart people linking to smarter links. The distribution chain is not perfect, I have a 15k APC ups which just appeared out of thin air. I ordered a UPS and a battery pack and received 2 UPS's, the box the second UPS came in was labeled to be a battery pack but the stock inside differed, by the time we got everything sorted the box had been tossed and the disti had no interest in the UPS as they had it listed as a battery pack.

That's a fokop between manufacturing and distribution, the resellers are even more prone to stuff ups as they do not receive stock images on everything, that means most of the time they end up grabbing a product name, heading over to the manufacture's site and grabbing the first best image they can find which could also be something with the same name but a different product code or barcode or revision.
Click to expand...
I just checked and although Gigabyte has them listed as PIDs 4569 & 4977 respectively Rectron just has it listed as RE-GA-P85-D3. Yeah the distribution chain is certainly not perfect but consumers shouldn't just make assumptions about who's at fault. In the OP's case though the changes were from all appearances aesthetic. The newer revision which he got seems to have a better layout but Takealot still refunded him for his pickyness.
 
Swa said:
I linked to them.
Click to expand...

Oh, now this makes sense. You think that pid number you see in the address bar is an actual product code used in sales and distribution. That's just an internal website product tracker. They aren't actually used for anything else and the only place you'll find those numbers is on the website.
 
Rudimental said:
Oh, now this makes sense. You think that pid number you see in the address bar is an actual product code used in sales and distribution. That's just an internal website product tracker. They aren't actually used for anything else and the only place you'll find those numbers is on the website.
Click to expand...
So what are the actual product codes?
 
Swa said:
So what are the actual product codes?
Click to expand...

MSI's codes, for example, are listed on the box itself and can be scanned in. My 760GM-P21 (FX) has the code 911-7641-042 (and separate EAN/UPC numbers). My Gigabyte GTX650 box does note next to the product name if it is a rev1.0 or 2.0, but the UPC (the only number there) is 4719331308162. Googling that takes me to sites which have either rev1.0 or 2.0 boards. I've found an eBay listing for the same model card sold in 2013, but mine was made in the 12th week of 2014.
 
Last edited:
Swa said:
So what are the actual product codes?
Click to expand...

You've got your model number and your EAN or UPC barcode. Those are usually good enough. After all, the whole purpose of a barcode is to give you a unique universal product code (UPC = Universal Product Code, after all) that is easy to track, and so adding another number or code to do this is redundant. You do, however, sometimes sometimes get an additional Part Number or Manufacturer Number, but this really depends on the manufacturer. Some have these and some don't. If those pictures of the Gigabyte motherboard boxes are accurate, then Gigabyte is only using an EAN.

Obviously, Gigabyte are using something internally, so they can track which revision is which, perhaps ranges of serial numbers or something else, but since the barcodes are the same, and the products are inevitably scanned in, it means that it is very hard to get an inventory system to tell the products apart. This is why, for example, different printings of the same book get different ISBNs (which are now standard EANs in ISBN-13).
 
Rudimental said:
You've got your model number and your EAN or UPC barcode. Those are usually good enough. After all, the whole purpose of a barcode is to give you a unique universal product code (UPC = Universal Product Code, after all) that is easy to track, and so adding another number or code to do this is redundant. You do, however, sometimes sometimes get an additional Part Number or Manufacturer Number, but this really depends on the manufacturer. Some have these and some don't. If those pictures of the Gigabyte motherboard boxes are accurate, then Gigabyte is only using an EAN.

Obviously, Gigabyte are using something internally, so they can track which revision is which, perhaps ranges of serial numbers or something else, but since the barcodes are the same, and the products are inevitably scanned in, it means that it is very hard to get an inventory system to tell the products apart. This is why, for example, different printings of the same book get different ISBNs (which are now standard EANs in ISBN-13).
Click to expand...
Thing is that the manufacturers usually have their own product codes which are not the EAN or UPC codes. Many can't even help you if you use the latter. Only the distributors will officially have access to these codes as it won't appear on the packaging. Products regularly change without their barcodes changing so that isn't a standard by which to go by.
 
Swa said:
Thing is that the manufacturers usually have their own product codes which are not the EAN or UPC codes. Many can't even help you if you use the latter. Only the distributors will officially have access to these codes as it won't appear on the packaging. Products regularly change without their barcodes changing so that isn't a standard by which to go by.
Click to expand...

Erm.

When you shifted your claim from 'these are the product codes' to 'these are secret codes only the distributors know' you just wiped out any support for your claim that those codes are different, and therefore that it is the fault of someone other than Gigabyte. Since we do not know what those codes are, we cannot know whether they are different or also the same, like the EAN. Without evidence, any claim either way is pure speculation. Since only your argument depends on these codes, you just knocked down your own argument. This is even granting your first claim that the codes even exist, which you provided no evidence for.

So, the EAN is the same. The secret manufacturer code, if it even exists, could could be the same or could be different, because we do not know. We therefore have a reason to believe that it is Gigabyte's fault, the identical EAN, and no reasons to believe that it is anyone else's fault.
 
Rudimental said:
Erm.

When you shifted your claim from 'these are the product codes' to 'these are secret codes only the distributors know' you just wiped out any support for your claim that those codes are different, and therefore that it is the fault of someone other than Gigabyte. Since we do not know what those codes are, we cannot know whether they are different or also the same, like the EAN. Without evidence, any claim either way is pure speculation. Since only your argument depends on these codes, you just knocked down your own argument. This is even granting your first claim that the codes even exist, which you provided no evidence for.

So, the EAN is the same. The secret manufacturer code, if it even exists, could could be the same or could be different, because we do not know. We therefore have a reason to believe that it is Gigabyte's fault, the identical EAN, and no reasons to believe that it is anyone else's fault.
Click to expand...
Nope. You said it was the code for identification on the website. Considering that it does seem logical that is the case. So we are back to square one which is why I ask what these codes are. You don't automatically jump to the worst conclusion when there's doubt. Gigabyte listing them as different products at least casts enough doubt to think they are not treating them as the same thing.
 
Found the following interesting things

http://www.firstshop.co.za/gigabyte-m-28
Anybody with an idea what the extra numbering after the model numbers are?

Also from Eurobyte's pricelist:
EU-GA-H61M-DS2v3 GIGABYTE H61M-DS2 (rev 3.0): H61 Express Chipset: Socket
??????
 
Swa said:
Nope. You said it was the code for identification on the website. Considering that it does seem logical that is the case. So we are back to square one which is why I ask what these codes are. You don't automatically jump to the worst conclusion when there's doubt. Gigabyte listing them as different products at least casts enough doubt to think they are not treating them as the same thing.
Click to expand...

This isn't about doubt, which is the inability to eliminate alternative possibilities. It is about ignorance, which is the lack of evidence and reasons. You don't have any evidence supporting your claims. So there is no reason to believe anything that you say. You're just speculating about those numbers, without any support. What I said is substantiated by the fact that those numbers only appear on the website. It is entirely possible that there really are secret codes only used in the supply chain and that they are different for these different revisions, but until there is evidence for this, no-one has reason to believe it. It is the same as if I were to say that Pluto is in fact an artificial dwarf planet. This is entirely possible, but no-one has reason to believe it without evidence to support it.

Also, no-one ever said that there was no way to tell these products apart. After all, it says exactly which revision the board is right on the boxes themselves. What people are saying here is that using the same EAN can lead to confusion as to which revision is for sale. This is because EANs are a standard and universal system used to track products. Using the same EANs for different revisions is asking for those things to be treated as if they are the same. There are also more than enough EANs for Gigabyte to give each revision its own EAN. So, if they are using the same EAN for all revisions, then this is intentional. I would say that they probably want all revisions to be considered interchangeable in the supply chain, because they consider the different revisions to be minor changes and treating them as the same makes things simpler. This works fine until you get edge cases like these ones, where the changes between revisions are substantial enough for different revisions to be of different value to the end-user (assuming that the differences are as portrayed).

There is an argument that the retailer and supplier could do more, e.g. physically checking stock, but you aren't making that argument. You're making very weak claims about it being the retailer or supplier's fault because there exist these unknown alternate and secret codes that are used in the supply chain and you know those codes are different, despite having no evidence at all.
 
Rudimental said:
This isn't about doubt, which is the inability to eliminate alternative possibilities. It is about ignorance, which is the lack of evidence and reasons. You don't have any evidence supporting your claims. So there is no reason to believe anything that you say. You're just speculating about those numbers, without any support. What I said is substantiated by the fact that those numbers only appear on the website. It is entirely possible that there really are secret codes only used in the supply chain and that they are different for these different revisions, but until there is evidence for this, no-one has reason to believe it. It is the same as if I were to say that Pluto is in fact an artificial dwarf planet. This is entirely possible, but no-one has reason to believe it without evidence to support it.

Also, no-one ever said that there was no way to tell these products apart. After all, it says exactly which revision the board is right on the boxes themselves. What people are saying here is that using the same EAN can lead to confusion as to which revision is for sale. This is because EANs are a standard and universal system used to track products. Using the same EANs for different revisions is asking for those things to be treated as if they are the same. There are also more than enough EANs for Gigabyte to give each revision its own EAN. So, if they are using the same EAN for all revisions, then this is intentional. I would say that they probably want all revisions to be considered interchangeable in the supply chain, because they consider the different revisions to be minor changes and treating them as the same makes things simpler. This works fine until you get edge cases like these ones, where the changes between revisions are substantial enough for different revisions to be of different value to the end-user (assuming that the differences are as portrayed).

There is an argument that the retailer and supplier could do more, e.g. physically checking stock, but you aren't making that argument. You're making very weak claims about it being the retailer or supplier's fault because there exist these unknown alternate and secret codes that are used in the supply chain and you know those codes are different, despite having no evidence at all.
Click to expand...
What evidence and what claims? The only claims are that Gigabyte doesn't distinguish between the versions for which there is no evidence. It's entirely possible they aren't but there's no reason to believe that without evidence to support it. That would be like me going to work and the boss seeing me working at 8:15. I can't prove I was there at 8:00 but it would be entirely unfair of him to claim that I wasn't without any further evidence.

EAN codes are not a standard way to differentiate product differences. Products undergo changes without the codes changing. It is a way for manufacturers to make things simpler. One can't infer intentional malice from this. Plain and simple this is a case of online shops not being on par with physical shops where a product can be checked. There is an argument to be made that the supply chain needs to make changes if this isn't an isolated incident but to automatically put the blame on Gigabyte isn't a valid part of that argument. There simply is NO EVIDENCE to base that on.
 
Swa said:
What evidence and what claims?
Click to expand...

Are you asking me to tell you what you are saying and what evidence you have to support that?

Swa said:
The only claims are that Gigabyte doesn't distinguish between the versions for which there is no evidence. It's entirely possible they aren't but there's no reason to believe that without evidence to support it. That would be like me going to work and the boss seeing me working at 8:15. I can't prove I was there at 8:00 but it would be entirely unfair of him to claim that I wasn't without any further evidence.
Click to expand...

When people point the finger at Gigabyte, they use the identical EAN as the evidence.

Swa said:
EAN codes are not a standard way to differentiate product differences. Products undergo changes without the codes changing. It is a way for manufacturers to make things simpler. One can't infer intentional malice from this. Plain and simple this is a case of online shops not being on par with physical shops where a product can be checked. There is an argument to be made that the supply chain needs to make changes if this isn't an isolated incident but to automatically put the blame on Gigabyte isn't a valid part of that argument. There simply is NO EVIDENCE to base that on.
Click to expand...

As I have consistently been saying, EANs are a standard way to track products. You can differentiate products in numerous different ways, but irrespective of however you do that, unless you want to manually track and manage products, you'll need to use an EAN/UPC/other barcode on the packaging or your own barcoding system. We've already seen that the Gigabyte products only have an EAN, which means that unless a distributor or retailer puts their own additional barcode onto these products, they cannot track the different revisions of the products separately. It is as simple as that.

Once again, by giving the different revisions the same EAN, Gigabyte is asking for them to be treated interchangeably. They included an EAN on their product to identify and track it, and kept it the same while the product changed. If you used the EAN supplied by Gigabyte on its products, then it would not be possible for you to get your barcode system to tell the different revisions apart. I.e. the information that Gigabyte themselves give you to track their products means that the different revisions track as the same product. As I also said before, this isn't usually a problem. When products get minor revisions, having the same EAN does not cause any problems. In edge cases, where the revisions are more substantial, then having the same EAN for different revisions can cause problems. Remember the whole B3 Revision fiasco with Intel's initial LGA1155 motherboards? Now imagine if the B2 and the B3 revisions of motherboard models had been given the same barcodes. It would have been a logistical nightmare.

I have never once said that this is malicious. I think that it is poor practice, and Gigabyte is definitely at fault if there are substantial changes between these revisions. This isn't to say that the retailer could not have also done things better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X