Talk:PNY Technologies

BBB
"In the last 36 months, 177 BBB claims have been filed against PNY."Does "BBB" stand for Better Business Bureau? It isn't stated anywhere in the article what BBB stands for, and this should be fixed if someone can verify that it does indeed stand for the Better Business Bureau. 98.202.38.225 (talk) 06:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this an ad for PNY?
This sounds like it was taken directly from an Advertisement for PNY. Who wrote this? It comes directly from pny's web page.

Acronym?
Anyone know if PNY stands for anything? I'm tempted to visit their offices and ask. (I live in Parsippany) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.237.221 (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't even think most of the employees know the answer to that. I'm quite certain it does not stand for Paris New York as many seem to be suggesting.  For one thing, the reason cited seems hard to believe - the products would have been distributed from many places, Paris probably was not one of them though, when the company was founded.


 * Most likely is that there was a connection to Parsippany from when the company was founded - probably standing for Parsippany New York. New York, obviously in reference to the fact it was founded in Brooklyn, whilst Parsippany may have been where their original manufacturing facility/warehouse was (prior to being in Moonachie), or some other connection.  Or it all could be a coincidence and the Parsippany move in 97 created a backronym.  Whatever the case, the P standing for Paris seems like BS to me.M3J8NN (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Controversy
Several IP users have been attempting to add the statement "They use different components in their products once reviews have been done" using this as a source. This is 'broken'. You can't use what is said in the title of a blog entry as the source for a defamatory statement. Also, if you actually read the source (and the other blog entry about PNY that it links to) it doesn't actually say that PNY is using cheaper components, or even that they are using components that don't perform as well. The discussion is actually about Kingston substituting a different (and cheaper) type of memory after being reviewed.

(points at article history) It's clear that I'm not the only person that thinks this is wrong. also removed this. , btw, actually 'thanked' me for reverting him when I explained why it should go away in my edit summary. If someone can find a better source for this, or write something that is not WP:SYNTHESIS or based on a violation of WP:No Original Research then I have no problem with that. You cannot, however, ( and ) repeatedly continue to add the exact same text and citation (especially when defamatory) to an article after it has been removed by multiple users without a discussion and consensus on the Talk page. Revent talk  21:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, it was not so much "defamatory" as it was poorly worded. (And sure they can use it; Ziff Davis have been around for decades.) The article does mention PNY substituting some components for others which are less expensive but that still meet performance requirements. Hard/Software revisions are standard practice for manufacturers; whether for better or worse. That said, it is little more than a brief mention in an article that is largely about Kingston. If someone wanted to rewrite it to specifically mention the controllers, it would probably be OK for inclusion so long as it stays within bounds of due weight. The way it was before reads like a very broad statement covering their entire product offering; we simply need more sources and reports for such a broad claim. As for original research or "synthesis", I did not see any of that with the one sentence mention put in by the Wikipedia editors. The cited sources, sure; there is OR and synth there but, that is their job. -- dsprc  [talk]  01:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Certainly ZiffDavis has been around for decades, and publishes quite reputable magazines, but ExtremeTech is (at least in it's current incarnation) basically just a well-funded blog site for the guys who write at PC Magazine. As far as my comments about OR and synthesis, it's based on the fact that neither the cited article, or the TweakTown blog post it refers to, actually SAYS that Sandforce controllers are cheaper than Silicon Motion controllers (other than the title). It's clear that Kingston is doing so (synchronous NAND is inherently cheaper than asynchronous) but we have no way of knowing (from these sources) that PNY is cutting costs. It could simply be something like a supplier issue. The source in fact makes it very clear that the writer doesn't know if there is any difference in performance. Sure, he implies it, and implies that PNY is saving money in the process, but he doesn't actually say it. The sentence was defamatory as written simply because it could cause a reader to say "Oh, I better not buy a PNY product." Revent  talk  15:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I still do not see it as defamatory and still think it was just poorly worded. I feel there is agreement that it should not be included either way, if for the simple vagueness of the claims (and source) alone. We would need many more reports and sources for it to be reliable. Even if there was, it may still fail WP:WEIGHT. We do not know what a reader will infer or say; for all we know, it may nudge them into buying a product because it is perceived as less expensive while having the same performance so, it is best to leave the WP:CRYSTALBALL out of this. We are also not in agreement that ET is just an expensive blog but, that doesn't matter. What matters, is this one-off, passing blurb should not be included. If the IP contributers (or anyone) feel otherwise, they should chime in here with a compelling reason for inclusion, else it will continue to be removed (and rightfully so). -- dsprc   [talk]  22:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)