I just finished reading through this article and to me it's a good eye opener to those in the market for a cheap SSD. I just hope this shines more light to the end user in realizing that there are instances where you do get what you pay for.
"At Computex last June, one SSD vendor told us about an OEM 2D TLC SSD that will burn through the rated endurance in a little over a year. The SSD has to last a year because of the notebook's one-year warranty, but anything beyond a year's worth of use is up to the user to fix. Tactics like that are the driving forces behind putting cheap DRAMless SSDs in $500 notebooks."
This is the real reason mobile devices are winning the war. Why design a drive that lasts a year in a cheap notebook (which will likely see far more use for far longer than an expensive one that will likely be upgraded in the next 3 years -) when all mobile devices are at least built to a 2 year endurance for the length of your contract. This means a subpar drive or a well-worked drive will lose its endurance and break your laptop in 6 months. This is horribly predatory forced obsolescence, and the fact that these drives are not being talked about like OCZ's earlier failure-prone units belies the fact that they would be performing far worse.
Thought I'd chime in on the adblocking thing: I didn't used to block ads. Then they got so they crashed, took over my browser, or made sites unusable.
There is precisely one site I frequent where I don't block ads, and that's because they're respectful of me and my devices. The ads are tasteful, relevant to the content, and don't get in the way of my interactions with the articles.