My hunch is that they don't expose anything because that makes it harder to refund on warranty

> - Consumer drives like Samsung 980 Pro and WD SN 850 Black use TLC as SLC when about 30+% of the drive is erased. At this time you a burst write a bit less than 10% of the drive capacity at 5 GB/s. After that, it slows remarkably. If the filesystem doesn’t automatically trim free space, the drive will eventually be stuck in slow mode all the time.

This is true, but despite all of the controversy about this feature it’s hard to encounter this in practical consumer use patterns.

With the 980 Pro 1TB you can write 113GB before it slows down. (Source https://www.techpowerup.com/review/samsung-980-pro-1-tb-ssd/... ) So you need to be able to source that much data from another high speed SSD and then fill nearly 1/8th of the drive to encounter the slowdown. Even when it slows down you’re still writing at 1.5GB/sec. Also remember that the drive is factory overprovisioned so there is always some amount of space left to handle some of this burst writing.

For as much as this fact gets brought up, I doubt most consumers ever encounter this condition. Someone who is copying very large video files from one drive to another might encounter it on certain operations, but even in slow mode you’re filling the entire drive capacity in under 10 minutes.

I don't understand why this is being called a "conspiracy theory"; but, if you want some very concrete evidence that this is how they work, a paper was recently published that analyzed the behavior and endurance of various SSDs, and the data would be very difficult to describe using any other theory than that, comparing apples-to-apples on drives that have better write endurance, they are merely overprovisioned to allow the wear-level algorithm to not cause as much write amplification while reorganizing.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44985619

> OP on write-intensive SSD. SSD vendors often offer two versions of SSDs with similar hardware specifications, where the lower-capacity model is typically marketed as “write-optimized” or “mixed-use”. One might expect that such write-optimized SSDs would demonstrate improved WAF characteristics due to specialized internal designs. To investigate this, we compared two Micron SSD models: the Micron 7450 PRO, designed for “read-intensive” workloads with a capacity of 960 GB, and the Micron 7450 MAX, intended for “mixed-use” workloads with a capacity of 800 GB. Both SSDs were tested under identical workloads and dataset sizes, as shown in Figure 7b. The WAF results for both models were identical and closely matched the results from the simulator. This suggests that these Micron SSDs, despite being marketed for different workloads, are essentially identical in performance, with the only difference being a larger OP on the “mixed-use” model. For these SSD models, there appear to be no other hardware or algorithmic improvements. As a result, users can achieve similar performance by manually reserving free space on the “read-intensive” SSD, offering a practical alternative to purchasing the “mixed-use” model.

drive controllers on HDDs just suddenly go to shit and drop off buses, too.

I guess the difference being that people expect the HDD to fail suddenly whereas with a solid state device most people seem to be convinced that the failure will be graceful.