What an absurd thing to say. You seem to be suggesting a high probability that the device is dodgy.
Nope, only that the report, short of a problem that should be shown to the user during calibration as an error (instrument fell off the display) is useless as it will report what you asked for.
Do you understand how the report works? You asked for target calibration aim points. After calibration, the instrument measures a subset of the data it measured in the first place. So again, short of some major issue, its going to report what you asked for and in no way is that correct compared to having a higher grade reference instrument report otherwise.
You use your foot to measure a foundation because you are under the impression its exactly 12 inches. Maybe it is, maybe its not. You make the measurement and then do it again to make sure you did this correctly the first time. Unless you take out a reference grade measuring device (in this example, a tape measure), do you really think measuring this again is going to tell you anything useful? Or you ask for 5700K and the report tells you it got 5750K. Now what? You going to measure this again and again, or just see if the print matches the display?
I know that a small percentage of any electronic devices will have problems, but that's just how it is. To say that it's not worth having numeric feedback, just because it might be wrong, is completely ridiculous.
Without another instrument that has known accuracy, it might be right or wrong, you’ll never know. You can use your foot a dozen times, until you pull out that tape measure, you’re just wasting your time.
Read the original post again. Yann said (and I agree) that we should at least be told what the native results are
Even if its a lie? Even if it just tells you what you want to hear?
You're the one who has always said, over the years, that monitors should be calibrated to their native temperature.
No, I said that with poorer quality displays that don’t use high bit internal LUTs, start with Native WP to avoid banding. But use a non Native WP if the prints don’t match (because a match with slight banding is better than a mismatch that’s smooth). You are misunderstanding what Native WP does. And it doesn’t matter a rat’s ass what the value is! As long as the software initially doesn’t mess with the graphic card/system to introduce banding, it doesn’t matter what the actual value is. What does matter is if there’s a match to the print, a value provided by the software after calibration is meaningless. If there’s a mismatch, you’ll have to calibrate again and futz with the values in the target until you get the match.
We want to know what it is.
You think? Why is it useful to know a value that is a range of colors anyway and one that every other device/software combo will provide that’s a different value?