In terms of listing certain brands, you're completely correct that this should not cause there to be different results. But I disagree that these details should be left out of the paper. Any competent scientist attempting to replicate a result can make assumptions about which equipment (like tubing) should not reasonably be expected to change the results. It should be up to the replicating scientist to make the equipment substitutions that he deems reasonable.
An example might be listing that a certain brand of pippetor tips or centrifuge were used during the experiment. It is highly unlikely that a lab is going to go out of their way to acquire the exact brand of pipettor tips or centrifuge in order to replicate the experiment. But should they have difficulty reproducing the results, having the additional specific data in the original write up allows for the replicating lab to being troubleshooting on their own. They can begin looking at small level details which may have affected their results.
An example might be listing that a certain brand of pippetor tips or centrifuge were used during the experiment. It is highly unlikely that a lab is going to go out of their way to acquire the exact brand of pipettor tips or centrifuge in order to replicate the experiment. But should they have difficulty reproducing the results, having the additional specific data in the original write up allows for the replicating lab to being troubleshooting on their own. They can begin looking at small level details which may have affected their results.