Recently LTT built a $100k PC desk for a Minecraft streamer. Sometimes the over the top engineering/materials (and thus cost) around something is the entire point. If they gave it a fair shake, and still called it a bad product, and then returned it. There wouldn't be an issue. It being a bad product isn't the issue.
Then what is the issue? If the outcome is the same why does it matter? The video it was featured in wasn't even a review, the premise was someone who has zero experience in water cooling trying to install it. I feel like most people didn't even watch the video.
Sure do love the hivemind downvoting instead of answering my question. I am genuinely asking, what is the issue? I really don't understand why it has so many people this mad. To me it seems like people were expecting a review when that wasn't the intent of the video.
The video it was featured in wasn’t even a review, the premise was someone who has zero experience in water cooling trying to install it
So sick of this shit. Reviewing something and then hiding behind "it's not a review bro!" You know damn well the criticisms extended beyond just that. Linus straight up just said it was a bad product outright. THAT'S A REVIEW.
He didn't say it was a bad product in anywhere in the video. Maybe you should watch the thing you are trying to criticize.
The issue is that they stole a prototype they were entrusted to care for. Agreed to return it, but then didn't. Got mad when they were kindly asked to return it. Put it on auction, sold it to someone for charity. Potentially unintentionally facilitating corporate espionage. Then got mad when they were publicly called out.
This is not the first time even. They have lost, misplaced or destroyed other's properties before.
And now they want to project LMG and their new concept, Lab, as a beacon of consumer protection journalism. They have to make a choice. Either they are an entertainment company, or a serious tech review magazine that tests technology to provide consumers with accurate info to make purchase decisions. They can't be both, the jank and fooling around of one doesn't work nicely with the journalistic ethics demanded of the other.
"They" didn't agree to return it. Someone responding to an email did. Linus himself and the other 100+ employees probably had no idea the thing even existed. It is really on the person who responded to the email and the planners of the auction which is probably 2-3 people at most.
Got mad when they were kindly asked to return it.
Where? That did not happen until after the video was published.
Put it on auction, sold it to someone for charity.
Which was an accident, which is being paid for.
This is not the first time even. They have lost, misplaced or destroyed other's properties before.
Do you have any examples? And if that is the case maybe Billet Labs should have done more due-diligence before giving them a supposedly very important prototype. Linus is literally known as the guy who drops things.
And now they want to project LMG and their new concept, Lab, as a beacon of consumer protection journalism. They have to make a choice. Either they are an entertainment company, or a serious tech review magazine that tests technology to provide consumers with accurate info to make purchase decisions. They can't be both, the jank and fooling around of one doesn't work nicely with the journalistic ethics demanded of the other.
Fair enough but I disagree. I think you can have for-fun videos and serious videos mixed together. However they should definitely be more clearly labeled as such, or maybe even keep them on different channels completely.
"They" didn't agree to return it. Someone responding to an email did. Linus himself and the other 100+ employees probably had no idea the thing even existed. It is really on the person who responded to the email and the planners of the auction which is probably 2-3 people at most.
Tell me you've never had a position of actual authority without telling me you've never had a position of actual authority.
No, go away. You obviously have no interest in reasonable conversation. As you are willfully ignoring already mentioned facts and arguments from the video in order to be contrarian and hard headed. I will not indulge you.
LMG is the company that did these things. Billet was under the impression they were talking with a representative of LMG, for which all that they agreed with, was binding. If someone, an individual, failed at their job to fulfill their agreements with Billet, then LMG, the company, failed. If Linus wants to be taken seriously and have LMG considered a big adult company, they better start acting like it. And that starts with taking responsibility and owning up to their mistakes responsibly. Not letting their CVO and owner go on idiot circular incoherent rants.
Linus, is this you?
You got me. It's me, Linus Sebastian. you guys know I love the Twitch emote AYAYA so much I use it as my username.
Recently LTT built a $100k PC desk for a Minecraft streamer. Sometimes the over the top engineering/materials (and thus cost) around something is the entire point. If they gave it a fair shake, and still called it a bad product, and then returned it. There wouldn't be an issue. It being a bad product isn't the issue.
Then what is the issue? If the outcome is the same why does it matter? The video it was featured in wasn't even a review, the premise was someone who has zero experience in water cooling trying to install it. I feel like most people didn't even watch the video.
Sure do love the hivemind downvoting instead of answering my question. I am genuinely asking, what is the issue? I really don't understand why it has so many people this mad. To me it seems like people were expecting a review when that wasn't the intent of the video.
So sick of this shit. Reviewing something and then hiding behind "it's not a review bro!" You know damn well the criticisms extended beyond just that. Linus straight up just said it was a bad product outright. THAT'S A REVIEW.
He didn't say it was a bad product in anywhere in the video. Maybe you should watch the thing you are trying to criticize.
The original video is clearly a review and he clearly criticizes the product for being hard to install even though he is of course installing it incorrectly and not using the materials the company provided. He states unequivocally it's a bad product here: "It's a bad product. It's bad because it makes absolutely no sense and nobody should buy it".
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/FGW3TPytTjc?t=1789
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
While not saying out right that it is bad, he is certainly implying it and clearly telling his audience that they should not buy it.
At 32:42 of the video of the original report.
https://youtu.be/FGW3TPytTjc
I am on mobile and can't figure out timestamps.
Just add &t=32m42s at the end of the link
Like this: https://youtu.be/FGW3TPytTjc&t=32m42s
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/FGW3TPytTjc&
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/FGW3TPytTjc
https://piped.video/FGW3TPytTjc
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
The issue is that they stole a prototype they were entrusted to care for. Agreed to return it, but then didn't. Got mad when they were kindly asked to return it. Put it on auction, sold it to someone for charity. Potentially unintentionally facilitating corporate espionage. Then got mad when they were publicly called out.
This is not the first time even. They have lost, misplaced or destroyed other's properties before.
And now they want to project LMG and their new concept, Lab, as a beacon of consumer protection journalism. They have to make a choice. Either they are an entertainment company, or a serious tech review magazine that tests technology to provide consumers with accurate info to make purchase decisions. They can't be both, the jank and fooling around of one doesn't work nicely with the journalistic ethics demanded of the other.
"They" didn't agree to return it. Someone responding to an email did. Linus himself and the other 100+ employees probably had no idea the thing even existed. It is really on the person who responded to the email and the planners of the auction which is probably 2-3 people at most.
Where? That did not happen until after the video was published.
Which was an accident, which is being paid for.
Do you have any examples? And if that is the case maybe Billet Labs should have done more due-diligence before giving them a supposedly very important prototype. Linus is literally known as the guy who drops things.
Fair enough but I disagree. I think you can have for-fun videos and serious videos mixed together. However they should definitely be more clearly labeled as such, or maybe even keep them on different channels completely.
Tell me you've never had a position of actual authority without telling me you've never had a position of actual authority.
No, go away. You obviously have no interest in reasonable conversation. As you are willfully ignoring already mentioned facts and arguments from the video in order to be contrarian and hard headed. I will not indulge you.
LMG is the company that did these things. Billet was under the impression they were talking with a representative of LMG, for which all that they agreed with, was binding. If someone, an individual, failed at their job to fulfill their agreements with Billet, then LMG, the company, failed. If Linus wants to be taken seriously and have LMG considered a big adult company, they better start acting like it. And that starts with taking responsibility and owning up to their mistakes responsibly. Not letting their CVO and owner go on idiot circular incoherent rants.
Linus, is this you?
You got me. It's me, Linus Sebastian. you guys know I love the Twitch emote AYAYA so much I use it as my username.