Gamers Nexus vs LinusTechTips: Smackdown

Let's end this discussion.
I remember my previous post I made in this thread where I stated, "All publicity is good publicity."

Let us all voluntarily decide to stop talking about Linus and never mention his name ever again. If you read this, do not post another comment on this thread or any other thread about LTT, nor mention the existence of Linus ever again.
Let us undo the clickbait, reverse the silly thumbnails, and reject the existence of Linus' id, ego, and superego, and instead, look away, as if oblivious to his existence. The existence of LTT is unnecessary. We will go to a more truthful source of information instead, if we wish to see the power of hardware accurately measured. Do not be baited to click, the way a foolish fish is baited to bite a lethal hook. We do not need LTT's videos anymore. We can be free from it.

Let us obliterate all mention of his existence.

Damnatio Memoriae.
 
In my opinion he only had to apologize to Billet.

Regarding the inaccurate videos. He could own it and stop pretending he is the best at reviewing hardware.

His job is an influencer, so the main goal is to entertain and sell products.

Do you think that could be better from a PR perspective?
 
1337Goat said:
Let's end this discussion.
I remember my previous post I made in this thread where I stated, "All publicity is good publicity."

Let us all voluntarily decide to stop talking about Linus and never mention his name ever again. If you read this, do not post another comment on this thread or any other thread about LTT, nor mention the existence of Linus ever again.
Let us undo the clickbait, reverse the silly thumbnails, and reject the existence of Linus' id, ego, and superego, and instead, look away, as if oblivious to his existence. The existence of LTT is unnecessary. We will go to a more truthful source of information instead, if we wish to see the power of hardware accurately measured. Do not be baited to click, the way a foolish fish is baited to bite a lethal hook. We do not need LTT's videos anymore. We can be free from it.

Let us obliterate all mention of his existence.

Damnatio Memoriae.
Click to expand...
That ain’t gonna happen. I commend you for trying to appeal to people’s higher levels of thinking. But this is the internet, you will not stop people from looking at the train wreck.
 
3dprophet said:
In my opinion he only had to apologize to Billet.

Regarding the inaccurate videos. He could own it and stop pretending he is the best at reviewing hardware.

His job is an influencer, so the main goal is to entertain and sell products.

Do you think that could be better from a PR perspective?
Click to expand...

Basically. All he had to do in general was take a breather before responding and then own up to it. Come up with a plan to address what the team felt they needed to address in the short term and present it to the audience. Simple as that. If Linus didn’t let his ego get in the way it would have all blown over quickly without excess drama.
 
3dprophet said:
In my opinion he only had to apologize to Billet.

Regarding the inaccurate videos. He could own it and stop pretending he is the best at reviewing hardware.

His job is an influencer, so the main goal is to entertain and sell products.

Do you think that could be better from a PR perspective?
Click to expand...

For Linus 5-10 years ago, I agree.

But in the last few years he has been building up "the lab" and talking big game about being some sort of "consumer reports" for PC hardware.

If LMG just wants to be an influencer, that's fine. Close "the lab" just do goofy videos.

But if they are going to don the cape of some sort of consumer rights advocate, tech journalist and objective reviewer, the expectations are higher. This is closer to what GN does, and GN is well within their right to point out when they aren't living up to that promise.

LMG needs to choose the lane they want to be in. They can even split themsselves and have a goofy influencer side and a hard review side, but like a newspaper that keeps their editorial and news pages separate (and some do this better than others), they need to learn to not muddy those waters, or they are going to have to pick just one.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
But in the last few years he has been building up "the lab" and talking big game about being some sort of "consumer reports" for PC hardware.
Click to expand...

This. Dont make a huge show of how serious you are taking reviews and then publish reviews that are clearly not taken seriously.

I think this goes so far beyond "just apologizing" to Billet. He has demonstrated LMG cannot be trusted for serious reviews. He has demonstrated they cant be trusted with review samples. But most importantly IMO he has demonstrated that his ego will always stop him from seeing the issues and being able to properly address them.

He still stands behind the GPU block review and the video is still up. Thats really all you need to know about the situation at this point IMO.
 
3dprophet said:
In my opinion he only had to apologize to Billet.

Regarding the inaccurate videos. He could own it and stop pretending he is the best at reviewing hardware.

His job is an influencer, so the main goal is to entertain and sell products.

Do you think that could be better from a PR perspective?
Click to expand...
1692380224151.png


From LinkedIn. Marketing company. Makes sense. They are just big flashy commercials to GN's point.

So agreed, figure out what lane you want to be in.

Disposed said:
He has demonstrated they cant be trusted with review samples.
Click to expand...
So I do reviews for another site and it's sort of default that you get to keep review samples unless otherwise stated by the company sending the product ahead of time. That said, these are finished products that are usually either already on the shelf in stores/online, or very near to. I would think that it would go without saying that a product prototype is not the same thing as a review sample, and it seems to me the default for that would be that you would return it once finished. Seems like LTT really just mishandled that whole situation and the fact that they didn't just apologize immediately and try to make it right instead of trying to defend their actions is terrible.
 
Sir Beregond said:
So agreed, figure out what lane you want to be in.
Click to expand...
you can try to be both if the separation is clear enough (how many newspapers as opinion section, columnist, etc... ?)

They do go in a very different mode when they test a big company product like the new AMD cpu, like in the example GN showed, making sure they did not receive a bad unrepresentative sample and communicating result back to them for comments before releasing the video.

You can do serious reviews and do fun a will try to make a diy watercooling bed system, if it goes clearly in this is not a review of the tool being used, the material or a tutorial, but people trying on without much preparation for fun.

This is less an fundamental issue than trying to review product and have large kickback like visiting AMD-Intel factory like Gamer Nexus, LTT engage, interviewing people working on those products, knowing them. Try to trash Intel new GPU when you passed a lot of time with the 2 guy giving you superb content about them.

Sir Beregond said:
I would think that it would go without saying that a product prototype is not the same thing as a review sample, and it seems to me the default for that would be that you would return it once finished.
Click to expand...
The default is reviewer keep product (sometime for case shipping cost would make the return prohibitive), in this case it was specified by Billy lab because of the prototype nature they told LTT they would kept it, the startup thinking that they would maybe reused it in some video later on if they gave it to them as possible extra publicity. It is once the video came out and expected that no they will not receive extra free ads time if LTT keep it that they asked to have it shipped back.
Sir Beregond said:
Seems like LTT really just mishandled that whole situation and the fact that they didn't just apologize immediately and try to make it right instead of trying to defend their actions is terrible.
Click to expand...
They immediately did try to make it right and on the spot (without asking the higher up) the employee accepted to pay them back the asked price no question ask, it was so clear-cut. They failed (i.e. the email was sent internally without Billy lab being included in the CC list)
 
Last edited:
LukeTbk said:
The default is reviewer keep product (sometime for case shipping cost would make the return prohibitive), in this case it was specified by Billy lab because of the prototype nature they told LTT they would kept it, the startup thinking that they would maybe reused it in some video later on if they gave it to them as possible extra publicity. It is once the video came out and expected that no they will not receive extra free ads time if LTT keep it that they asked to have it shipper back.

They immediately try to make it right and on the spot (without asking to the higher up) the employee accepted to pay them back the asked price no question ask, it was so clear-cut. They failed (i.e. the email was sent internally without Billy lab being included in the CC list)
Click to expand...
I did say that for a review sample which to me seems completely different from a prototype, but I see your point there too. Like I said, by default we keep our review samples too unless the company says otherwise ahead of sending anything.

OK, well if that's the case, then good on them. It seems they just need to keep better track of their inventory. And then I wonder why Linus tried to at first defend it as "we auctioned it for charity" vs just coming out and saying they messed up and tried to make it right. Maybe not all the details were known by him at that time, but then you just don't say anything yet until you find out.
 
Sir Beregond said:
And then I wonder why Linus tried to at first defend it as "we auctioned it for charity" vs just coming out and saying they messed up and tried to make it right.
Click to expand...
they did say that they messed up and once Linus learning it himself fast tracked the contact with the company to tell them everything would be handled right away. People did not believe them, they thought that they only decided that after GN video became public and received backlash for it.

It wanted to precise the auction was for charity because someone could listen GN video and not know that the auction was for charity and not for say help cover the convention expense and this was by mistake, not by someone knowning the company changed idea, decided they wanted it back and still sold it.
 
Sir Beregond said:
So I do reviews for another site and it's sort of default that you get to keep review samples unless otherwise stated by the company sending the product ahead of time. That said, these are finished products that are usually either already on the shelf in stores/online, or very near to. I would think that it would go without saying that a product prototype is not the same thing as a review sample, and it seems to me the default for that would be that you would return it once finished. Seems like LTT really just mishandled that whole situation and the fact that they didn't just apologize immediately and try to make it right instead of trying to defend their actions is terrible.
Click to expand...
You do know that a large part of the whole drama is LMG promised to give it back for weeks then they auctioned it right?
 
LukeTbk said:
they did say that they messed up and once Linus learning it himself fast tracked the contact with the company to tell them everything would be handled right away. People did not believe them, they thought that they only decided that after GN video became public and received backlash for it.

It wanted to precise the auction was for charity because someone could listen GN video and not know that the auction was for charity and not for say help cover the convention expense and this was by mistake, not by someone knowning the company changed idea, decided they wanted it back and still sold it.
Click to expand...

Billet themselves said that they were not contacted until after GN’s video went up. Linus contacted Billet before making that first post in the forums. He might not have known before that, fine, but he still made it sound like everything was taken care of long before and that it was a closed issue.

Charity or not is still entirely irrelevant. There are significantly better ways to address a potential misunderstanding in that situation.
 
Sir Beregond said:
And then I wonder why Linus tried to at first defend it as "we auctioned it for charity" vs just coming out and saying they messed up and tried to make it right.
Click to expand...
They did say they messed up and tried to make it right, no one believed them/or thought it was phrased as possibly agree before writing this message not seeing GN video, the initial response said: We have already agreed to compensate Billet Labs for the cost of their prototype.

As for the auctionned for charity, it is quite human nature, someone can watch the video of GN without knowing that the auction was for charity but say help finance the convention.

An item a company changed their mind and decided they wanted it back that was sold by error in an charity auction play quite differently than the first impression most people would have (at least I had) watching GN video.
 
Disposed said:
You do know that a large part of the whole drama is LMG promised to give it back for weeks then they auctioned it right?
Click to expand...
Yeah, just re-brushed up on those details. So really just sounds like they aren't managing their inventory correctly but otherwise was trying to do that right (though wonder why they'd sit on it for weeks).

That said Billet is claiming to not have been contacted before the GN video (I did see the bit about Colton forgetting to add them to the email To line), I don't know the whole thing sounds like a complete mismanagement. I'm not saying there was willful bad acting here on the part of LMG/LTT (aside from using the block on the wrong card - see inventory management issues), but I mean that whole situation could have been handled much timelier. How do you sit on it for weeks and then it just shows up in a pile of inventory to look through for a charity auction?
 
Derangel said:
Billet themselves said that they were not contacted until after GN’s video went up. Linus contacted Billet before making that first post in the forums. He might not have known before that, fine, but he still made it sound like everything was taken care of long before and that it was a closed issue.
Click to expand...
yes all things LTT said and explained why, BIllet did not receive the email about the decision because they wre not in the list of CC by error. He did not knew before that because they were so clear cut in the fault the very high ranked employe did not thought he needed to ask permission to the few higher up he has to reimburse them.

Derangel said:
Charity or not is still entirely irrelevant. There are significantly better ways to address a potential misunderstanding in that situation.
Click to expand...
It is close to a pure shock value trivia, mishandling like that must happen every month, making being for charity kind of relevant, accepting no question ask to reimburse the company like they did was close to the best way to handle it.
 
Saw the last video. He needs a public relations person. Like he really has a problem with the ability to stop digging. His ego is on full display and it's primarily how he's gotten here.
 
LukeTbk said:
...

As for the auctionned for charity, it is quite human nature, someone can watch the video of GN without knowing that the auction was for charity but say help finance the convention.
...
Click to expand...
Which is missing the point entirely, namely that it was not theirs to auction off in the first place, whether for charity or not, and that one would like to have somewhat better security on items as competition-sensitive as prototypes.

It is the lack of care that was at issue in this case, not any alleged financial motivation.
 
Last edited:
emphy said:
Which is missing the point entirely, namely that it was not theirs to auction off in the first place, whether for charity or not,
Click to expand...
Nobody doubts that, I doubt anyone thinks it would have been ok to do because it is charity.

emphy said:
and that one would like to have somewhat better security on items as competition-sensitive as prototypes.
Click to expand...
The company gave it to them, ok to be analyzed by youtuber in a video on something it would be possible that no one would want to copy, in that context to be not perceived to be that sensitive. Would have went contacted them say it is a sensitive prototype, do not cut it in half during the video to show it, we want it back, etc... that never happen.

emphy said:
It is the lack of care that was at issue in this case, not any alleged financial motivation.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it is an extremely little trivial affair that happen expected to happen to any big organization of the sort (if someone give them an item and change idea after seeing the video making it way more likely than usual), it is shock value, one way to present it generate way less shock than the other.
 
LukeTbk said:
The company gave it to them, ok to be analyzed by youtuber in a video on something it would be possible that no one would want to copy, in that context to be not perceived to be that sensitive. Would have went contacted them say it is a sensitive prototype, do not cut it in half during the video to show it, we want it back, etc... that never happen.
Click to expand...
I thought that they always said that they wanted it back and LTT had even agreed in writing to send it back before selling it.
 
Yes, but it is an extremely little trivial affair that happen expected to happen to any big organization of the sort
Click to expand...
Is it? We'll have to agree to disagree on that point - it may be trivial for the bigger party, but it is the livelihood for the people at the other end. Which doesn't even mention the general principle that one should be a bit more careful with borrowed stuff.

As for the second half of that sentence; it would be precisely because this sort of thing can happen that a competent big organization will have procedures in place to prevent this sort of thing from happening. It prevents adding to people's workloads down from the "what were we supposed to do with this?" right up to "how do we correct this fuck-up?" and "what was the phone number of our lawyer?"
 
Ebernanut said:
I thought that they always said that they wanted it back and LTT had even agreed in writing to send it back before selling it.
Click to expand...
No, it was the usual reviewer keep the product, they thought that maybe it would show up in future video for more free exposure but once they saw their review it was obvious that they were no chance for that and asked to have it back.

They agree immediately to their request, but that ownership status was not made correctly or not communicated correctly to the people building the auction that sold it after an other person did agree to send it back. When Billy Lab saw they sold it, they contacted them, LTT employee immadiatly agreed to reimburse them for their obvious mistake, that email did not reach Billy lab that was not included in the list of people in CC.

emphy said:
but it is the livelihood for the people at the other end. Which doesn't even mention the general principle that one should be a bit more careful with borrowed stuff.
Click to expand...
It was not borrowed, they were supposed to keep it, it changed after they posted the video.

emphy said:
Is it? We'll have to agree to disagree on that point - it may be trivial for the bigger party, but it is the livelihood for the people at the other end.
Click to expand...
They were ready to give it to them until the "review" video released and got reimbursed to make a new one, if this was not in the context of the terrible review video LTT did of the product it would be seen a non story.

) Company send a product to test to LTT, telling them you can kept it like usual
) LTT release a review (imagine a perfectly correct one, on the 3090TI, good result but they find way too much money for a couple of degree, etc...)
) Company say, now we want it back
) LTT answer, ok, stuff get mix up it is sold in a charity auction instead
) Company say, hey you sold the prototype it was expensive, 2 weeks you said you would send it back
) LTT oh my sorry, we will send you that money (price you say the prototype was worth) no question ask, our bad

Would this be non-trivial, newsworthy ?
 
Last edited:
LukeTbk said:
No, it was the usual reviewer keep the product, they thought that maybe it would show up in future video for more free exposure but once they saw their review it was obvious that they were no chance for that and asked to have it back.

They agree immediately to their request, but that ownership status was not made correctly or not communicated correctly to the people building the auction that sold it after an other person did agree to send it back. When Billy Lab saw they sold it, they contacted them, LTT employee immadiatly agreed to reimburse them for their obvious mistake, that email did not reach Billy lab that was not included in the list of people in CC.


It was not borrowed, they were supposed to keep it, it changed after they posted the video.


They were ready to give it to them until the "review" video released and got reimbursed to make a new one, if this was not in the context of the terrible review video LTT did of the product it would be seen a non story.

) Company send a product to test to LTT, telling them you can kept it like usual
) LTT release a review (imagine a perfectly correct one, on the 3090TI, good result but they find way too much money for a couple of degree, etc...)
) Company say, now we want it back
) LTT answer, ok, stuff get mix up it is sold in a charity auction instead
) Company say, hey you sold the prototype it was expensive, 2 weeks you said you would send it back
) LTT oh my sorry, we will send you that money no question ask, our bad

Would this be non-trivial, newsworthy ?
Click to expand...
Non-trivial? Yes, such a blunder shouldn't have happened, however unintentional. All relevant parties should have been in the line of communication, someone in charge of inventory should have been aware of the auction and that they wanted it back, and both Linus and the other parties should have been notified as soon as the issue arose. The fact that it didn't means there is an issue which needs to be addressed at LMC, whether that is inventory policy/proceedures, amount or training of personel, or some other issue, it needs to be addressed.

Newsworthy? Sure, maybe not front page, but I've seen much more "trivial" things on the news than this. Whether it deserved the spotlight from GN, I don't know. I'm a bit biased against Linus, and don't really care for GN's news either, I could do without the "hitpieces," but I understand where GN is coming from, at least.
 
LukeTbk said:
...

Would this be non-trivial, newsworthy ?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is non-trivial. Not only does your claimed timeline not correspond to what actually happened (for example, it missed that the item was promised back two separate times), you now have the additional fuck-up of linus media group not taking proper care to ensure that their compensation for the earlier mistakes reaches the wronged party.

You missed, again, that the company with huge power and influence did not take care to properly deal with this smaller party. And yes, when such a company's first reaction to getting called out for this treatment is finding excuses and playing the victim, that becomes huge news.

Edit: removed some text because it became unnecessarily personal

Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
LukeTbk said:
No, it was the usual reviewer keep the product, they thought that maybe it would show up in future video for more free exposure but once they saw their review it was obvious that they were no chance for that and asked to have it back.

They agree immediately to their request, but that ownership status was not made correctly or not communicated correctly to the people building the auction that sold it after an other person did agree to send it back. When Billy Lab saw they sold it, they contacted them, LTT employee immadiatly agreed to reimburse them for their obvious mistake, that email did not reach Billy lab that was not included in the list of people in CC.
Click to expand...
A quick search didn't uncover what any original agreement was so i could be wrong but the quote "Let me know if you'd like the block back either way. And we can ship it back with the 3090Ti" doesn't suggest that they never expected to send it back. Regardless Billet Labs requested it back over a month before they sold and was told twice that they would.

Also your last statement is factually wrong according to Billet Labs. They asked to be reimbursed for it several days before GN aired the original video and didn't hear back until AFTER the video was up and right before Linus claimed that he agreed to reimburse them which is a little too convenient for my taste, especially with the way that they phrased it implying that the offer came before the video.
 
LukeTbk said:
Would have went contacted them say it is a sensitive prototype, do not cut it in half during the video to show it, we want it back, etc... that never happen.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to go back and watch the original video but I'm pretty sure Linus knew it was a prototype.
 
1_rick said:
I'm not going to go back and watch the original video but I'm pretty sure Linus knew it was a prototype.
Click to expand...
Yes, but LTT were supposed to be able to keep it, the company changed their mind and changed the deal after the review played.
 
emphy said:
Much better reaction:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cTpTMl8kFY

Not entirely by accident, contains much less Linus ^_^

I'm honestly impressed that they're going to put videos on hold for a week. Okay second attempt at a restart after that false one.

Edit: naturally, the worst part is Linus finding excuses for that watercooler situation.

Edit2: on second thought, their insistence on agreeing with "rightful" criticism ("only" being strongly implied by intonaiton) is extremely grating. At least as bad as Linus' part.
Click to expand...


"HI, I'm Gary, pedo-labs."

It was mostly tone deaf, but at least they finally did some self reflection, and at the very least, a pause of videos to make it appear that way.

It's a start.
 
LukeTbk said:
It was mentioned a bit everywhere

https://twitter.com/TechDeals_16/status/1692168842397524291


It was directly from Billet Labs emails response I think:
View attachment 591553
Click to expand...
I watched that video and found the guy on the right to be a bit of a Linus sycophant, although he tried hard to present himself as impartial he allowed his bias to leak out several times, talking about being an LTX attendee, speaking with Linus personally, none of which means he can't be trusted, only that his position is compromised on this issue.

Regardless, the letter doesn't change anything, there are two subsequent emails from LMG that state clearly the water block will be returned, so any initial agreement is void, especially when viewed in light of the utter incompetence of the review.

Fixating on the water block though is a mistake, it's bad, definitely illustrates some of the problems with LTT's lack of ethics and competence and deserves to be factored in, but the real scandal is the fact that LTT was fine with feeding their audience incorrect data (that always favoured advertisers), leaving it up long enough for a million or so consumers to be misled before sneakily altering the video 'in place' leaving views, upvotes and monetization in tact.

Taking the scandal as a whole we are left with the feeling that LTT is nothing more than a dishonest money grubbing marketing firm that churns out paid adverts dressed as entertainment and cloaked in the false integrity of being a consumer champion that's backed by science, shady as fuck and explains the sudden loss of credibility. Most of us already knew LTT was was fake, but now millions of normies see it too

It's going to be very hard to wash that stench away.
 
Last edited:
Folly said:
Regardless, the letter doesn't change anything, there are two subsequent emails from LMG that state clearly the water block will be returned, so any initial agreement is void, especially when viewed in light of the utter incompetence of the review.
Click to expand...
Yes it does not change anything about being the obvious thing to do to reimburse them and why they immediately decided to do so. No one (even implicitly) is saying that they did not engaged to return it and bounded to it and that it was a mistake from LTT to agree to reimburse them because of the initial you can keep it contract.

What it change is how more likely for an item that was not after the review put in the shipping back section of storage, but long term keeping section of storage to have been grabbed by someone building an auction by error.

Folly said:
especially when viewed in light of the utter incompetence of the review.
Click to expand...
This the story about the rest only exist and perceived like this because of the terrible "review", would they have made a glaring nice one, life changing positive for the company that for other reason realized they wanted that prototype back it would have played completely differently (probably never reach us to start with).

Folly said:
Fixating on the water block though is a mistake,
Click to expand...
At least the loosing it part of it, the bad review of it part is a legitimate issue.
 
Folly said:
Fixating on the water block though is a mistake, it's bad, definitely illustrates some of the problems with LTT's lack of ethics and competence and deserves to be factored in, but the real scandal is the fact that LTT was fine with feeding their audience incorrect data (that always favoured advertisers), leaving it up long enough for a million or so consumers to be misled before sneakily altering the video 'in place' leaving views, upvotes and monetization in tact.
Click to expand...
Yeah this was an eyebrow raiser that Chris Titus pointed out-- that a big enough channel or high enough viewcount can pull a stealth switcheroo on a video without losing the viewcount/likes/metrics, and no indication of the change and that it's not the original video.

Seems like all kinds of abuses are opened by this. Unclear what Youtube's prevailing logic in favor of this is after presumably having weighed the downsides.

If there's one seeming universal truth it is that a financial incentive in an oversight vacuum just about guarantees the worst possible scenario is already happening. Then add a significant power differential (deep pocketed corporation vs single consumer) and the little guy is simply ground in the gears of this machinery. Example telecoms selling tons of telemetry to third parties for every phone that ever touches their network including all your historical location data, even after they put bogus "opt out" controls on a website to let customers believe it does something. The list of broad daylight, open secret shenanigans like that is endless.
 
Last edited:
Every single tech tuber I've seen takes money from the companies they review. That pretty much lets them out of being able to review any product in a any given market segment. "Trust me bro" from the likes of GN and LMG doesn't hand-wave away that colossal conflict of interest. TechTube is an advertising platform. Take your pick of channels, they're all dependent on sponsorship money and you can't tell people to trust your reviews of brands that you work for.
 
Last edited:
WarriorX said:
I hope the startup is able to recover. Even if the product isn't 'good' or is niche its someone business they messed with.
Click to expand...
yeah, and he really should've tested it on the card it was designed for, i seriously doubt they would have sent it in for review if it was "that bad". and then linus acting all smug and saying he wasn't about to spend more money trying to get the right card. well then don't test it!! i'm sure they could've come up w/ a 3090ti if they would have just asked around to some of their factory reps or even the company providing the cooler prob would have sent them one if the knew it was going make or break their company. so that was already skummy, BEFORE them selling the prototype that they were suppose to send back. then linus' smug attitude about the whole thing
Zarathustra[H] said:
Linus already came clean about how he thinks he is a decent content guy, but is not a manager, which is why he made the choice to step back from leadership and hire a CEO.
Click to expand...
That's just another way for him to keep up his slave driver tactics and deflect any criticism to the c.e.o. and why it happened right after the stories from ex-employees came out.
xDiVolatilX said:
While I'm ALWAYS impressed with GN coverage of anything they do. Steve has and does make me cringe a lot of the time also. In fact he makes me cringe more than Linus does. Steve talks A LOT of shit himself. To the point that I feel like some of it is unnecessary but he still shoves it in his videos. That's not to say he isn't accurate, he prides his work on integrity and accurate and methodology, yet still some of the bullshit he adds is not needed lol. All that being said he is my absolute #1 YouTube outlet I go to for a trusted non bias review of whatever the tech GN is reviewing. I fully trust his assessments and always have.
Click to expand...
if you really watch GN that much you should know that he strongly favors intel and hates amd, and has gone as far as not using optimal settings for the amd parts, so i wouldn't really call them "non-biased".
 
I stopped watching LTT content years ago. They just started spewing out crap to get content up, and it showed.
 
vick1000 said:
I stopped watching LTT content years ago. They just started spewing out crap to get content up, and it showed.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, that’s the business model though. If your incentive to make money is to pump out volume, then that’s what you’ll do. I’m not excusing it, I don’t even watch his channel, just going back to the old Charlie Munger adage of “show me the incentives and I’ll show you the outcome”. That can be a perfectly fine thing to do, mind you, provided your audience knows what they’re getting, but when it gets to the point that volume is so critical that you don’t even bother fixing mistakes at the editing level because it will slow down video production, that becomes a serious problem if you claim to be interested in being viewed as credible. From everything I have read so far, it sounds like that was the focus, which makes the result not that surprising. No kidding quality suffered, but the audience and advertisers kept coming back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top