• ayaya@lemdro.id
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    But why does it even matter if they do it correctly or not? It’s still a water block that costs over $800. It’s a bad product at a fundamental level because not only is it a niche of a niche it’s wildly overpriced. No amount of testing is going to make it a good product. It was never going to sell well. I do not understand why people care so much about it.

    The quanity-over-quality and QA errors are way more egregious than them shitting a product that deserves to get shit on. And as far as I can tell the auction thing is a single, isolated mistake of that nature. They do have a track record of making errors in their reviews. But what they don’t have is a history of auctioning off prototypes. It is a really weird thing to be so up-in-arms about. It was an accident and they are paying for it. What is the big deal?

    • Envis10n@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not a water block that costs $800 though. It’s a prototype water block that they estimated the cost of producing to be around $800 given R&D, labor, materials, etc.

      It was never meant to be a production ready product, and it should never have been treated as such.

      The issue with the auction is due to the fact that they sent Billet numerous emails claiming to have prepared it to be shipped back, including one in which they said they would send tracking info shortly. They didn’t know it was being auctioned off until afterward. And Linus didn’t contact them about compensation until 3 hours after GNs video went live.

      These are facts, backed by actual evidence which you can see for yourself in GNs latest HW news.

      • ayaya@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        The product costs over $800. I’m not talking about the prototype. And sure “they” sent Billet multiple emails. That means one person sent the emails and then failed to follow up on them. The 100+ people at the company are not responsible for what happened, the 2-3 people that should have dealt with it are.

        And Linus didn’t contact them about compensation until 3 hours after GNs video went live.

        Okay? But he is compensating them. That is all I said.

        • Envis10n@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Billet estimated the cost of the prototype to be $800. They never sent them a product.

          Linus said “they agreed on compensation” and yet billet has stated they never responded to his offer, that he sent literal hours after GN posted the main video. Linus lied here. He can say he is compensating them all he wants, but there has not been any agreement made between the parties involved. They didn’t want payment, they wanted their fucking prototype back.

          • ayaya@lemdro.id
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Billet estimated the cost of the prototype to be $800.

            You already have incorrect information. That is the cost of the actual product not the cost of the prototype.

            And he did not lie, he said agreed to compensate them which he did do. That doesn’t require an agreement between parties, he decided he would do it which is objectively true.

            They didn’t want payment, they wanted their fucking prototype back.

            They can make another one with the money. It’s not like they took the CAD files. It’s a manufactured piece of copper. It can be rebuilt.

    • TrekHuis@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well Linus argument doesn’t hold much water. If the product is so fundamentally flawed in his mind, then why even bother with it? If you as a reviewer can’t even give a proper opinion and spend an other 500 dollars on it, to give your audience a good review. Then don’t spend the extra 1000 dollars or more in editing that video.

      His looking at views to show his sponsors, but forgets that the audience is the first thing that generates those views. Still a viewer of the main LTT channel, but Shortcurcet was fast out of my subscription list.

      And as a non English native speaker, please don’t but the corrections on subtitle height, it a hassle.

      • ayaya@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        If the product is so fundamentally flawed in his mind, then why even bother with it? If you as a reviewer can’t even give a proper opinion and spend an other 500 dollars on it, to give your audience a good review.

        For fun. For entertainment. That is the point of the video. He wasn’t making that video “as a reviewer” he was making it as an entertainer.

        • TrekHuis@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well then he shouldn’t have given a buyers recommendation. Some of Linus video’s don’t make any sense, like everyone can install a swimming pool at the back of their PC? Those balls to the walls videos are still the most fun to watch, as it’s original content, and maybe something they should stick to more often.

          But don’t give a buyer recommendation about a small company, if the testing is done in a bad way.