ayaya

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.

But it has zero effect on the outcome? It is over priced regardless of whether or not it cools well.

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.

It can be about the water block without being a review of the water block. The premise of the video is somebody with no experience doing water cooling (Adam) trying to build it. If the intent was for it to be a review they would have someone more knowledgeable do it. I completely disagree it is unethical to make a for-fun video messing around with it, unless they agreed to do something else in their emails with Billet Labs which we have not seen.

I also don't believe they give any purchasing advice either but feel free to post a timestamp if you have one.

"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.

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.

That video was not a review. So no, in this case that was not their job. Their job was to entertain. I agree they have inadequate processes and are prioritizing profits over accuracy for their reviews. But that is not relevant to the water block video.

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.

By not reviewing it correctly,

to preserve the journalistic integrity of the channel.

That's also missing the point. That video was not a review. There wasn't journalistic integrity because it wasn't a journalistic piece. If you go into a for-fun video expecting a proper review process of course you are going to be disappointed.

If the argument is that it should have been a full review, then sure maybe it should have. But it wasn't one, so it doesn't make any sense to hold it to that standard when that was never the intention behind it.

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.

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?