Symion

First off GN never claimed to be journalist, second and foremost Linus admitted to giving crappy reviews due to the fact he didn't want to spend a few hundred dollars more in order to give a proper review. Now spin that.

This is what he should do, or at the very least publicly say sorry to GN and HUB for that comment his employer made and for casting inaccurate aspersions on other channels' methods of testing. But an apology seems to get stuck in his throat on that front, not even acknowledging it.
 
I just saw the video too, and it's a good video for letting us know what they're doing to improve. But frankly, it's not settled in my eyes until he makes that apology directly to them. He's only sorry that he got caught. Honestly, under the hood, it seems he hasn't learned his lesson on exactly why he messed up so bad and I have a feeling we'll be back here at square one again in a few months. 

how hard is it for Linus to say “sorry I behaved like a little brat.” In the new LTT video this entire Billet labs thing was only mentioned once (unless I missed it) and only as “in case a thing is given to use and changed to lend later on” WTF 

Its correct, but completely misleading.
GN and HUB both regularly update their data, they do not use launch data going forward years. So when a launch does happen, they are only at most a couple of drivers out of date on a few cards. outside of edge niche cases, it does not matter. 

If a new performance patch is out for a game, they do retest the whole suite. Which you can see with TLOU on hub having new, higher numbers for every single article.

You should prob watch some other videos on this before you keep repeating this because it's not true. They do retest everything, HUB did a very long segment about this and how they do it. GN does this as well. Turns out that the labs guy who was mocking those other channels was part of LTTs biggest problem, which is just SLIGHTLY ironic. 

After so many people spoke so highly of the TTP video I went and watched it and I know it's going to result in lots of pearl clutching but it was extremely amateurish analysis of the situation and compared to stuff like Dr. Cutress' RISC-V content was second rate. He regularly just attributes things to Steve that aren't backed up by facts just his read on what he thinks Steve had in his heart while oddly dressing down Steve for doing the same.
 
Particular things he posits that don't track:
Everyone involved must be held to the standard that they set and not a broad one Why? We don't do that anywhere else so why is it the case here? If one student smears dirt on their paper and hands it in and they don't care and another student hands in an excellent paper with a typo but they are a perfectionist who abhors mistakes do they get the same grade? I can't think of any situation where this sort of sliding scale of standards is appropriate.
Steve failed to take into account that LTT is an expanding business and such expansion can lead to mistakes Why should he? In a similar period of time Steve has also expanded GN but done so in a more cautious and methodical way. If there was anyone who could comment negatively on LMG's "Move Fast and Break Things" Tech Bro way of expanding it is someone doing it responsibly.
Steve failed to contact Linus for LMG's reply before going to press...by the way I have not contacted either side for comment and input on this piece. Excuse me...what? So Steve has to abide by a specific code of conduct upheld by some hard news outlets but you're exempt because...reasons? 
When Steve speaks to finding it hard and not pleasurable to do this piece he showed teeth and so he clearly is enjoying himself and is not being truthful I found this particularly bizarre as awkward smiling when discussing a difficult or confusing situation is extremely common among people in the technical field and someone with TTP's background should be able to tell the difference or know enough to abstain from judging if they cannot tell based on an edited video. You can go back through GN's video history and tell when Steve is having fun poking at a funnily bad presentation (ex. Intel's presentation that GN made fun of) versus when he is feeling awkward himself and smiles.
When Steve spoke of Conflict of Interest then biases he put the cart before the horse You can have a defined conflict of interest and a differing bias and I don't see how someone with TTP's knowledge could conflate the two on the level of a college freshman. LMG reviewing laptops while Linus holds an investment in a laptop maker is a conflict of interest, full stop. It is all in the way that such a conflict of interest is handled, as long as LMG makes it clear that is the situation to laptop makers and to the audience at every turn then it is relatively fine but LMG has been a bit fast and loose with keeping at least the audience informed of this conflict. This is different than Linus' biases and potential biases in the situation and Steve addressed them separately. For example (and strictly as a hypothetical): Linus can actually have a negative bias against Framework because as an investor he holds them to a higher standard than some random laptop maker. This is why the conflict and the bias needs to be addressed separately.
 
ETA:
Steve should have started an entirely new channel before he criticized LMG to isolate his criticism to it What an absurd position to take. Does Linus create a new channel every time he does secret shopper? Did Dr. Cutress start a new channel to critique Steve's video? Does a news organization start a new channel before they go after a major government or organization? No and saying so comes off as extremely divorced from any sort of actual grounding in how any of this works.
 
I give Dr. Cutress credit for addressing his biases upfront but all in all, if you had told me that the video was from one of Linus' buddies in the tech media space that went to LTX and not a respected figure doing a proper thorough analysis I wouldn't expect any difference from what we got.
 

So let me get this straight:
GN reporting on factual information about benchmark numbers, conflicts of interest and the mishandling of a prototype: Requires right to reply by LMG
Dr. Cutress reporting on Steve's state of mind while he was speaking in an edited video: Doesn't require right to reply by GN
Seems a lot like a made up cutout.
 

That's a 1.5 hour video. It's utterly absurd to point to such a long video and expect people to respond to that.
 
I didn't see anything unethical with what Steve did. He has his own biases and you can agree or disagree with those points, like I disagree with some of them, but he never deceived anyone.
 
But you are clearly biased since you go out of your way to frame what Steve did as unethical, but what LMG did to Billet as just a mistake. But how is it not unethical to break promises and sell something that you don't own? In fact, there is a good chance that LMG broke the law by selling the block (assuming that it was sent as a sample).

Linus, despite what he made want you to believe, is not the focus of his investigation. The company of LMG is. Would reaching out to LMG make the published content more accurate? Would it change the employee testimonies of having too intense of an upload schedule? Would it unauction the Billet labs prototype? No, it wouldn't. It would be an opportunity for Linus to respond personally, which is NOT THE POINT OF THE VIDEO. His response would not change the outcome of GNs video; how could it? The context of "we are people, we make mistakes, and we will do better" falls apart when you are spending millions of dollars a year to employ people SPECIFICALLY to produce accurate content and have made similar promises in the past. Omitting information about a company's attempt to right a wrong that SHOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED is totally fine ethically; especially when the video is about EXTERNAL perception of LTT content and how that misleads the consumer. No matter WHAT Linus said, it wouldnt change the inaccuracy in the videos, the disrespect shown to Billet Labs, or the god-awful things that happened to Madison.

Here is what peeves me about this whole thing. Also why I lean more towards the Gamers Nexus camp, ever so slightly. 
 
I don’t care if there is a mistake in any channels video, as long as they take ownership of it. 
 
No excuses, no passing the buck. No pointing the finger. 
 
Just take ownership. If I make a mistake I always make sure that I am the first person to throw myself under the bus. 
 
What’s right is right and I expect to be held to that standard. 
 
If you hit somebodies car you don’t get out of it by saying the persons car was already messed up so a bit extra damage doesn’t matter. No you take ownership and you make it right. 
 
That is why people are mad at the Billet Labs video. Because there was every excuse in the book used for reasons to not do that video properly. 
 
A video like Steve’s whether right or wrong, that kind of criticism will stop in a community when the excuses stop. 
 
 

How was the GN video unprofessional or slanderous? Steve backed up every claim he made with data.

1) He can't know how much better it would have be without a proper testing.

2) in the absolute high-end environment, immense sums of money are spent on small profits. a car e.g. that goes 1 second faster on a test track can cost $30,000 more. whether a tester would buy it personally or prefer to drive a toyota doesn't matter. nobody needs a ferrari, and nobody needs an $800 block. but to say "you don't have to test it properly because you don't need it" is just nonsense and illogical.

After so many people spoke so highly of the TTP video I went and watched it and I know it's going to result in lots of pearl clutching but it was extremely amateurish analysis of the situation and compared to stuff like Dr. Cutress' RISC-V content was second rate. He regularly just attributes things to Steve that aren't backed up by facts just his read on what he thinks Steve had in his heart while oddly dressing down Steve for doing the same.
 
Particular things he posits that don't track:
Everyone involved must be held to the standard that they set and not a broad one Why? We don't do that anywhere else so why is it the case here? If one student smears dirt on their paper and hands it in and they don't care and another student hands in an excellent paper with a typo but they are a perfectionist who abhors mistakes do they get the same grade? I can't think of any situation where this sort of sliding scale of standards is appropriate.
Steve failed to take into account that LTT is an expanding business and such expansion can lead to mistakes Why should he? In a similar period of time Steve has also expanded GN but done so in a more cautious and methodical way. If there was anyone who could comment negatively on LMG's "Move Fast and Break Things" Tech Bro way of expanding it is someone doing it responsibly.
Steve failed to contact Linus for LMG's reply before going to press...by the way I have not contacted either side for comment and input on this piece. Excuse me...what? So Steve has to abide by a specific code of conduct upheld by some hard news outlets but you're exempt because...reasons? 
When Steve speaks to finding it hard and not pleasurable to do this piece he showed teeth and so he clearly is enjoying himself and is not being truthful I found this particularly bizarre as awkward smiling when discussing a difficult or confusing situation is extremely common among people in the technical field and someone with TTP's background should be able to tell the difference or know enough to abstain from judging if they cannot tell based on an edited video. You can go back through GN's video history and tell when Steve is having fun poking at a funnily bad presentation (ex. Intel's presentation that GN made fun of) versus when he is feeling awkward himself and smiles.
When Steve spoke of Conflict of Interest then biases he put the cart before the horse You can have a defined conflict of interest and a differing bias and I don't see how someone with TTP's knowledge could conflate the two on the level of a college freshman. LMG reviewing laptops while Linus holds an investment in a laptop maker is a conflict of interest, full stop. It is all in the way that such a conflict of interest is handled, as long as LMG makes it clear that is the situation to laptop makers and to the audience at every turn then it is relatively fine but LMG has been a bit fast and loose with keeping at least the audience informed of this conflict. This is different than Linus' biases and potential biases in the situation and Steve addressed them separately. For example (and strictly as a hypothetical): Linus can actually have a negative bias against Framework because as an investor he holds them to a higher standard than some random laptop maker. This is why the conflict and the bias needs to be addressed separately.
 
ETA:
Steve should have started an entirely new channel before he criticized LMG to isolate his criticism to it What an absurd position to take. Does Linus create a new channel every time he does secret shopper? Did Dr. Cutress start a new channel to critique Steve's video? Does a news organization start a new channel before they go after a major government or organization? No and saying so comes off as extremely divorced from any sort of actual grounding in how any of this works.
 
I give Dr. Cutress credit for addressing his biases upfront but all in all, if you had told me that the video was from one of Linus' buddies in the tech media space that went to LTX and not a respected figure doing a proper thorough analysis I wouldn't expect any difference from what we got.
 

omg people have some weird ideas...

GN should post the video on a completely new channel and not his own channel (where he posted all the other company issue videos he made) is that so it would get zero views and their "hero" wouldn't be hung out for all their mistakes? do people really have that much issue with stuff getting fixed instead of being filled with false info? Are we really there where people can't accept that doing a poor job is ok to be called out on? it needed to happen, it did happen, it was pointed out very professionally and still people try to nitpick stuff that even isn't there or try to put fantasies in on why GN would do it or omg he will get so rich now LMG isn't posting videos (it's not like GN magically gets all LMG's viewers because they stop posting) so many of these ideas are so far fetched... and then there are all the people demanding responses on the SA case... where just 2 seconds of thinking should point out that they won't be told because it is a frigging investigation and it can take months... and if there is something it might be a court case... which again means no info until that is settled.

sometimes it sounds like a bunch of kiddoes that had their candy stolen by someone 2 grades higher in school...

just relax instead of this silly crusade constantly...

Dr. Cutress states unequivocally on the subject of if Steve could have been nervously smiling:
"That is simply not the case" This is in no way presented as his opinion nor his speculative analysis on Steve's behaviour he said it as a fact so again, maybe you didn't read what I said or didn't watch the video but particularly as someone here speaking to the behaviour of people with conditions such as ADHD to come here and support Dr. Cutress saying that Steve could not possibly be nervously smiling comes off as extremely in the tank for one side with no quarter for the other.
 
 

The amount of weird anti-GN conspiracy pedaling this thread has devolved into is frankly sad and I lay it at Linus' feet for still being upset that GN brought to light something that needed to be. For those claiming that GN did this for the viewers: You are completely out of it. We can have a back and forth about the view numbers but one thing that I don't see brought up is that there was no way for Steve to know how the video was going to be received or responded to. As Steve said in the video, Linus fanboys already message him demanding he change his benchmark numbers to line up with LMG/Lab numbers so doing the video exposing LMG's ethical deficiencies was a risk (particularly with a fandom as rabid as Linus'  who will go after a kid and harass them to ending their life even after Linus tells them to back off) and he incurred it while setting monetization off for the video so also did it to no direct financial gain, only a vague potential of future views. If that sounds like 5D chess profiteering then you are lost in the sauce.
 
As for Linus, the fact that you have let your criticism of Steve's methods stand as your only direct response to the fact that GN exposed the deficiencies in your company's SOPs and ethics as well as chose not to speak positively of GN in the apology video for bringing this all to light makes it clear that you still hold some grudge against Steve for how this all played out. You should be ashamed of yourself of letting this all fester and letting people try to heap blame on Steve for a situation you precipitated. As I've said before, until Linus apologizes to GN I'm not watching LTT content or supporting them. Whatever qualms you may have about how Steve did his job, he did it with more ethical behavior than you did by a country mile.

Or, you know, just post it on his main channel rather than dick around with twitter (which is dying anyway) and whatnot.
 
I thought that was one of the dumbest takes on that guy's video.

Insight into how Linus treats people in real life when you meet him at an event, whether it's members of the media or fans^^
Tl;dr: Linus is a jerk but Luke is really nice

A second channel that no one would see?

nah

this is what it needed and took for a revamp. sometimes you need an intervention , not an email

You miss the fact that Ian show the video as proof right after that statements , instead of just talking about his opinion without proof. He also let the viewer decide if he is right or wrong.
something Steve did not do, instead Steve just state his opinions as fact.
 
in regards to ethics:
1. Steve is the one wrong bring about ethic in the first place but decide to break the industry ethical norm. Why he cannot be judged on that?
2. There are industry ethical norm and your own ethical standard. Ian is talking about how Steve ethics is not industry norm, it is Steve own point of view of ethics that have not been accepted as industry norm. It is misleading to characterized your own ethical standard and pass it as it is industry norm. If you do pass judgement using your own standard and not the industry you should disclose that for accuracy. This is a proof that Steve break his own ethical standard for accuracy
3. Framework conflicts of interest. There is no one disagree that is it a conflict of interest but does it a proof of bias? The fact is it is not. News Journalist have an industry accepted ethical standard for this, which is proper disclosure so the consumer itself can see if they think the news/review is biased. As Ian mention, Linus clearly have followed this standard and clear when talking about framework how he have investment and will benefit from framework. From before framework investment, Linus already address this issue. Steve failure to even mention this is clearly he is framing a narrative and disregard accuracy. Again based on Steve own standard of ethic this is a major fail. Based on his own standard the video need to be take down and revised.
4. Does owning Framework disqualify Linus to review framework? No. There never been such ethical standard. As long as proper disclosure is stated then it is acceptable. Steve is just making up standard to frame LMG as bias without showing a shred of proof here. Using similar standard that Steve put here Steve should disclose all his investment portfolio and prohibited from reviewing any product that can be impact his investment. The standard he tried to set is dumb.
5. Gary from the Lab. Steve fail to mention Gary credibility on running the lab and how Gary experience and expertise relevant to the lab. As someone who talk about expert, how can he belittled someone who have actual experience in product review outside of youtube 'expert'. Again base on the accuracy standard Steve put into Linus, Steve failed by his own standard.

So let me get this straight:
GN reporting on factual information about benchmark numbers, conflicts of interest and the mishandling of a prototype: Requires right to reply by LMG
Dr. Cutress reporting on Steve's state of mind while he was speaking in an edited video: Doesn't require right to reply by GN
Seems a lot like a made up cutout.
 

After so many people spoke so highly of the TTP video I went and watched it and I know it's going to result in lots of pearl clutching but it was extremely amateurish analysis of the situation and compared to stuff like Dr. Cutress' RISC-V content was second rate. He regularly just attributes things to Steve that aren't backed up by facts just his read on what he thinks Steve had in his heart while oddly dressing down Steve for doing the same.
 
Particular things he posits that don't track:
Everyone involved must be held to the standard that they set and not a broad one Why? We don't do that anywhere else so why is it the case here? If one student smears dirt on their paper and hands it in and they don't care and another student hands in an excellent paper with a typo but they are a perfectionist who abhors mistakes do they get the same grade? I can't think of any situation where this sort of sliding scale of standards is appropriate.
Steve failed to take into account that LTT is an expanding business and such expansion can lead to mistakes Why should he? In a similar period of time Steve has also expanded GN but done so in a more cautious and methodical way. If there was anyone who could comment negatively on LMG's "Move Fast and Break Things" Tech Bro way of expanding it is someone doing it responsibly.
Steve failed to contact Linus for LMG's reply before going to press...by the way I have not contacted either side for comment and input on this piece. Excuse me...what? So Steve has to abide by a specific code of conduct upheld by some hard news outlets but you're exempt because...reasons? 
When Steve speaks to finding it hard and not pleasurable to do this piece he showed teeth and so he clearly is enjoying himself and is not being truthful I found this particularly bizarre as awkward smiling when discussing a difficult or confusing situation is extremely common among people in the technical field and someone with TTP's background should be able to tell the difference or know enough to abstain from judging if they cannot tell based on an edited video. You can go back through GN's video history and tell when Steve is having fun poking at a funnily bad presentation (ex. Intel's presentation that GN made fun of) versus when he is feeling awkward himself and smiles.
When Steve spoke of Conflict of Interest then biases he put the cart before the horse You can have a defined conflict of interest and a differing bias and I don't see how someone with TTP's knowledge could conflate the two on the level of a college freshman. LMG reviewing laptops while Linus holds an investment in a laptop maker is a conflict of interest, full stop. It is all in the way that such a conflict of interest is handled, as long as LMG makes it clear that is the situation to laptop makers and to the audience at every turn then it is relatively fine but LMG has been a bit fast and loose with keeping at least the audience informed of this conflict. This is different than Linus' biases and potential biases in the situation and Steve addressed them separately. For example (and strictly as a hypothetical): Linus can actually have a negative bias against Framework because as an investor he holds them to a higher standard than some random laptop maker. This is why the conflict and the bias needs to be addressed separately.
 
ETA:
Steve should have started an entirely new channel before he criticized LMG to isolate his criticism to it What an absurd position to take. Does Linus create a new channel every time he does secret shopper? Did Dr. Cutress start a new channel to critique Steve's video? Does a news organization start a new channel before they go after a major government or organization? No and saying so comes off as extremely divorced from any sort of actual grounding in how any of this works.
 
I give Dr. Cutress credit for addressing his biases upfront but all in all, if you had told me that the video was from one of Linus' buddies in the tech media space that went to LTX and not a respected figure doing a proper thorough analysis I wouldn't expect any difference from what we got.
 

Anyone else think this is no more complex that GN and LTT competing for mindspace and that maybe GN is getting beat on the expensive testing equipment investment side of things and is lashing out?
That's what I see.
 
 

After so many people spoke so highly of the TTP video I went and watched it and I know it's going to result in lots of pearl clutching but it was extremely amateurish analysis of the situation and compared to stuff like Dr. Cutress' RISC-V content was second rate. He regularly just attributes things to Steve that aren't backed up by facts just his read on what he thinks Steve had in his heart while oddly dressing down Steve for doing the same.
 
Particular things he posits that don't track:
Everyone involved must be held to the standard that they set and not a broad one Why? We don't do that anywhere else so why is it the case here? If one student smears dirt on their paper and hands it in and they don't care and another student hands in an excellent paper with a typo but they are a perfectionist who abhors mistakes do they get the same grade? I can't think of any situation where this sort of sliding scale of standards is appropriate.
Steve failed to take into account that LTT is an expanding business and such expansion can lead to mistakes Why should he? In a similar period of time Steve has also expanded GN but done so in a more cautious and methodical way. If there was anyone who could comment negatively on LMG's "Move Fast and Break Things" Tech Bro way of expanding it is someone doing it responsibly.
Steve failed to contact Linus for LMG's reply before going to press...by the way I have not contacted either side for comment and input on this piece. Excuse me...what? So Steve has to abide by a specific code of conduct upheld by some hard news outlets but you're exempt because...reasons? 
When Steve speaks to finding it hard and not pleasurable to do this piece he showed teeth and so he clearly is enjoying himself and is not being truthful I found this particularly bizarre as awkward smiling when discussing a difficult or confusing situation is extremely common among people in the technical field and someone with TTP's background should be able to tell the difference or know enough to abstain from judging if they cannot tell based on an edited video. You can go back through GN's video history and tell when Steve is having fun poking at a funnily bad presentation (ex. Intel's presentation that GN made fun of) versus when he is feeling awkward himself and smiles.
When Steve spoke of Conflict of Interest then biases he put the cart before the horse You can have a defined conflict of interest and a differing bias and I don't see how someone with TTP's knowledge could conflate the two on the level of a college freshman. LMG reviewing laptops while Linus holds an investment in a laptop maker is a conflict of interest, full stop. It is all in the way that such a conflict of interest is handled, as long as LMG makes it clear that is the situation to laptop makers and to the audience at every turn then it is relatively fine but LMG has been a bit fast and loose with keeping at least the audience informed of this conflict. This is different than Linus' biases and potential biases in the situation and Steve addressed them separately. For example (and strictly as a hypothetical): Linus can actually have a negative bias against Framework because as an investor he holds them to a higher standard than some random laptop maker. This is why the conflict and the bias needs to be addressed separately.
 
ETA:
Steve should have started an entirely new channel before he criticized LMG to isolate his criticism to it What an absurd position to take. Does Linus create a new channel every time he does secret shopper? Did Dr. Cutress start a new channel to critique Steve's video? Does a news organization start a new channel before they go after a major government or organization? No and saying so comes off as extremely divorced from any sort of actual grounding in how any of this works.
 
I give Dr. Cutress credit for addressing his biases upfront but all in all, if you had told me that the video was from one of Linus' buddies in the tech media space that went to LTX and not a respected figure doing a proper thorough analysis I wouldn't expect any difference from what we got.