AlTech

Not going to lie. He looked quite puncheable in the “sorry but I am not going to apologise” WAN episode about the Billet cooler.
 

I don't really have much of anything else to add to this topic, but, yeah, 200 pages. It's quite clear the response to the initial video didn't go well.

I was referring to Asus sponsoring some GPU videos and seemingly getting glowing recommendations and an easy ride as a result.

Not to the satisfaction of GN which is Steve's point. Other reviewers can't trust LMG to be honest in laptop reviews because Linus invested in Framework. This hasn't caused LMG to prevent Linus from evaluating laptops from Framework's competitors on camera for LMG channels.
LMG gave Asus an easy ride on the Asus motherboard fiasco with AMD CPUs and LMG gave Asus the kind of blanket endorsement that never comes free.
They ideally shouldn't but the reality of YTers funding their reviews means they need sources of revenue and they try hard to prevent it from biasing their reviews. It's also why many reviewers have a policy of not reviewing products that they've been sponsored by before or products that they had a hand in making.
It's the appearance of a conflict of interest. HUB and GN have both said, LMG can't be trusted on laptop reviews because of this appearance of a conflict of interest.
I'm not sure how this relates to anything GN has said or I have said.
 
The appearance of a conflict of interest is just as bad as an actual conflict of interest. LMG has major conflicts of interest that they've done nothinnf about and GN took then to task for it when other smaller channels were too afraid to say it to LMG.

Now you're twisting my words.
 
If you review restaurants and Dominos' sponsors a video from you.
 
Can you review one of Dominos' pizzas? Sure, just not the food that Dominos' paid you to eat.
 
If you do car reviews and VW sponsors a video about the ID.4 then you can still honestly review any Skoda car (owned by VW) and a VW car that hasn't had a sponsored video made by you for it.

I was referring to Asus sponsoring some GPU videos and seemingly getting glowing recommendations and an easy ride as a result.

Yes, because among other things they are legally required to. The fact that some of them don't means they are breaking the law.
Not unless LTT starts going easy on them in reviews for seemingly no reason.
No. Many live off of merch or Patrons who give them money monthly, or rely on YT ad revenue.
Not at all the same thing. If Linus buys shares in a company that LMG reviews products of, then Linus should not be involved in that video at all. Period. The appearance of a conflict of interest is enough to cause doubt about LMG's integrity
Nothing Steve said wasn't backed up by evidence.
 
LMG rushes videos: fact.
LMG makes mistakes in virtually every video: fact.
LMG sold a prototype that they had no right to sell: fact.
LMG wasn't willing to spend a bit of extra time to make their videos accurately : fact.
 
LMG made misrepresentations about the testing capabilities and performance of GN and HUB: fact.
 
LMG made misrepresentations about Billet's prototype's capabilities: fact.
 
Linus made misrepresentations about LMG's communication with Billet: fact.
 
Linus made misrepresentations that LMG had material evidence which would have altered the Steve GN video, when it has been shown Linus had nothing further to add: fact.

Not to the satisfaction of GN which is Steve's point. Other reviewers can't trust LMG to be honest in laptop reviews because Linus invested in Framework. This hasn't caused LMG to prevent Linus from evaluating laptops from Framework's competitors on camera for LMG channels.
LMG gave Asus an easy ride on the Asus motherboard fiasco with AMD CPUs and LMG gave Asus the kind of blanket endorsement that never comes free.
They ideally shouldn't but the reality of YTers funding their reviews means they need sources of revenue and they try hard to prevent it from biasing their reviews. It's also why many reviewers have a policy of not reviewing products that they've been sponsored by before or products that they had a hand in making.
It's the appearance of a conflict of interest. HUB and GN have both said, LMG can't be trusted on laptop reviews because of this appearance of a conflict of interest.
I'm not sure how this relates to anything GN has said or I have said.
 
The appearance of a conflict of interest is just as bad as an actual conflict of interest. LMG has major conflicts of interest that they've done nothinnf about and GN took then to task for it when other smaller channels were too afraid to say it to LMG.

Not to the satisfaction of GN which is Steve's point. Other reviewers can't trust LMG to be honest in laptop reviews because Linus invested in Framework. This hasn't caused LMG to prevent Linus from evaluating laptops from Framework's competitors on camera for LMG channels.
LMG gave Asus an easy ride on the Asus motherboard fiasco with AMD CPUs and LMG gave Asus the kind of blanket endorsement that never comes free.
They ideally shouldn't but the reality of YTers funding their reviews means they need sources of revenue and they try hard to prevent it from biasing their reviews. It's also why many reviewers have a policy of not reviewing products that they've been sponsored by before or products that they had a hand in making.
It's the appearance of a conflict of interest. HUB and GN have both said, LMG can't be trusted on laptop reviews because of this appearance of a conflict of interest.
I'm not sure how this relates to anything GN has said or I have said.
 
The appearance of a conflict of interest is just as bad as an actual conflict of interest. LMG has major conflicts of interest that they've done nothinnf about and GN took then to task for it when other smaller channels were too afraid to say it to LMG.

Or unless what you're covering exists exclusively in the public in which case there's not a lot of point requesting for comment because A) the company will likely not respond except perhaps with a PR stock answer and B) the company may try to manipulate the situation as Linus has done in this instance.

Yes, because among other things they are legally required to. The fact that some of them don't means they are breaking the law.
Not unless LTT starts going easy on them in reviews for seemingly no reason.
No. Many live off of merch or Patrons who give them money monthly, or rely on YT ad revenue.
Not at all the same thing. If Linus buys shares in a company that LMG reviews products of, then Linus should not be involved in that video at all. Period. The appearance of a conflict of interest is enough to cause doubt about LMG's integrity
Nothing Steve said wasn't backed up by evidence.
 
LMG rushes videos: fact.
LMG makes mistakes in virtually every video: fact.
LMG sold a prototype that they had no right to sell: fact.
LMG wasn't willing to spend a bit of extra time to make their videos accurately : fact.
 
LMG made misrepresentations about the testing capabilities and performance of GN and HUB: fact.
 
LMG made misrepresentations about Billet's prototype's capabilities: fact.
 
Linus made misrepresentations about LMG's communication with Billet: fact.
 
Linus made misrepresentations that LMG had material evidence which would have altered the Steve GN video, when it has been shown Linus had nothing further to add: fact.

Or unless what you're covering exists exclusively in the public in which case there's not a lot of point requesting for comment because A) the company will likely not respond except perhaps with a PR stock answer and B) the company may try to manipulate the situation as Linus has done in this instance.

'Hello James, do you still have my car because I need it back.'
 
'Sorry about not getting back to you last month Robert when you emailed me twice asking for your car back. I don't have your car but no worries because didn't sell it, I auctioned it off. So ya we're cool right?  

Linus presented the facts wrong. In both the testing of the cooler, since it wasn’t for the right card, and in the messages in this forum since he alleged everything was solved and agreed with the company, when in fact it wasn’t. Also, Justice Warriors? What the hell are you on about, man.

Yes, because among other things they are legally required to. The fact that some of them don't means they are breaking the law.
Not unless LTT starts going easy on them in reviews for seemingly no reason.
No. Many live off of merch or Patrons who give them money monthly, or rely on YT ad revenue.
Not at all the same thing. If Linus buys shares in a company that LMG reviews products of, then Linus should not be involved in that video at all. Period. The appearance of a conflict of interest is enough to cause doubt about LMG's integrity
Nothing Steve said wasn't backed up by evidence.
 
LMG rushes videos: fact.
LMG makes mistakes in virtually every video: fact.
LMG sold a prototype that they had no right to sell: fact.
LMG wasn't willing to spend a bit of extra time to make their videos accurately : fact.
 
LMG made misrepresentations about the testing capabilities and performance of GN and HUB: fact.
 
LMG made misrepresentations about Billet's prototype's capabilities: fact.
 
Linus made misrepresentations about LMG's communication with Billet: fact.
 
Linus made misrepresentations that LMG had material evidence which would have altered the Steve GN video, when it has been shown Linus had nothing further to add: fact.

It is only designed to fit one specific GPU.
It is very expensive.

Do you know what key fact you missed in the above?
LMG DID NOT INSTALL THE MONOBLOCK ON THE GPU IT WAS DESIGNED TO FIT.

It'd be like buying an engine part for a Ford Explorer and complaining that it performs like shit on my Ford Fiesta.
 
LMG cannot seriously entertain that the review is fair at all when the monoblock was designed to make extremely close contact with the GPU of a 3090 Ti and despite the manufacturer telling them it wasn't designed to fit a 4090, to test on that and dismiss the performance of the product.
 
If LMG considered a GPU specific monoblock so ridiculous as to be impractical or not worth reviewing - they could have instead refused to review it.
Instead they reviewed it, installed it on a part it was never intended to fit, said it wasn't worth buying, and then doubled down on the invalid results when people pointed out the monoblock was never intended to work with a 4090.

That's bad review practice, and it erodes trust in what LMG is presenting as reputable benchmark results as they tout how wonderful the labs are.

Yes, because among other things they are legally required to. The fact that some of them don't means they are breaking the law.
Not unless LTT starts going easy on them in reviews for seemingly no reason.
No. Many live off of merch or Patrons who give them money monthly, or rely on YT ad revenue.
Not at all the same thing. If Linus buys shares in a company that LMG reviews products of, then Linus should not be involved in that video at all. Period. The appearance of a conflict of interest is enough to cause doubt about LMG's integrity
Nothing Steve said wasn't backed up by evidence.
 
LMG rushes videos: fact.
LMG makes mistakes in virtually every video: fact.
LMG sold a prototype that they had no right to sell: fact.
LMG wasn't willing to spend a bit of extra time to make their videos accurately : fact.
 
LMG made misrepresentations about the testing capabilities and performance of GN and HUB: fact.
 
LMG made misrepresentations about Billet's prototype's capabilities: fact.
 
Linus made misrepresentations about LMG's communication with Billet: fact.
 
Linus made misrepresentations that LMG had material evidence which would have altered the Steve GN video, when it has been shown Linus had nothing further to add: fact.

Yes, because among other things they are legally required to. The fact that some of them don't means they are breaking the law.
Not unless LTT starts going easy on them in reviews for seemingly no reason.
No. Many live off of merch or Patrons who give them money monthly, or rely on YT ad revenue.
Not at all the same thing. If Linus buys shares in a company that LMG reviews products of, then Linus should not be involved in that video at all. Period. The appearance of a conflict of interest is enough to cause doubt about LMG's integrity
Nothing Steve said wasn't backed up by evidence.
 
LMG rushes videos: fact.
LMG makes mistakes in virtually every video: fact.
LMG sold a prototype that they had no right to sell: fact.
LMG wasn't willing to spend a bit of extra time to make their videos accurately : fact.
 
LMG made misrepresentations about the testing capabilities and performance of GN and HUB: fact.
 
LMG made misrepresentations about Billet's prototype's capabilities: fact.
 
Linus made misrepresentations about LMG's communication with Billet: fact.
 
Linus made misrepresentations that LMG had material evidence which would have altered the Steve GN video, when it has been shown Linus had nothing further to add: fact.

I really appreciate seeing such a level-headed take on this amidst a sea of knee-jerk reactions (from both sides) and fanboyism (again, both sides)

He did handle it in a way that should have mutually benefited both companies.

The video was a lay up for LMG to fix mistakes and move on.

Thats WHY Linus's response is so damn disappointing. This wasn't an attack piece it was a forced opportunity to internally debrief and fix their SOPs to prevent reckless and unnecessary mistakes. Something the staff at LMG wants. 

There is no reason to spend millions to attempt to get good data if you cant spend the 200-2k in extra work hours to make sure the data published is good. 

LMG can still rectify, but they need time to sort things out, Process changes are never going to be quick. 

Exactly. Conflict of interest does not require bias to have already happened. Conflict of interest is the POSSIBILITY of bias. Bias comes AFTER the conflict of interest is established. 

What's happening now (mostly) is exactly what's intended. There's certainly a fire lit under Linus/LTT, but it's hardly their downfall.
With a semi-reasonable reaction from LMG this could be fixed.

Are you serious? No... just.. god no. This take just baffles me. Like Steve said in the second video, he literally gave them a lay up. All they needed to do was be humble, point out they have infact made a lot of mistakes over the last year - and then lay out a plan to improve. Instead, Linus made an extremely ridiculous gaslighting post. At that point, yes Steve was absolutely dumbfounded and reacted as such in the second video. 

Well, I think we can officially say Linus response failed, as we approach 200 pages.
 
Inter-related, but I know Linus has ADD. Has he been on uppers (legal or not) to attempt to wrangle stuff in? His combativeness shift over about the last year (since we've been getting video clips of it) reminds me a bit too much of a friend that had issues with ADD meds.  They were mostly fine, but way over responded to anything they thought my be criticism. (It was really annoying, which is what helped us to convince them to change meds.)  It was like their self-defensive instincts were on red alert at all times.
 
Also related, it's clear they actually need more staff in the Shooting / Writing side. They're timelines are getting to compressed and they need a larger buffer space.

Summary
AMD is rumoured to have cancelled Navi 4C (aka Navi41) and the diagram of Navi 4C has also been leaked. Navi 4C's alleged cancellation is because of complications caused by Navi 4C's new architecture of CUs inside Shader Engine Dies housed on top of Active Interposer Dies which themselves are housed on Package Substrate. and the massive scaling of chiplet usage in the architecture.
 
AMD is believed to have diverted employees working on Navi 4C towards Navi 5 so that Navi 4 can be released in 2024 with Navi 5 launching in 2025.
 
Image from MLID via Videocardz

 
Quotes
 
My thoughts
Not gonna lie, looking at this insanely expanded complexity I am not surprised it got cancelled. I do hope that the rumours are correct and that AMD will be back making high end GPUs for Navi 5.
 
 
Sources
https://videocardz.com/newz/amds-canceled-radeon-rx-8000-navi-4c-gpu-diagram-has-been-partially-leaked