Louis Rossmann points out some facts LTT got wrong in DriveSavers video

[asquirrel]

@LinusTech Thanks for covering this on The Wan Show. I saw Jessa's reply to the video as well. My initial reaction was far more hostile than it needed to be. I don't have Louis's cool temper and natural ability to assume non-hostile motives. I need to work on that. What does matter to me are the same points that Jessa and Louis have pointed out on DriveSavers for over a year: DriveSavers will charge $1000+ for a service which both them them typically charge $400 or less. And as you know, the more complex the issue, the faster that fee from DriveSavers goes up.

 

Fundamentally, a company is allowed to charge what it wants. The problem comes when that same company has the top marketing budget, takes other people's freely given contributions, and then charges 10x the price for that information they did not create themselves. In the open source community, we have licenses like GPLv2/3 to cover problems like this. But there is no such concept as GPL or MIT licenses for an idea like "how to use the Speaker IC to bypass a boot loop.". Moreover, nobody has a problem with DriveSavers using the fix and charging 10x for it. The only problem they have is the message of "We need $2000 to get your data base. Period." and leaving it to the customer to find another option. If DriveSavers really had come up with that technique on their own, I'd be 100% cool with that. But if DriveSavers did not come up with that technique on their own, that's where it becomes unacceptable for them to not redirect back to the people who helped them find that credit. Which is why I point out GPL (or MIT) license models.

 

I do not expect LMG to do anything further on this, and I am grateful that you addressed it at all. First and foremost, LTT is a media and marketing organization. I have to remember that. You do care about not being in it just for the money, and I can respect that, but it also means I cannot trust you the way I might be willing to trust Gamer's Nexus (see: MSI 'Killshot' video).

 

In the back of my head I've been wondering if Louis and Jessa, even combined, could afford coverage from you. And if they could, how much business would it drive to them. But then I remember that Louis has been on LTT twice and he still talks about the CBC news piece being a huge spike in traffic, not the LTT videos. So I guess it's a good thing that not many mac users are in your audience? PC master race! If anything, I'd say an engagement with them once Louis's independent repair certification/organization (whatever it ends up being) is off the ground would probably be the right time to do it. That's probably 1-2 years away. Something that says "here is how *all* independent repair shops can be organized, quality assured, reviewed, and discovered".

 

Thank you.

[wANKER]

Another example of why you never trust a big name data recovery 'specialist' that needs to use YouTube channels like LTT to advertise their service. 

Period. 

They're full of shit. 

[Jessa Jones_iPad Rehab]

Hey guys—-are girls allowed in here?  Even moms?  This is my first time at LTT forum and wow—this will be a great Community resource as my kids get old enough to start building PCs.  
 

I love the skepticism that many of you have about this DriveSavers speaker amp issue.  I’m happy to add detail, and you can decide what seems right to you.  
 

First—why do we care about this petty squabble?  
 

1–While inexperienced iPhone Microsoldering is often a disaster, there are many capable shops out there doing the EXACT same thing as DriveSavers for a common market price of $300-$600.  DriveSavers iPhone recovery looks NO DIFFERENT than anyone else.   Same benches, tools, same type of people, same frustrations with error 14 and corrupted data, same inability to get data from an encrypted NAND.....Source? Personal communication with DriveSavers team.  
 

The only difference is PRICE.   DriveSavers can charge whatever they want, but when you set a price of $2000, that is prohibitive and I think they have to own that.   Their customers are often families just like everyone else.   To a mom grieving the baby pictures, $2000 is not much different than Apple saying “it can’t be done at all”  Heck, we charge $2000 to come out for five days and learn to recover your data yourself! 

 

So how can they get away with it?  Why doesn’t the free market work here? I think it will eventually, and that’s why these conversations are important.

 

Right now, though, they are doing a great job using those stacks of $2000 bills to perpetuate their perceived expertise stereotype here via Linus.   Similarly, they can afford to buy influence from repair shops with fat referral kickbacks.   And they have inherited a dubious Apple referral despite having no significant relationship with Apple for iPhones.  
 

How is a customer supposed to know that that $300-$500 options even exist, when the rest of the internet is loaded with spammy “data recovery software” that will never work to clear corrosion from under a chip.
 

It’s an elegant and successful strategy—kudos to DriveSavers, well played!   But it does feel like an injustice to all the families giving up on their data because of the 10x market value price tag.  
 

It shouldn’t be surprising for them to get pushback from the thousands of folks working in the $300-$500 data recovery Community who are the ones working in the trenches.  We are the ones working with China to build the tools that DS showcases on the fancy videos.  We are the ones collaboratively sharing information on our own low production value videos.   That doesn’t make DS “bad guys” or even bad at data recovery.  It doesn’t make the rest of us “have a vendetta”.  It is just a natural consequence of the peer response to one group consistently getting away with selling the content of another at 10x markup.  
 

2–Who deserves credit for the speaker amp thing?

It’s confusing because it has two pieces.

A—Credit for Discovery of the fact that Hanging phones corrupted after update to iOS13 could boot with REMOVAL of the speaker amp chip belongs Independently  to Raj Paul, Roy Samarra, and Aaron Harrington, and possibly others out there, unlikely DriveSavers.  

 

I do not believe DriveSavers knew about this solution previously.  Evidence—documentation of a private conversation where a DriveSavers contractor offered to pay $2000 for the information.  That was one week prior to my video.  Even if they did, the Removal technique is not the one in question. 

 

B—I spent that one week trying to figure out if there was a way to DISABLE the offending speaker chip without actually removing it.   It was a weird project and not typical of how we work in this field.  We take chips off.  We replace chips.  Heck—I even SELL chips, so why would I be motivated to come up with a way to Creatively solve that problem that did not involved replacing the chip?

 

I looked into it because I know that people would be trying to get speaker amp off left and right, and it’s an 8/10 difficulty chip to work with—adjacent to CPU.  If there was an easier way it would be better for the community.  And it is was fun. It was straight up fun to see if it could be done, and I thought would be a fun story to share if it worked because it would be cool.   That’s why I did it.  To make people say “oh wow, that’s cool!”

 

I studied the chip and tried to figure out a way to temporarily deactivate it.  This was completely a waste of time—the world already had a perfectly viable solution.  Remove the chip.  I tried a few things and then—holy crap—it worked!   I could short the speaker amp RESET line to ground and get the phone to boot as if the chip was gone.  Get data, then relieve short on reset and it was a normal phone again.  I made a video and texted a contact at DriveSavers.  
 

I knew they would have already likely heard about REMOVING speaker amp, but just in case—I didn’t want them to tell any mom out there that her pictures were unrecoverable when that was no longer the case.

 

This Quirky Temporary Disable solution is the one featured in the LTT video and it was 100% my work (only possible because of the prior work of others, if not for them then none of us would have ever recovered any of these).  The reason it’s in the video —is because it is cool.  It is meant to make you say “oh wow! That’s really neat”. Simply removing the chip would be boring.  

 

What is the chance that DriveSavers heard about the speaker amp REMOVAL solution and instead of spending that week churning out jobs by taking off the chip to recover—they ALSO decided to see if they could disable the chip and magically happened to arrive at the exact same disable solution, and they even chose the exact same line to pull down? 

Of course not.  They saw my video and realized they could do the jumper with tweezers and then forgot all about where or how the technique came from—they just started using it to print $2000 bills.

 

When making the sponsored video, LTT asked for an example of creativity in data recovery, this old little trick from last year came to mind, and they were happy to pass it off as part of the 2020 perceived expertise package.   
 

Sheesh.  That was a book.  Thanks for letting me vent here.

 

I don’t know much about how the LTT community works, but what would it take to shine a light on the real spirit of the issue?

 

How can we let customers know that affordable data recovery is possible, and that they don’t need to spend $2000 for most cases, and they don’t need to take Apple’s word that it can’t be done at all?

 

Could we crowdsource funds to buy a sponsored video from LTT and feature a number of different independent shops that do great microsoldering?   
 

I’d love to invite Linus to come to Practical Board Repair School and help us help people to understand—where is the line between DIY IPhone repair and when should you seek a professional and how?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[asquirrel]

@Jessa Jones_iPad Rehab Hi Jessa. So, I guess to unpack things a bit. LTT is a youtube channel owned and operated by Linus Media Group https://linusmediagroup.com/ All told, there are 7 channels (I think) operated by LMG, LTT being the biggest. Every single person you see on ShortCircuit, Techquickie, LTT, etc, are all employees of LMG. Linus is chief editor among other roles and does help in writing/tweaking the scripts for many (all?) of the videos LMG produces on any of their channels or for private events (Oh yes, LMG will make internal company videos too!)

 

So, first and foremost, you have to understand that despite the algorithm-friendly personality / flavor each channel LMG operates displays, LMG is, at its core, a marketing agency. This is a direct quote from their home page:

 

Quote

Linus Media Group is a full service production agency with decades of collective experience in web video and social media and influencer marketing. We've worked with brands as small as cottage-industry one-person operations all the way to large multinationals like Intel, IBM, and Cisco.

Our passion for video creation, storytelling, and technology makes us a perfect partner for your next creative project. We not only have a deep understanding of technology, but also of the people who use it. Over the years we've built a community of millions of consumer and professional technology enthusiasts on YouTube, social media, and our own community forum.

It starts with a conversation. Tell us your communication or marketing goals and let us bring you the solution.

As far as how to get anything more done than this thread and the Wan Show epsiode / clips (clips to be produced soon, I am guessing), I doubt that LMG will further address this issue. No marketing agency in their right mind will say "We now have a video that is going against a previous video we made." That simply isn't done. Instead, you might get a video showing, for example, titled something like "How Independant Repair can save you Thousands!!$$" and a story about how you can take an iphone, identify what on it failed, fix that thing, and get it back out to the customer. You'd be able to mention that you were cheaper than mainstream options (for lack of a better term) like DriveSavers, but probably not turn it into a power-point breakdown of why driversavers expensive vs independent repair economical.

 

The #1 thing that matters to Linus himself, and LMG as a brand, is having new an interesting spins on content. For example, they almost never review cases or phones because they got boring, and if they do cover those things, it's because the case or phone has a completely new feature, and the video is more about that feature than the phone itself. Example:

Personally, I have the marketing and business leadership skills of a dead fish. But I'm a great engineer. I can explain this much, but here I am pretty much at a wall of where the next step should be for you and an LMG interaction. Louis had been working on an independent repair organization and maybe once that is getting spun up properly, or there is a certification / bar / standard that independent repair shops agree to, and a central website where you can say "I have a <device> and I need it fixed." then get a list of repair shops that service that kind of device, then that might be a cool video to release.

 

As it stands, this forum thread does show up on google when you google LTT DriveSavers Speaker IC, so people can, at least, find this thread discussing some of the more interesting back and forth on the topic.

[Jessa Jones_iPad Rehab]

2 hours ago, asquirrel said:

@Jessa Jones_iPad Rehab Hi Jessa. So, I guess to unpack things a bit. LTT is a youtube channel owned and operated by Linus Media Group https://linusmediagroup.com/ All told, there are 7 channels (I think) operated by LMG, LTT being the biggest. Every single person you see on ShortCircuit, Techquickie, LTT, etc, are all employees of LMG. Linus is chief editor among other roles and does help in writing/tweaking the scripts for many (all?) of the videos LMG produces on any of their channels or for private events (Oh yes, LMG will make internal company videos too!)

 

So, first and foremost, you have to understand that despite the algorithm-friendly personality / flavor each channel LMG operates displays, LMG is, at its core, a marketing agency. This is a direct quote from their home page:

 

As far as how to get anything more done than this thread and the Wan Show epsiode / clips (clips to be produced soon, I am guessing), I doubt that LMG will further address this issue. No marketing agency in their right mind will say "We now have a video that is going against a previous video we made." That simply isn't done. Instead, you might get a video showing, for example, titled something like "How Independant Repair can save you Thousands!!$$" and a story about how you can take an iphone, identify what on it failed, fix that thing, and get it back out to the customer. You'd be able to mention that you were cheaper than mainstream options (for lack of a better term) like DriveSavers, but probably not turn it into a power-point breakdown of why driversavers expensive vs independent repair economical.

 

The #1 thing that matters to Linus himself, and LMG as a brand, is having new an interesting spins on content. For example, they almost never review cases or phones because they got boring, and if they do cover those things, it's because the case or phone has a completely new feature, and the video is more about that feature than the phone itself. Example:

Personally, I have the marketing and business leadership skills of a dead fish. But I'm a great engineer. I can explain this much, but here I am pretty much at a wall of where the next step should be for you and an LMG interaction. Louis had been working on an independent repair organization and maybe once that is getting spun up properly, or there is a certification / bar / standard that independent repair shops agree to, and a central website where you can say "I have a <device> and I need it fixed." then get a list of repair shops that service that kind of device, then that might be a cool video to release.

 

As it stands, this forum thread does show up on google when you google LTT DriveSavers Speaker IC, so people can, at least, find this thread discussing some of the more interesting back and forth on the topic.

Wow--thank you for typing out such a detailed response!   I spend most of my time staring down a microscope, so I had no idea.   Thank you!
Jessa

[WkdPaul]

* thread cleaned *

 

This isn't a thread about Louis Rossmann and his proficiency as an Apple device repairman.

 

You're welcome to make a thread about it, as long as it's following the Community Standard.

[Uttamattamakin]

On 10/10/2020 at 3:09 PM, asquirrel said:

No marketing agency in their right mind will say "We now have a video that is going against a previous video we made." That simply isn't done.

News papers and news networks that value being credible will issue corrections or retractions or follow up stories on things like this all the time. (At least they used to.)  

In fact given the attention this has gotten it might get a nice number of views for LTT to do a basic video about this whole issue.  They have a large following and doing so would also show as an example of the fact that if they spread some bad info that they can own it.  

[notsteven]

On 10/9/2020 at 7:06 AM, LAwLz said:

Right now it's word against word. It could also be a case where two people came to the same conclusion independently of each other around the same time. We don't even have any proof that Jessa shared her discovery with DriveSavers.

 

I agree with you 100%, it's word against word, so we can't judge based on their words. So, lets take a look at their histories as businesses because from what I know history will always repeat itself. We have to ask ourselves, has Jessa ever done a public stunt like this for more business/customers; not that I can recall or found in my few minutes of googling. Has drivesavers been known to ripoff customers by charging ridiculous prices; yes they have(You can test this out by simply giving them a call).

[Marbo]

This is like 2 people completing a jigsaw puzzle. Just because they both completed it doesn't mean 1 was told how to do it by the other. 

 

It is possible that they came up with the solution independently. 

[raf42]

@LinusTech The fact that the WAN show piece was just uploaded to LMG clips is a bit dicey, given that it really seems (based on what Jessa is saying here and in the comments of the WAN show, as well as on what I've seen/read/understand) to be somewhere between disingenuous and an outright false narrative from DriveSavers.

 

Honestly I feel it would be better to not have put it up on LMG clips (which obviously wasn't done due to this, it's just normal practice for y'all) without having at the very least read, if not responded to Jessa's claims/info. I'm not saying that this is the case, but it gives the perception that y'all will take the word of a paid sponsor even if they are in the wrong, something I know is not your stance, given numerous situations over the years.

[LinusTech]

27 minutes ago, raf42 said:

@LinusTech The fact that the WAN show piece was just uploaded to LMG clips is a bit dicey, given that it really seems (based on what Jessa is saying here and in the comments of the WAN show, as well as on what I've seen/read/understand) to be somewhere between disingenuous and an outright false narrative from DriveSavers.

 

Honestly I feel it would be better to not have put it up on LMG clips (which obviously wasn't done due to this, it's just normal practice for y'all) without having at the very least read, if not responded to Jessa's claims/info. I'm not saying that this is the case, but it gives the perception that y'all will take the word of a paid sponsor even if they are in the wrong, something I know is not your stance, given numerous situations over the years.

You're assuming I haven't spoken to Jessa

 

I think collaborating with her in the future would be a blast and I've said as much, and I've expressed my desire to set the record straight and even change the sponsored video's content to reflect her allegations if she can provide evidence that proves them.

 

To be clear, I'm not saying that if she can't prove it that she's lying. I'm just saying that as long as it's "he said, she said" I can't render any sort of judgment.

 

Linus

[Roswell]

37 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

You're assuming I haven't spoken to Jessa

 

I think collaborating with her in the future would be a blast and I've said as much, and I've expressed my desire to set the record straight and even change the sponsored video's content to reflect her allegations if she can provide evidence that proves them.

 

To be clear, I'm not saying that if she can't prove it that she's lying. I'm just saying that as long as it's "he said, she said" I can't render any sort of judgment.

 

Linus

What about the problematic statement you made in the video you released a day before this happened (how much does LTT make)?

 

You said you vet everything and always stand behind your statements in sponsored videos.

 

This is a pretty great example of why you CAN’T stand behind the statements in your sponsored videos since you’re just repeating lines given to you by the people paying for the infomercial.

[raf42]

43 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

You're assuming I haven't spoken to Jessa

 

I think collaborating with her in the future would be a blast and I've said as much, and I've expressed my desire to set the record straight and even change the sponsored video's content to reflect her allegations if she can provide evidence that proves them.

 

To be clear, I'm not saying that if she can't prove it that she's lying. I'm just saying that as long as it's "he said, she said" I can't render any sort of judgment.

 

Linus

> You're assuming I haven't spoken to Jessa
Fair enough, my apologies for that assumption then.

 

That said, at least in my mind (with the obvious caveat that not only do I only know one side of the story, if even that, but that you have a *lot* more experience at this sort of situation than I do), the initial DriveSavers video was totally fine, it's just that, at least as of the WAN show recording you acknowledged that you hadn't spoken to Jessa/Louis (but I do realize WAN shows airs on a specific day, and it didn't make sense to wait a week. Damned either way I guess...). Given that you seem to now have spoken to at least Jessa, I'm just feeling that maybe the LMG clips video shouldn't have gone up yet, given that imo it paints Jessa in a fairly negative light, that seems to be unearned on her part.

 

But hey, I'm just some random person without a real stake in the game rambling away. Quite possible that I'm totally wrong here. I appreciate the reply/that you're following the situation.

[aisle9]

25 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

What about the problematic statement you made in the video you released a day before this happened (how much does LTT make)?

 

You said you vet everything and always stand behind your statements in sponsored videos.

 

This is a pretty great example of why you CAN’T stand behind the statements in your sponsored videos since you’re just repeating lines given to you by the people paying for the infomercial.

So if I'm giving Linus a tour of my state-of-the-art facility and I show him an obscure process he's never seen before and tell him I invented it, is he then expected to spend hours searching the exact procedure to see if it's been documented anywhere else on the whole wide interwebz?

 

No. That's what due diligence is for. When someone approaches you about a business proposition, you do all the research you need to so that you can walk away trusting that they are accurately representing themselves and what they do. When you work with a sponsor on a media project, you're going to have to regurgitate some of the info they give you. That's life in sponsored media. If you've done your homework, you'll be able to take them at their word. If you find proof--not conjecture--later on that something they told you was false and they knew it was false, that's a different story.

 

Note that I don't have a dog in this fight and I have no opinion on the who-did-what side of it, just injecting a little reality into your comments. You do your due diligence to make sure that you can trust your sponsor and that the easily-verifiable claims are true. If they throw something obscure out there as one of the key things they want to highlight and it's not the sort of thing that can be easily verified, your choices are to trust the source you've done all this due diligence on or risk losing the sponsorship by refusing to include it. If it turns out later that you were knowingly or unknowingly misled, you deal with it then. I mean, with small stuff like this, that's what it is.

[Roswell]

12 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

So if I'm giving Linus a tour of my state-of-the-art facility and I show him an obscure process he's never seen before and tell him I invented it, is he then expected to spend hours searching the exact procedure to see if it's been documented anywhere else on the whole wide interwebz?

 

No. That's what due diligence is for. When someone approaches you about a business proposition, you do all the research you need to so that you can walk away trusting that they are accurately representing themselves and what they do. When you work with a sponsor on a media project, you're going to have to regurgitate some of the info they give you. That's life in sponsored media. If you've done your homework, you'll be able to take them at their word. If you find proof--not conjecture--later on that something they told you was false and they knew it was false, that's a different story.

 

Note that I don't have a dog in this fight and I have no opinion on the who-did-what side of it, just injecting a little reality into your comments. You do your due diligence to make sure that you can trust your sponsor and that the easily-verifiable claims are true. If they throw something obscure out there as one of the key things they want to highlight and it's not the sort of thing that can be easily verified, your choices are to trust the source you've done all this due diligence on or risk losing the sponsorship by refusing to include it. If it turns out later that you were knowingly or unknowingly misled, you deal with it then. I mean, with small stuff like this, that's what it is.

That’s the point.

They shouldn’t be making blanket statements that they believe in and stand behind what they say in sponsor videos. They obviously can’t do that when they’re being paid to read talking points that they’re not able to verify.

[aisle9]

Just now, Vitamanic said:

That’s the point.

They shouldn’t be making blanket statements that they believe in and stand behind what they say in sponsor videos. They obviously can’t do that when they’re being paid to read talking points that they’re not able to verify.

And that's my point. Sponsored videos are not impeachment proceedings. Things will come up that you have no earthly way to verify beyond a shadow of a doubt. Because the fate of nations isn't hanging on your every move, sometimes you have to trust the partner--a partner you've hopefully done lots and lots of research on, both the company itself and the people behind and in front of it--when they show you an incredibly obscure process you've never seen or heard of and say they created it. And who's to say they didn't? Again, zero stake and zero particular interest, but I would like to point out that the turbojet engine was invented by England and Germany, independently, within a month or so of each other. It wouldn't be the first time that two parties had the same idea at the same time, or at least genuinely thought they did.

 

Proof > conjecture. Conjecture doesn't mean anyone's lying, nor does it mean that anyone's being entirely truthful. All it means is that one person says one thing and another said another, and there's not enough there to make a judgment call on. There really aren't that many things you should be putting LMG on blast over. Their record is surprisingly not shit for a Youtube content creator, and this is definitely not something to put LMG on blast over. Linus already said there's no proof, so he can't act. I wish more of the world would stop shouting at things and take that approach.

[Roswell]

7 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

And that's my point. Sponsored videos are not impeachment proceedings. Things will come up that you have no earthly way to verify beyond a shadow of a doubt. Because the fate of nations isn't hanging on your every move, sometimes you have to trust the partner--a partner you've hopefully done lots and lots of research on, both the company itself and the people behind and in front of it--when they show you an incredibly obscure process you've never seen or heard of and say they created it. And who's to say they didn't? Again, zero stake and zero particular interest, but I would like to point out that the turbojet engine was invented by England and Germany, independently, within a month or so of each other. It wouldn't be the first time that two parties had the same idea at the same time, or at least genuinely thought they did.

 

Proof > conjecture. Conjecture doesn't mean anyone's lying, nor does it mean that anyone's being entirely truthful. All it means is that one person says one thing and another said another, and there's not enough there to make a judgment call on. There really aren't that many things you should be putting LMG on blast over. Their record is surprisingly not shit for a Youtube content creator, and this is definitely not something to put LMG on blast over. Linus already said there's no proof, so he can't act. I wish more of the world would stop shouting at things and take that approach.

I think you’re missing context. Linus literally said what you’re arguing against. He said he stands behind what’s said in a sponsor spot. 
 

This... as you’ve clearly stated, isn’t realistic. It took all of one day for it to fail.

 

What I’m getting at is that they shouldn’t be making blanket statements that what they say is truthful in their infomercials. They should instead just not say anything or be honest and say “we’re being paid to say this”.

[Mark Kaine]

17 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

or be honest and say “we’re being paid to say this

in a "sponsored" video you don't really have to say this... 

 

 

 

 

 

[Roswell]

2 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

in a "sponsored" video you don't really have to say this... 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, maybe refer to first half of the sentence in my post before the portion that you cherry-picked to affirm that sentiment instead of arguing for the sake of arguing.

[Mark Kaine]

26 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

Yeah, maybe refer to first half of the sentence in my post before the portion that you cherry-picked to affirm that sentiment instead of arguing for the sake of arguing.

I "cherry picked" this because the first part of that sentence just isn't realistic or even warranted in my opinion.

 

If you've read Linus response he said as much to change the content if the info therein turns out to be false, not sure why you're leaving *that* out...

 

 

It's a big part why people like him and his videos, they trust him, which I think given the response and everything else is justifiable.

 

So yes I'm just ignoring that first part of your sentence because it's not reasonable imo, the second part though is and I just pointed out that they're already doing this by saying "this is a sponsored video".

 

 

[LinusTech]

21 hours ago, Vitamanic said:

What about the problematic statement you made in the video you released a day before this happened (how much does LTT make)?

 

You said you vet everything and always stand behind your statements in sponsored videos.

 

This is a pretty great example of why you CAN’T stand behind the statements in your sponsored videos since you’re just repeating lines given to you by the people paying for the infomercial.

There's nothing problematic about my statement. We can't get it right on the first shot 100% of the time, but we work hard to make things right when we do make a mistake.

 

The way vetting works is you go through a discovery process and collect every side of the story. That's literally what's happening right now. If I see any proof that Jessa's claims are true, then I will go back and update the Drivesavers video and we would probably also end up addressing it on the WAN Show.

 

I realize you want a quick/easy answer, but that's not how this process works.

 

Jessa has had my email requesting evidence that Drivesavers' claims are false for a couple of days now and I haven't heard back. That doesn't necessarily mean she doesn't have any - she's a business owner with a lot of stuff on her plate and I'm sure she's very busy - but it does mean that I can't take a side on this yet.

 

 

[asquirrel]

47 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

There's nothing problematic about my statement. We can't get it right on the first shot 100% of the time, but we work hard to make things right when we do make a mistake.

 

The way vetting works is you go through a discovery process and collect every side of the story. That's literally what's happening right now. If I see any proof that Jessa's claims are true, then I will go back and update the Drivesavers video and we would probably also end up addressing it on the WAN Show.

 

I realize you want a quick/easy answer, but that's not how this process works.

 

Jessa has had my email requesting evidence that Drivesavers' claims are false for a couple of days now and I haven't heard back. That doesn't necessarily mean she doesn't have any - she's a business owner with a lot of stuff on her plate and I'm sure she's very busy - but it does mean that I can't take a side on this yet.

 

 

I've tried to poke her via Louis's discord. She hasn't put any messages on Discord since July though, so...*shrug*. As you say, maybe she's busy. But I've had important e-mails go to spam and never see them, so it's best to pester.

[LinusTech]

43 minutes ago, asquirrel said:

I've tried to poke her via Louis's discord. She hasn't put any messages on Discord since July though, so...*shrug*. As you say, maybe she's busy. But I've had important e-mails go to spam and never see them, so it's best to pester.

We have already gone back and forth once, so I'm pretty sure my email isn't in spam

[Roswell]

3 hours ago, LinusTech said:

There's nothing problematic about my statement. We can't get it right on the first shot 100% of the time, but we work hard to make things right when we do make a mistake.

 

The way vetting works is you go through a discovery process and collect every side of the story. That's literally what's happening right now. If I see any proof that Jessa's claims are true, then I will go back and update the Drivesavers video and we would probably also end up addressing it on the WAN Show.

 

I realize you want a quick/easy answer, but that's not how this process works.

 

Jessa has had my email requesting evidence that Drivesavers' claims are false for a couple of days now and I haven't heard back. That doesn't necessarily mean she doesn't have any - she's a business owner with a lot of stuff on her plate and I'm sure she's very busy - but it does mean that I can't take a side on this yet.

 

 

That’s exactly why I think it’s problematic. You can’t know every detail, fact and historical aspect of a sponsor.

 

Therefore, why make a blanket claim that everything in those sponsored videos is something you stand behind and is accurate when you really (understandably) don’t have any way to verify all of it?

[LinusTech]

1 hour ago, Vitamanic said:

That’s exactly why I think it’s problematic. You can’t know every detail, fact and historical aspect of a sponsor.

 

Therefore, why make a blanket claim that everything in those sponsored videos is something you stand behind and is accurate when you really (understandably) don’t have any way to verify all of it?

Ahhh I think you've misunderstood. The FTC guidelines specify that any opinion I offer in a sponsored piece of content has to be consistent with my opinion if it was not sponsored.

 

So I can't say "this monitor is pretty sweet" if I actually think it's hairy-balls.