Gamers Nexus alleges LMG has insufficient ethics and integrity

[J_C___]

Can't wait for this weeks WAN show

[ice_hiboy]

1 minute ago, schitzkrieg said:

If Steve just wanted to "help", he would have chosen a more private setting to tell these things to Linus/someone at LMG.

I dont think there is any bad blood or anything but Steve was not a LTX so maybe not on the best of terms?

[jkh_]

I do agree that LMG is skewing too far on the quantity > quality side. It's clear that they one-take things too often, and the pace is self-imposed as Steve mentioned. That said, were I Steve I would have at least attempted to bring this to Linus privately. His concerns are valid, but I'm not sure I buy the "I'm not doing this for drama" pitch. This is absolutely drama, whether you monetized the video or not. I believe Steve sees an existential threat to his business in LMG Labs and wants to publicly hurt its credibility. I guess I just think there is a more professional way this could have been approached. If Steve took it to Linus and Linus reacted negatively or unprofessionally, then you can release a video and preface it with the fact that you tried to resolve this privately first.

[Ultraforce]

2 minutes ago, manikyath said:

steve ripping on the framework investment being conflict of interest for doing laptop reviews.. is also just unnecessary. linus is aware of the potential conflict of interest, it has been brought up to the community at the time of him considering it, and is mentioned in each laptop review he hosts.

I might be wrong but I feel only about 50% of laptop related or focused videos that Linus appears in he actually mentions the Framework investment. He was a bit better initially but also it's not just formal reviews that should be considered but also when talking about specific laptops I think it could be argued the responsible thing to do is "at the very least" if Linus is in the video have a disclaimer about framework. Though I personally agree with the point that had been made a few times in comments for Short Circuit videos and I think Alex even took the initiative to do once where it's mentioning "Just so you know the primary shareholder of this company is invested in framework."

[flamingunity]

35 minutes ago, Dominik W said:

For the large majority, GN is correct. The thing that sticks out to me has been the extremely large increase in * corrections. * this and * that. They need to let their foot off the gas a little. They're moving too fast and breaking things too quickly, catch my drift?

 

However, in my personal opinion, part of the video, in regard to sponsorship, seemed a bit more personally driven, rather than fact-based. But besides that, LTT needs to ensure accurate data. I will 100% back that. 

 

Hopefully, Linus and LTT will take a moment to reflect before rushing to any statements or any off-handed remarks on the WAN show on Friday. 

But then what's the point in doing your own testing if the testing isnt going to be accurate then why don't they just use Nvidias testing results and claim that their right

[J_C___]

I agree if LTT wants to position Labs as a factual database to guide for consumers they NEED to establish their reviewing/correcting guidelines. We all know the YouTube algorithm is unforgiving and that they intend to implement some sort of "bug bounty" programs for their videos and seems like that can't come soon enough. I'm rooting for them and appreciate how they're being held accountable.

[Alexeygridnev1993]

1 minute ago, jkh_ said:

I do agree that LMG is skewing too far on the quantity > quality side. It's clear that they one-take things too often, and the pace is self-imposed as Steve mentioned. That said, were I Steve I would have at least attempted to bring this to Linus privately. His concerns are valid, but I'm not sure I buy the "I'm not doing this for drama" pitch. This is absolutely drama, whether you monetized the video or not. I believe Steve sees an existential threat to his business in LMG Labs and wants to publicly hurt its credibility. I guess I just think there is a more professional way this could have been approached. If Steve took it to Linus and Linus reacted negatively or unprofessionally, then you can release a video and preface it with the fact that you tried to resolve this privately first.

If you want to say something negative about Apple or Microsoft, you do it publicly in a review, not try to privately call Tim Cook or Satya Nadella to tell them about your concerns. Why LMG should be treated any differently? They are a big corporation with big profits and a big impact on the industry, not a bunch of goofy YouTubers making silly videos

[rockyroller]

if the cap fits, and you don't like the style, you change the cap don't you

[manikyath]

Just now, Ultraforce said:

I might be wrong but I feel only about 50% of laptop related or focused videos that Linus appears in he actually mentions the Framework investment. He was a bit better initially but also it's not just formal reviews that should be considered but also when talking about specific laptops I think it could be argued the responsible thing to do is "at the very least" if Linus is in the video have a disclaimer about framework. Though I personally agree with the point that had been made a few times in comments for Short Circuit videos and I think Alex even took the initiative to do once where it's mentioning "Just so you know the primary shareholder of this company is invested in framework."

i dont actually pay attention to it, because i'm aware of the ties.. but i do agree with you.

 

but having that said - does it actually matter? we know linus's intentions with the framework investment. i feel like it would be safe to assume it doesnt further impact the judgement of the writers actually preparing the entire damn review that linus has a personal financial investment into his opinion that laptops should have replacement parts.

[Levent]

Just now, rockyroller said:

if the cap fits, and you don't like the style, you change the cap don't you

I also like shit examples.

[Forbidden Wafer]

11 minutes ago, schitzkrieg said:

If Steve just wanted to "help", he would have chosen a more private setting to tell these things to Linus/someone at LMG.

 

Edit: Not that I don't agree with a lot said here. Could have been handled better I guess. 

Even the employees and Luke have publicly said things should be properly tested/they should focus more on quality than numbers.

a.k.a. it is a well known problem and Linus won't budge.

 

The prototype auction is the cherry on top. Criminal stuff.

[flamingunity]

If Linus or the CEO doesn't respond to these claims and show that their trying to do better. Then I will lose all faith of lmg and the subchannels of technical reviews or the legitimacy of any of their claims

[Jazmodo]

This was overly dramatic & sensationalist, and isn't the first time by GamersNexus either.

I think the underlying growth of LMG upsets GN. Moving more into more detailed hardware tests directly competes with GN, and they clearly don't like it.

GN also seem to feel LMG 'copied' some of their merchandise sales. LTT deskpads came out after GNs Modmats. LTT screwdriver came out after GN screwdrivers. 

LMG content is fast, and loose, sometimes inaccurate, but (almost) always entertaining. Some criticism is valid, this just seemed overly salty.

[Alexeygridnev1993]

I noticed a long time ago that the quality of LTT content went down during the past few years. Less creative, more repetitive, more commerical, more "trying to pull the video out of your butt" (in Linus' own words). And now it turns out that it is also getting more and more factually inaccurate (which is completely counterintuitive given that LMG staff is constantly growing, so, there should be more pairs of eyes to catch the errors). I understand it is hard to be creative to release videos on a daily basis but they somehow managed it much better 5 years ago while having several times less employees and resources.

[manikyath]

2 minutes ago, Forbidden Wafer said:

Even the employees and Luke have publicly said things should be properly tested/they should focus more on quality than numbers.

a.k.a. it is a well known problem and Linus won't budge.

did you miss that linus himself said that he would prefer more time to make content in the "lmg employees speak" video? actually.. bonus point to steve here for actually including that.

[YoungBlade]

6 minutes ago, Cavalry Canuck said:

GN isn’t wrong. But, I feel this is a scenario where the pot is calling the kettle black, and it won’t end well for anyone involved.
 

The example I will lean on is GN’s modmat error, where they had mislabeled pins on their diagrams. I don’t recall if there was a money back option or not. What I do recall is that the one “fix” amounted to little more than a decal. There was no product-replacement option. Sure, it may make the current customer happy, but the mislabeled mats are still out there. At some point down the road someone may look at the mat from GN, a reputable source, and break something.
 

Now, compare that to GNs expectations of LMG over the backpack issue (what was it, carabiner issue?). While GN’s response to their own problems were acceptable (particularly given the costs to fix the error properly for an organization of their size), they weren’t ideal. They certainly didn’t meet the same standard they were holding LMG to.

 

This feels like more of the same. LMG certainly isn’t innocent here, far from it. But this comes across as an excuse to throw shade at the competitor, rather than an honest attempt to address an issue. Steve’s not wrong, but his motivations seem disingenuous. 
 

In for the intervention content, though. Would be something to see everyone in the tech community list their grievances with Linus, have him atone for them (or rebuff them), and we go from there with whatever the outcoming is. Nothing good will come from the high-profile tech creator feud that this could easily devolve into.

GN did actually offer returns, even after months, to anyone affected.

 

Here's GN's response to that issue - I started the video where they explain the situation.

1. They immediately marked the mat as "Out of Stock" so that no on else would buy them.

2. They attempted to find a means to fix the issue by correcting the mats and failed to find one.

3. They created pinout cards to send to affected customers, which include not only the correction, but additional pinout info. They also made metal pins featuring the corrected pinout. Anyone affected was sent an email where they could get a kit featuring these. Anyone who didn't want a kit was allowed to return the mod mat for a refund instead.

4. They did then decide to sell the remaining mod mats, however, with the full correction kit, and with complete transparency on their website about what you were getting.

[Drone971]

I made account here just to tell you how EXTREMLY angered i am by all of this. If only 10% of what GN claims is correct (and i presume most of it if not all actually is) this will be one of the biggest f-ups in the industry. I will wait for wanshow and if linus does not explains 90% of this stuff i am unsubscribing. I am  angered beyond belive. This is just insulting

[Skiiwee29]

@manikyath @coonwhiz @hassam222 

 

Optically I do agree it is a bad look, but by law it's perfectly legal since they didn't use corporate funds to invest with and doesn't present a legal conflict of interest. This is also why they do disclose, something they're not obligated to do, at some point in any laptop review that Linus is an investor for transparency. 

[Captain Chunck]

28 minutes ago, Skiiwee29 said:

Just for clarity and clarification, it is Linus's personal money invested in framework, not LTT or LMG. 

I dont think anyone has I problem with this investment to be honest he literally asked us before hand and has explained this arrangement pretty well to everyone 

[Lurick]

"We can't spend a few hundred bucks to make sure we're not irreparably damage a companies reputation"

Seriously? To make 100% sure before you fuck over a startup you can't spend an hour or two to double check your results?

And then you SOLD the block at an auction causing them to be stalled as they no longer have their best prototype! What the absolute fuck????

[hassam222]

4 minutes ago, Skiiwee29 said:

@manikyath @coonwhiz @hassam222 

 

Optically I do agree it is a bad look, but by law it's perfectly legal since they didn't use corporate funds to invest with and doesn't present a legal conflict of interest. This is also why they do disclose, something they're not obligated to do, at some point in any laptop review that Linus is an investor for transparency. 

I don't actually have any problem with the Framework investment and do like Linus supported something that champions repairablity. I was simpling pointing out that the distinction of if it's Linus's or LMG's money is irrelevant to the average viewer. 

[Skiiwee29]

Just now, Captain Chunck said:

I dont think anyone has I problem with this investment to be honest he literally asked us before hand and has explained this arrangement pretty well to everyone 

Some do. It is bad from a public standpoint looking in to know he has financial gains to be had if a competitor laptop say from HP or Dell were bad and compared it against a framework and drive sales to framework. He has a time or 2 used the framework if memory is correct as the "control" laptop to test against. 

[Alexeygridnev1993]

4 minutes ago, Skiiwee29 said:

@manikyath @coonwhiz @hassam222 

 

Optically I do agree it is a bad look, but by law it's perfectly legal since they didn't use corporate funds to invest with and doesn't present a legal conflict of interest. This is also why they do disclose, something they're not obligated to do, at some point in any laptop review that Linus is an investor for transparency. 

"Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility". Ambrose Bierce, The Unabridged Devil's Dictionary

[NorKris]

holy crap is this bad .. dammmn 

[Ultraforce]

3 minutes ago, manikyath said:

i dont actually pay attention to it, because i'm aware of the ties.. but i do agree with you.

 

but having that said - does it actually matter? we know linus's intentions with the framework investment. i feel like it would be safe to assume it doesnt further impact the judgement of the writers actually preparing the entire damn review that linus has a personal financial investment into his opinion that laptops should have replacement parts.

Different people can have differing opinions though I would argue that yes. It does matter, if the content produced by Linus Media Group is designed to help guide purchasing practices I think that the least that can be done is stating that the primary shareholder is invested in a company that has a product in that field. Even if that shareholder's intention with the investment was to lose money to omit that I think isn't great. Since relying on assumption of not impacting peoples judgement is really not a great idea for a business to do.

I might trust Alex to be honest about his taste in laptops. At the same time I could say that it would be easier to trust him if he purchased all the laptops for review rather than was an employee of a company that is regularly sponsored by laptop manufacturers and was given the laptops by the companies, as well as the owner and one of the C suite executives has shares in a laptop company.

Personally and I understand that Linus responded to people asking and said why he couldn't but I still hold the position that it would have been better if Linus had donated the money to Framework instead of becoming an investor.