EK Waterblocks: Liquidity shortage and mismanagement

[Bananasplit_00]

I am not really surprised that a company that releases the same product copy and pasted to slightly modify it to fit the latest thing is collapsing tbh. Or at least used too, haven't looked at what they offer for maybe five years or so but I doubt they would change their long standing RND policy of "do nothing lol"

 

I have really disliked everything EK I have ever had except for the soft tubing fittings they discontinued in like 2015. Cost the same or more than products that performed better, build quality was meh at best and everything was fragile as all hell... Oh you screwed the screw in until it was just getting tight? Too bad, have fun with the cracks in the acrylic in a week or so... Mounting the EK Supremacy waterblock is an awful experience

 

I suggest people go buy Watercool products personally, my experience has been way waaaaay better.

[Stahlmann]

Most of their products were mid. The appeal was getting everything you need out of one hand, but most of their competitors offer the same today. I got a full EK kit for my first custom loop to make sure everything was compatible. But during the build, and shortly after the build when I wasn't happy with the results, I realized that most of their products aren't that good when you look at them individually. In the end, the only EK product that stayed in my loop was the fittings and tubing. Blocks, radiators, and fans were all swapped out for better and sometimes cheaper alternatives from Alphacool, HardwareLabs and Noctua respectively.

 

If the products suck, nothing will keep them from going bankrupt in the long run. It's that simple. All these shady business practices are just the icing on the cake.

[wanderingfool2]

17 hours ago, Shah M said:

Last side note, I still don't like that Steve is not getting comment from the subject. His research is solid and his conclusion would stand up to any real scrutiny but comment is always best practice, especially if you want to enter the investigative journalism sphere. I enjoy his content but I want him to be better and follow journalistic best practice. It can only be good for him.

The biggest issue is that if they were to reach out it can allow people to kind of cover up/start making excuses before the article comes out...or in a case where there was already threats of lawsuits against others, they could try legal action to stop/hinder the investigation.

 

Depending how quickly the company can act as well, they could "rectify" a few of the situations and claim they had already paid and thus discrediting GN.

 

If the evidence speaks for itself, then I don't think there is necessarily a reason to reach out especially since it gives the company a head start on spin doctoring the narrative

[Shah M]

11 hours ago, RejZoR said:

I'm not sure what their end game was by setting up US HQ and then treating it like shit. US is as big of a market as EU. Not treating it as equal is just stupid as logistics would be way easier for US market if it was operated directly from US and probably cheaper too in terms of shipping costs for the users over there. It's easier to ship a container of products somewhere than each product from it individually. Cost and capacity wise.

 

Also seeing they had 50 millions € of income and seeing how mismanaged whole thing is, I think Eddy's passion project has grown too big for its own good.

I assume the US branch was set up for Tax reasons. US has been placing some serious import tariffs, so setting up US branch was probably more a bypass than anything else.

[RejZoR]

2 minutes ago, Shah M said:

I assume the US branch was set up for Tax reasons. US has been placing some serious import tariffs, so setting up US branch was probably more a bypass than anything else.

I mean, ok, but why treating it like shit?

[Shah M]

38 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The biggest issue is that if they were to reach out it can allow people to kind of cover up/start making excuses before the article comes out...or in a case where there was already threats of lawsuits against others, they could try legal action to stop/hinder the investigation.

 

Depending how quickly the company can act as well, they could "rectify" a few of the situations and claim they had already paid and thus discrediting GN.

 

If the evidence speaks for itself, then I don't think there is necessarily a reason to reach out especially since it gives the company a head start on spin doctoring the narrative

GN has the timeline, they know when they reached out for comment, so in their own video they could just state this happened after we reached out, in reaction to it. That's then a smoking gun and further evidence for you. If they tried to coverup, That cover up is how huge stories are broken. The fact is evidence rarely speaks for itself, context is everything.

Ton of Youtube based investigative journalists, Hbomberguy etc all reach out for comment. Doesn't effect their content and in most cases allows them to build further in their investigation. Same with mainstream investigative shows like the AJE stuff. You are then able to put their comment and spin in context rather than being caught out by it after you release and needing to be reactionary. Also it's just good practice, it's why every reasoning organization and system allows for an accused the opportunity to make submissions.

[Shah M]

5 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

I mean, ok, but why treating it like shit?

Costs probably, they most likely want to keep US side costs as low as possible to keep profits in the EU. They view US as logistics and assembly, nothing more. Probably rile at the lack of control, viewing it as their business and are resentful for having to open a US branch in the first place. I'm South African and the auto manufacturers based here do this to our local affiliates all the time.

I feel like I'm defending them, don't mean to do that, they are not great people from what we've seen and should be held accountable as much as they can be and must pay their people and contractors. Having said that I view this as a symptom of a larger problem not the cause. 

[ToboRobot]

lots of assumptions by people concerned by journalists ethics

 

lol

"how dare they not reach out for comment.  now on to my speculation without evidence"

[Shah M]

50 minutes ago, ToboRobot said:

lots of assumptions by people concerned by journalists ethics

 

lol

"how dare they not reach out for comment.  now on to my speculation without evidence"

Yeah but I'm a forum poster, not a journalist. That's the point of this place, to talk stuff out and speculate. When you proport to be a journalist, do it right because based on what's given the rest of us speculate and build our opinions. The better and more whole the picture given, the more informed our speculation and conclusions.

[ToboRobot]

4 hours ago, Shah M said:

Yeah but I'm a forum poster, not a journalist. That's the point of this place, to talk stuff out and speculate. When you proport to be a journalist, do it right because based on what's given the rest of us speculate and build our opinions. The better and more whole the picture given, the more informed our speculation and conclusions.

Rules for thee but not for me.

link

If you want to be a leader, be the change you want to see in the world.

 

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, ToboRobot said:

Rules for thee but not for me.

link

If you want to be a leader, be the change you want to see in the world.

 

And why do you think this should apply to a forum member here and why would you think they or anyone here would get a response from EK? Come on, actually be a little logical and sensible here. One is stating they are just a member of the public and the other is claiming to be or do journalism. Of these two which do you think Journalism Code of Ethics should apply to?

 

Yes it absolutely, unequivocally is correct and ethically correct to ask for comment.

 

Quote

While journalists in the United States and European countries have led the formulation and adoption of these standards, such codes can be found in news reporting organizations in most countries with freedom of the press. The written codes and practical standards vary somewhat from country to country and organization to organization, but there is substantial overlap between mainstream publications and societies. The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) launched a global Ethical Journalism Initiative in 2008 aimed at strengthening awareness of these issues within professional bodies. In 2013 the Ethical Journalism Network was founded by former IFJ General Secretary Aidan White. This coalition of international and regional media associations and journalism support groups campaigns for ethics, good governance and self-regulation across all platforms of media.

One of the leading voices in the U.S. on the subject of journalistic standards and ethics is the Society of Professional Journalists. The Preamble to its Code of Ethics states:

 

Quote

[P]ublic enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility.

Not seeking any comment at all is a violation of Journalism Code of Ethics. It just is. If you want to be a journalist and be considered one then these are the standards you strive to abide by.

 

It's no different to saying "you" don't need a fair trial because the evidence speaks for itself.

 

Quote

Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.

https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

Edited April 30 by leadeater

[ToboRobot]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

And why do you think this should apply to a forum member here and why would you think they or anyone here would get a response from EK? Come on, actually be a little logical and sensible here.

 

Yes it absolutely, unequivocally is correct and ethically correct to ask for comment.

 

 

Not seeking any comment at all is a violation of Journalism Code of Ethics. It just is. If you want to be a journalist and be considered one then these are the standards you strive to abide by.

im just pointing out the fact that people are nitpicking journalistic standards for youtubers, and also engaging in speculation without any evidence.

where did you source those quotes from? standards dictate there should be a link.  

"Not seeking any comment at all is a violation of Journalism Code of Ethics. It just is. "
And who made you the person in charge of declaring this a fact?  

it's not hard to express an opinion, but it sounds so much more authoritative if you express it as a fact. 
 

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, ToboRobot said:

im just pointing out the fact that people are nitpicking journalistic standards for youtubers, and also engaging in speculation without any evidence.

Again one is literally claiming to be a and is doing Journalism...

 

Any member is free to speculate as they wish and has no baring on critique over journalistic standards of someone claiming to be or to be doing it.

 

5 minutes ago, ToboRobot said:

And who made you the person in charge of declaring this a fact?  

I am quoting and telling you the standards of the  Society of Professional Journalists. If you don't like it take it up with them. These ARE their standards.

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, ToboRobot said:

where did you source those quotes from? standards dictate there should be a link.  

You mean literally all the URL links in the quote that you didn't click on?

[Avocado Diaboli]

On 4/30/2024 at 2:26 AM, ToboRobot said:

im just pointing out the fact that people are nitpicking journalistic standards for youtubers, and also engaging in speculation without any evidence.

I'm sorry, but are you just a contrarian on principle or is the concept of self-described journalists being held to journalistic standards and random folks on a message board not being held to those standards really that hard for you to get? Because if it's the former, you should really drop this nonsense. GN did admirable work with their coverage. They still fell into the trap of not following diligent journalistic principles all the way through. Both can be true and you pretending that a random forum member needs to ask GN for comment before writing a post is the height of hilarity. You're not pointing out hypocrisy, you're only proving your own ineptitude. After all, it's perfectly ok to not comment on something you clearly have no clue about.

[ToboRobot]

 

On 4/29/2024 at 8:31 PM, leadeater said:

You mean literally all the URL links in the quote that you didn't click on?

timestamps show you edited the post 7 minutes after my comment (to add the link?!)

 

[wanderingfool2]

On 4/29/2024 at 5:16 PM, leadeater said:

Not seeking any comment at all is a violation of Journalism Code of Ethics. It just is. If you want to be a journalist and be considered one then these are the standards you strive to abide by.

 

It's no different to saying "you" don't need a fair trial because the evidence speaks for itself.

I would say it would be more akin to not putting the defendant on the stand to testify if you have enough evidence.

 

Overall, I don't always really feel that they should reach out to comments when something like the threat of lawsuits already is going on.  Asking for comments could actually cause proactive steps to be taken to prevent the piece from coming out/changing the narrative.

 

While not exactly the case, I know of one scenario where an actual journalists website where he was posting articles was taken down by a person in authority over "articles" being written about the authority.  The thing is, the journalist had already won multiple lawsuits filed against him as what he reported contained only facts that were backed up by documents...but that didn't stop the authoritative figure from using lawsuits against the webhost [after the lawsuits against the journalist failed].  This resulted in the webhost terminating the website.  While it's not necessarily akin to this case, EK in the investigation already appeared to have gone the legal route in trying to block people from speaking; so the request for comment could potentially have gotten GamersNexus into trouble [it's a lot easier trying to kill a piece with the threat of a lawsuit than it is to kill one that is already published]

 

As a side note, I see a lot of the code of ethics constantly being breached by journalists all the time.  You quickly realize that most news organizations already omit stories/twist the facts 

[ToboRobot]

11 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

 

 

As a side note, I see a lot of the code of ethics constantly being breached by journalists all the time.  You quickly realize that most news organizations already omit stories/twist the facts 

I find it almost offensive that people will learn some basic fact and then continue to hammer on that principle without context, education, or experience. 

Championing the concept of "reaching out for comment" as a golden virtue, when in fact it it used in journalism as form of attack by having the journalist "reach out" at a time and place that guarantees them them ability to portray the subject in a negative light (eg, the billionaire did not have a comment for the reporter on issues on poverty and fair taxation, implying some sort of avoidance by the billionaire, when in reality the journalist reached out at 3am, 20 minutes before going to print). 

[ToboRobot]

On 4/29/2024 at 8:29 PM, leadeater said:

 

 

I am quoting and telling you the standards of the  Society of Professional Journalists. If you don't like it take it up with them. These ARE their standards.

Those are the standards of one group of professional journalists.  

Why would you apply that standard to YouTubers?  

If I form a Society of Posters and make a bunch of rules, can I then force you to follow my standards as a poster online?  

People get to voluntarily join professional standards organizations.   Random people online don't get to decide the professional standards of people.  

If Gamers Nexus is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists and is breaching their standards, they have a way to deal with that without the youtube comments section gatekeeping journalism.  

[Avocado Diaboli]

47 minutes ago, ToboRobot said:

Those are the standards of one group of professional journalists.  

Why would you apply that standard to YouTubers?  

If I form a Society of Posters and make a bunch of rules, can I then force you to follow my standards as a poster online?  

People get to voluntarily join professional standards organizations.   Random people online don't get to decide the professional standards of people.  

If Gamers Nexus is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists and is breaching their standards, they have a way to deal with that without the youtube comments section gatekeeping journalism.  

What a bunch of whataboutist hogwash. Of course people get to decide if a journalistic publication meets the professional standards they expect from those journalistic publications. You may have lower standards, but that needn't apply to everybody else. Why are you even upset that people try to hold GN to a higher standard? Why do you care if EK could've tried to get ahead of the publication? Nothing of what GN talked about would've been affected, unless of course any of the context EK could've provided would've invalidated the claims made in the video. Basic journalistic integrity should already motivate them to seek clarification from all sides. If EKs response would've been retaliatory or full of bullshit, it's the job of the journalist to report on either of those instances. This isn't about gatekeeping journalism. It's about holding people to the high standards they usually set for themselves and also demand of others. That's the irony and hypocrisy worth pointing out, not whatever false equivalence you were trying to paint when you compared a journalistic outlet to random forum posters online.

[ToboRobot]

4 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

What a bunch of whataboutist hogwash. Of course people get to decide if a journalistic publication meets the professional standards they expect from those journalistic publications. You may have lower standards, but that needn't apply to everybody else. Why are you even upset that people try to hold GN to a higher standard? Why do you care if EK could've tried to get ahead of the publication? Nothing of what GN talked about would've been affected, unless of course any of the context EK could've provided would've invalidated the claims made in the video. Basic journalistic integrity should already motivate them to seek clarification from all sides. If EKs response would've been retaliatory or full of bullshit, it's the job of the journalist to report on either of those instances. This isn't about gatekeeping journalism. It's about holding people to the high standards they usually set for themselves and also demand of others. That's the irony and hypocrisy worth pointing out, not whatever false equivalence you were trying to paint when you compared a journalistic outlet to random forum posters online.

Yes it is.  What a hogwash paragraph to pretend otherwise.
 

[Avocado Diaboli]

2 hours ago, ToboRobot said:

Yes it is.  What a hogwash paragraph to pretend otherwise.

Ah yes, the old "I reject your reality and substitute my own" style of arguing, where you flat out refuse to engage with arguments at face value in favor of pretending that you can divine someone's beliefs and think everybody is arguing from a position of insincerity (possibly because you're projecting). Because arguing in good faith would mean admitting fault. That's also why you can't answer the simple questions I posed. 

[leadeater]

9 hours ago, ToboRobot said:

Why would you apply that standard to YouTubers?  

Because any claims of "Just a YouTube" is simply just not an excuse. Journalism is journalism, if someone wants to try and do it then there are accepted standards for doing this. These standards do apply to YouTubers, they are online media.

 

Just like there is for product review and benchmarking, although these are less formal and less accepted than journalistic standards and ethics.

 

9 hours ago, ToboRobot said:

Those are the standards of one group of professional journalists.  

These are the standards of multiple different journalistic bodies and they, the ethical standards, exist for a reason. 

 

Now none of this arguing over who should it applies to matters without first addressing why they exist in the first place. Why they exist is critically important and it's also why violating them actually matters. It matters not if you join one of these bodies, ethical journalism universally applies to all, members or not. The act of doing it makes it apply.

 

Quote

During the normal course of an assignment a reporter might go about gathering facts and details, conducting interviews, doing research and background checks, taking photos, and recording video and sound in search of justice. Harm limitation deals with the questions of whether everything learned should be reported and, if so, how. This principle of limitation means that some weight needs to be given to the negative consequences of full disclosure, creating a practical and ethical dilemma. The Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics offers the following advice, which is representative of the practical ideas of most professional journalists

 

"Just a YouTuber" is not an excuse of potential harm due to not doing things in a proper ethical way. Unlike the majority of product review and benchmarking reporting on such matters like this can actually effect real people, their jobs, personal life etc. It actually is different from informing people about what is or is not a good product, what products to avoid etc.

 

And at no point did I say Steve should stop doing what he is doing, just change. It is merely a reasoning issue behind why he thinks it's acceptable to not seek comment. The only person who has ever said such a thing is yourself, which I haven't seen anyone here saying Steve shouldn't "do journalism".

 

Absolutely no person, ever, is above critique. 

[leadeater]

10 hours ago, ToboRobot said:

timestamps show you edited the post 7 minutes after my comment (to add the link?!)

I added the direct quote at the end from the SPJ. The quote taken from Wikipedia retained the URL links the entire time. I just felt it more complete for your sake to take it directly from their website as an example. The whole time you could have hovered over any one of the URL links in the quote and seen it was from Wikipedia and followed any one of them to see more information.

 

Wikipedia was chosen originally so you wouldn't argue "its just one body" which you ended up doing. Journalistic standards have existed for a very long for for very good reasons and are not confined to one professional body, one group society, one type or medium of journalism. 

 

Random idiots online don't get to conduct bad journalism and cause real harm and get to wave it off because "Just a YouTuber" or "I'm not a member" etc etc. This is not Steve and I've not implied he's done anything this bad either, excuses are excuses. These excuses don't make valid critiques go away.

 

At the end of the day I just think it's a little pathetic to refuse to reach out for a comment and his reasonings for not doing so twice now aren't good.

 

P.S. I also edited that commend and ticked the box show edit because by default for me my edits won't show as the post being edited, I did that to make sure it was shown as edited. I'm pretty sure I added that part to the bottom of my post before your replied but could quite well have been after you had seen it and were replying since it was not included in your reply comment. I just don't always remember to tick it first go around.

[RejZoR]

4 hours ago, leadeater said:

I added the direct quote at the end from the SPJ. The quote taken from Wikipedia retained the URL links the entire time. I just felt it more complete for your sake to take it directly from their website as an example. The whole time you could have hovered over any one of the URL links in the quote and seen it was from Wikipedia and followed any one of them to see more information.

 

Wikipedia was chosen originally so you wouldn't argue "its just one body" which you ended up doing. Journalistic standards have existed for a very long for for very good reasons and are not confined to one professional body, one group society, one type or medium of journalism. 

 

Random idiots online don't get to conduct bad journalism and cause real harm and get to wave it off because "Just a YouTuber" or "I'm not a member" etc etc. This is not Steve and I've not implied he's done anything this bad either, excuses are excuses. These excuses don't make valid critiques go away.

 

At the end of the day I just think it's a little pathetic to refuse to reach out for a comment and his reasonings for not doing so twice now aren't good.

 

P.S. I also edited that commend and ticked the box show edit because by default for me my edits won't show as the post being edited, I did that to make sure it was shown as edited. I'm pretty sure I added that part to the bottom of my post before your replied but could quite well have been after you had seen it and were replying since it was not included in your reply comment. I just don't always remember to tick it first go around.

Though, with article that creates so much buzz, do you really need to reach out to company in question? Given that EK responded with a founder himself making an apology video, it clearly reached them and they could also give a statement to GamersNexus if they wanted or felt the need.

 

I generally don't see anything wrong with GN pieces. Those were their findings that were supported by several others who partnered with EK or were even directly employed at EK. I think they did a pretty thorough job.