this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2024
293 points (89.1% liked)

Technology

60106 readers
2124 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

My take on this is no they don't. As long as they are truthful they only report on the quality of the product and prevent many people of spending a lot of money from losing it by buying something that doesn't work.

If your product is shit your company does not deserve to be shielded from the backlash, this is the core of (classic) capitalism after all.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] avater@lemmy.world 167 points 8 months ago (14 children)

who gives a fuck about companies?

[–] Arbiter@lemmy.world 73 points 8 months ago (1 children)

People whose entire personality is what stocks they follow.

[–] Norgur@fedia.io 22 points 8 months ago

To the moon, bro!

[–] jeena@jemmy.jeena.net 37 points 8 months ago

I work for one and hope it goes well enougs so I can get my money for the work I'm doing.

[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago

Maybe the people who lose their job when they go under. That being said we shouldn’t prop up a bad business just because people might lose their livelihood

[–] cmgvd3lw@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Companies also include small genuinely good startups and a dishonest negative review could ruin them.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 94 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The reviewer should be truthful and fair. If that means trashing a shitty product then that's how it should be. Not calling out shitty products hurts the consumer and means the reviewer is doing a bad job.

[–] abhibeckert@lemmy.world 49 points 8 months ago

He didn't even trash the product — he just accurately described it.

[–] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 85 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (5 children)

For anyone wondering, this is a response to a review Marques posted about Humane’s AI pin, which he called the worst product he’s ever reviewed. A member of the company complained he was going to kill their business:

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/marques-brownlees-humane-ai-pin-review

[–] then_three_more@lemmy.world 61 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Its a joke to think a single reviewer could hold that much power. Fact is, multiple reviewers are in agreement that it's shit.

[–] VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works 32 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, especially when it's a total nothing product 'we removed the useful bits of a phone and charge a big subscription for the free tool most people disable or ignore'

I feel like no one even needed a review to know this is trash

[–] tigerjerusalem@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

If that thing was a lightweight, cheap companion to a cellphone with a decent camera I could maybe consider buying it, because I do like some concepts like dealing with single tasks like adding an item to a todo list, playing a song, checking out a qr code or grabbing a video while I'm riding.

The way it is now it's a grandiose piece of crap, too expensive for its own good.

[–] jeena@jemmy.jeena.net 29 points 8 months ago

Oh it was a member of the company? That's embarrassing.

[–] JimboDHimbo@lemmy.ca 6 points 8 months ago

Lmfao I had a feeling it was about humane. Marques' criticisms were valid af, as usual.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] LiveLM@lemmy.zip 75 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

What are we supposed to do? Give bad products good reviews so the poor little million dollar startup doesn't get its feelings hurt?

If we were talking about dishonest, malicious reviews, I'd understand.
That's not the case here though, not only is Marques' review honest, multiple reviewers reached the same conclusion as him.

Maybe try making a good product next time.

[–] 42yeah@lemm.ee 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Is this about the Humane thing?

[–] FinishingDutch@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

In his video, he mentions the Humane review - but also the Fisker car review which was equally scathing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Eyedust@lemmy.world 57 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Absolutely. LinusTechTips had to issue a formal apology for dumb stuff someone had said about another reviewer, but in the unveiling of all their shit, it was revealed that they had mis-reviewed a gaming mouse.

The mouse was in prototype stages, and the LTT member that reviewed it did not take the plastic off the gliders and said that the mouse was horrible and dragged a lot. The company then floundered and had to sell the prototype and rights at auction at the next CES.

The worst part is that they assumed that a competent reviewer had the fucking common-ass sense to remove the plastic that... you know... comes on almost every gaming mouse, so they didn't even dispute the issue.

[–] ours@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago

Ah LTT, the "go fast and break things" of the tech review world.

[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 45 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I'm legitimately shocked there are people defending the garbage Humane AI Pin, which leads me to think a lot of the criticism levied at MKBHD is made up by a PR firm working for the company. I already hated the god damn thing because it gave you hallucinations on demand. But watching his review and The Verge's review, its an overpriced gimmick that has a camera on all the time, and does nothing a smartphone can't already do. They didn't ask for bad reviews, they made a godawful MV--sorry, shitty product. Now they're gonna reap the whirlwind.

A smartphone is just better in every way imaginable. I also don't have my phone hallucinating all the time either, so I have that going for me.

I'm also gonna say the obvious quiet part out loud: He's black and they're targeting him first. Not The Verge, not Engadget, him.

[–] Codilingus@sh.itjust.works 10 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I'd think a bigger difference is he's a single YouTuber, the Verge and Engadget are actual companies with $ and man power.

[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 9 points 8 months ago

No, he's mentioned he has a team. He may be the final say on a product, but there's people under him shaping what he gets.

I respect MKB for the hustle and his success, but he's not a one man band.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FinishingDutch@lemmy.world 44 points 8 months ago (2 children)

No single bad review ever killed a product. Because we all know that some things are just a matter of opinion, user error, etc. Opinions are like assholes: everyone’s got one. If I’m interested, I’ll read several positive and negative opinions.

But if your product is bad enough to warrant several bad reviews, that’s on you. Should’ve done better research, should’ve made a better product.

[–] abhibeckert@lemmy.world 20 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This video clearly wasn't "opinion" or "user error".

He put in heaps of work and throughly documented an extensive list of major problems, many of them are individually bad enough to sink the product. Put them all together... ouch.

On the other hand, he did have some positive things to say. There's scope here for this to be a good product. They just didn't make it happen. I think where they went wrong was creating a standalone device. It should be an accessory to a phone — similar to a pair of ear buds. You don't put an entire operating system, cellular connection, screen, voice assistant, etc in an ear bud. You put all of that on the phone and link the two with bluetooth.

[–] FinishingDutch@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

He does excellent reviews and stuff in general.

I actually watched it before the ‘controversy’ and I think it certainly was a fair assessment. He clearly states the goal of the product and where it falls short. None of his criticism seems unreasonable.

Clearly, it’s trying to be an always-online communication, assistant and logging badge. Like a Star Trek commbadge on steroids. In theory, that’s a product that I’m very interested in. But when features are structurally unsound or actively annoying to use, well, I’m going to stick with the phone I’ve got.

Ironically, his ‘bad review’ got me interested to see what a version 2 will be like. Assuming they make it that far.

[–] Jakdracula@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

Well,  Ralph Nader certainly was the catalist and voice that spelled the end of the Corvair and Pinto many years ago.

[–] FireTower@lemmy.world 39 points 8 months ago (1 children)

A plurality of negative reviews kill those companies that make bad products. And that's a good thing. Wheat from the proverbial chaff as it were.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PhAzE@lemmy.ca 26 points 8 months ago (4 children)

It's not bad reviews that kill companies, it's bad products.

[–] ours@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

@Eyedust@lemmy.world has an example of a bad review killing a potentially good product.

"Bad review" as wrong review.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 23 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Ackchyually

This is the core of markets and markets have existed long before capitalism.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

Sssssshhhhhh! You're scaring the Americans!

[–] invisiblegorilla@sh.itjust.works 22 points 8 months ago

Good. Make better products and support them after you made them.

If your company sounds scammy and you say it can do things it can't, I hope your company burns before you burn customers who believed your lies

[–] dinckelman@lemmy.world 18 points 8 months ago

The baseline of this entire discussion is that not all companies deserve to survive. You make a good product - you grow. You don't make a good product - you adjust for the losses. There are no participation trophies there. Worst case scenario, someone will pick up on the same idea, and turn it into something actually good later on

[–] TheFeatureCreature@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago

I looked up what it would cost for me to buy one of these and run it daily.

After conversions and shipping, it would be $1100 to get one in my hands. It would be $50-60/month (Pin sub + data phone plan) to make it functional. And when the company inevitably folds in 1 to 2 years (or any of the companies they use for processing), the entire thing will turn into e-waste. It has literally zero on-device processing or functionality nor can it piggyback off your phone. It will turn into a paperweight.

This thing is a scam.

[–] ajoebyanyothername@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago

Reviewers aren't (or really shouldn't be) beholden to companies, the whole point of a review is to give an opinion on a product, and the less input into that the company has the happier I will be. At the same time, some reviewers do hold a lot of sway, and can strongly influence people's opinions with their reviews, so there might be an argument that a negative review can impact sales. However, so what? If the reviewer is bringing up their concerns or issues with a product, that is the whole point of what they do, and their viewers will want to hear about those things (working on the assumption that people will tend to watch reviewers they think align with their own views), and would be pretty upset if they weren't warned about the downsides prior to purchasing.

[–] knotthatone@lemmy.one 13 points 8 months ago

Reviewer opinions on both Humane and Fisker are pretty consistently negative so this isn't some mean YouTuber with an axe to grind situation.

The products are bad and people shouldn't waste their hard earned money and time on them. Venture Capital firms may lose money, but that comes with the territory. Not every venture is a win.

[–] Juice88@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago

“Git gud companies” -MKBHD

[–] doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 8 months ago

As long as they are truthful they only report on the quality of the product and prevent many people of spending a lot of money from losing it by buying something that doesn't work.

Well, yeah sure. The problem is whether or not that's actually what's happening in any given circumstance. Most reviewers I've seen are more than happy to include personal opinion, and some will exagerrate points for the sake of getting views.

Things get even more fraught when the reviewer is a bigger company than the company whose product is being reviewed. For example the debacle with Linus Tech Tips and Billet labs that they were dragged for. That's the kind of coverage that absolutely can sink a company that seemingly only ever did exactly what they said they would.

Reviews are good if they present the important facts and generally act with integrity, but sometimes that's a really big 'if'.

[–] Th4tGuyII@kbin.social 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I feel like in most cases if a product has such bad reviews that it kills the company that made it, there's a good reason for that.

Of course there are exceptions, and it is expected that a reviewer do their due diligence to make sure they're giving an honest, accurate, and reasonable review, but no company should be shielded for being told their product isn't good if it isn't.

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 12 points 8 months ago (4 children)

I gave a keyboard wrist rest a 3 star review because the pad is this weird shape that gets narrower in the middle. From the images on Amazon, it looked like it was more or less rectangular. Rounded ends but with a consistent width throughout. The seller started harassing me to change my review to 5 stars. I reported them to Amazon. The emails from the seller stopped, I haven't bought something from Amazon since.

Sellers that demand or worse make up 5-star reviews are the ones who sell shitgarbage products and need to go out of business. Seeing 6 5-star reviews that all say "Great product! Would purchase again!" pretty much means the product will give you glans cancer and the doctors are going to have to cut off all the nerves that make it possible to orgasm.

I want to see a product get negative reviews by idiots. That's how you know the product is good and the source is genuine.

Give an example: I bought a little inverter that works with my power tool batteries. It can deliver 110V60Hz AC at 150W from a drill battery, plus it has USB ports. I've run a desk lamp from this during a power failure, or charged my cell phone. Works fine. I knew it was legit when I read people's reviews saying "Doesn't run my hair dryer. 0/10." Because there's plenty of idiots in the world who don't know how electricity works.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Deralax@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 8 months ago

He makes a pretty good point near the end of the video where he claims that reviews are only a catalyst, and only speed up whatever trajectory the company is already on. Assuming that the reviews are honest and objective I agree with this point 100%.

Ultimately the quality of the product or service on offer steer the ship, the reviews are just the wind.

[–] Veraxus@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago

Bad products lead to bad reviews, bad word of mouth, and bad reputation… which can - and does - kill companies.

But the first thing has to be true for the others to follow.

[–] cmgvd3lw@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Entities like LTT have a very large audience and the opinion they put forward tends to influence a large crowd. Dishonest reviews about an emerging startup could ruin their customer basis.

[–] Damage@slrpnk.net 13 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Well, this is MKBHD who has an even larger audience

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jeeva@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

Or, to use your example, reviews that don't understand the product or play it for laughs. 😅

[–] CubitOom@infosec.pub 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

In today's market, the perception or even the profitability of a product means nothing. All that actually matters is growth.

For a publicly traded company, or even one that just uses venture capital to start up; the product isn't the thing that they might sell to consumers, it's their brand. This is what gives them more capital to continue running the company and ultimately to profit.

This means that a company no longer needs to make good products, they don't need to keep customers happy, they don't even need to be profitable. All they need is to show growth opportunities to potential investors.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ArugulaZ@kbin.social 8 points 8 months ago

I was saying this over on YouTube... it's his responsibility to report tech developments accurately and responsibly, because today's tech developments are tomorrow's history. Future nerds need to know the score! Scooty-Puff Junior suuuuuuuucks!

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 8 points 8 months ago

Shitty products get shittier reviews. One bad review, even if it is by a big influencer is not going to kill a company. If a company has all of their eggs in one shit filled basket, reviewers are going to point out the shit and the company is not going to sell its eggs.

load more comments
view more: next ›