I originally posted this on lemmy.world, but then the instance went down again so fuck it, moving my c/videos subscription to here and restarting this post
Watched the whole thing. Many of the criticisms are valid and rightfully called out. However some of them really feel like it’s stretching and reaching beyond that. Of course they’re competitors now so it could be hard to truly remain objective.
Curious what other people thought of it.
There are a few of them and I’d have to go through to really narrow it down mostly just “tone” of it if that makes sense.
One that did stand out to me though was how Linus had very different results compared to other reviewers on I think it was an amd result however Steve said he shouldn’t even consider other reviewers results and should have published his without mentioning that. I disagree. I think it’s fair to point out that you got wildly different results.
Another thing was how he felt that putting annotations on the video when they vocally say something isn’t a good enough correction since people could be listening to only audio. I don’t really think that’s the case when the comparisons they’d be showing are going to be graphs. I think people actually viewing would be looking visually for it and would definitely see those.
Except the whole point of the annotation complaint was the fact that it further proved that they’re pushing content out too fast. Instead of doing another take or at least some editing, they just add an asterisk and call it good enough. It’s the big picture that’s the problem, not just this one thing or any one thing individually
I think the annotations are just backing up the claim that the videos are being too rushed- which is definitely true. It’s a video of a guy in front of a green screen, not some off-site video. They could’ve easily reshot the entire thing in an afternoon if they weren’t so rushed. The fact that it wasn’t reshot probably means that the video editors are likely being too tightly managed as well.
On the one hand, I think it’s a bit ridiculous to hold LTT’s feet to the fire over ShortCircuit/Unboxing/Tech Preview type content, and Steve Burke takes himself a little too seriously sometimes.
On the other hand, LTT set themselves up for that criticism by making explicit product recommendations in those unboxing videos, and invoking claims based on “lab testing”. LTT needs to draw a bright line between unboxing content and reviews, and make it super clear that unboxing content is not a review. “I wouldn’t recommend” is not the right language for a tech preview.
And really – letting one of your employees smack-talk the competition in a lab walkthrough? Just cut that part of the video out. LTT waltzed into this with sloppy editing.
How is it ridiculous because like you yourself said they are offering an opinion on the products? And that wasn’t the only point they had, it was just one of many and valid criticism.
And it’s dumb to call that sloppy editing when the narrative they were trying to build was that they’re more trustworthy than other outlets providing same kind of reviews. And that doesn’t seem to be the case.
I would also add that while the whole situation about billet labs is highly deplorable and a huge fuck up by LMG. You should never EVER leave a valuable prototype unnatended into someone else hands unless you’re prepared to lose it. That’s like R&D 101.
