Skip Navigation

You're viewing a single thread.

199 comments

  • Any brave soul willing to recap the whole story in few line?? How exactly did they screw up so much they neet to post this apology/non-apology video??

    • Seems like kind of a straw that broke the camel's back situation.

      A company sent them a one-of-a-kind prototype cooling device and the video card it was designed for to have it reviewed or whatever. The reviewer misplaced the GPU but was under deadline to produce their video, so they used a different video card, and the cooler (as should be expected) didn't function well, but they posted the negative review anyway. After the fuckup was pointed out, they put a very easy to miss "correction" on the video. People caught on that this happens alot, and started to question the value of the content, given so many mistakes and easily missed corrections. This also extended to people questioning the bias of their reviews on products related to companies they have partnerships with or competing brands.

      Additionally, despite being asked to return the device and agreeing to do so, they later sold it at a charity auction. This measurably harmed the creator and it is unknown who purchased it (people speculate it was a competitor), apparently some compensation was worked out however.

      Last I've seen, the former social media manager posted a pretty scathing recounting of time at the company. It included alot of events that indicate this was a predatory and hostile work environment, including sexual harassment.

      • Thank you and... WoW!

      • This measurably harmed the creator and it is unknown who purchased it (people speculate it was a competitor), apparently some compensation was worked out however.

        Last I heard from Billet via GN was that they didn't get the offer regarding compensation until the same time Linus posted his first written response, so way late. At that point they hadn't agreed to anything. So a play of semantics for Linus?

      • Some small corrections here (as I understand them):

        In the video, they actually mentioned that Billet's device was intended for a 3090, but "they (Billet Labs) think it should work with a 4090 too." Unsure if anyone from Billet ever commented on that, but that seemed to be LMG's understanding.

        Additionally, the device was sent to LMG without an expectation of return. They asked for it back after the poor review, but when it was originally sent over, there were no strings attached.

        They did find who the device was sold to, and it was just a random person at LTX (LMG's tech expo), not a competitor. Sounds like they auctioned off a lot of random stuff from videos there, and it was likely mismanagement rather than malice that caused them to sell it.

        The Madison situation is obviously shitty, but I think there's a big distinction between her experiences involving sexual harassment and the "grind mindset" culture that LMG seems to have. Both are problems, but one is obviously larger than the other. I believe the new CEO stated they're going to bring in external investigators regarding the sexual harassment claims.

        When it comes to them rushing things to keep up an unreasonable video schedule, I think that's a valid criticism, but in no way do I feel like it's some kind of line in the sand that can't ever be forgiven. I also think that GN probably should have asked for comment before releasing this kind of criticism against arguably their largest competitor.

        • Billet Labs sent them a 3090ti to test with and LMG lost it before they filmed the review. They comment on the GPU being wrong in the video. .

          BL also commented on the video explaining why it would perform poorly with the 4090.

          Someone at LMG agreed to send it back before they sold it at auction. Then that didn't happen and there was no apology or attempt to make it right until the GN video came out.

          They always knew it was being tested wrong.

        • I also think that GN probably should have asked for comment before releasing this kind of criticism against arguably their largest competitor.

          GN commented on that very criticism on his response.

          • Not defending LMG's mistakes, but GN's opinion that you should not ask for comment doesn't hold water.

            GN definitely has an agenda here. He made several comments that made it quite clear he's resentful of LTT's success.

            While I don't think anything he reported is false, it's all wrapped in a narrative that relies on implications. He certainly makes a whole lot of hay about a few small mistakes and heavily implies LTT is in the pockets of their sponsors and a conspiracy theory that LTT is only successful because of some connections and preferred treatment by YouTube.

            He's very much trying to establish a narrative that LMG is wildly corrupt and undeserving of their success. However, a lot of it comes across as sour grapes.

        • This doesn't completely match what GN reported or what GN said Billet told them.

          In the video, they actually mentioned that Billet's device was intended for a 3090, but "they (Billet Labs) think it should work with a 4090 too."

          According GN Billet said that they told ltt that it might work for the other card but that it wasn't tested.

          Additionally, the device was sent to LMG without an expectation of return. They asked for it back after the poor review, but when it was originally sent over, there were no strings attached.

          This I haven't heard before but I do find that highly unlikely. Most companies aren't willing to permanently part with a prototype considering how expensive they tend to be, trade secrets and the low number they have. Billet labs are apparently a two person start up making it even more unlikely.

          and it was likely mismanagement rather than malice that caused them to sell it.

          I don't think personally that it was a question of malice as such but most of the criticism from GN was based on LTT being mismanaged where speed was more important than being correct. So still not a good look for them.

          I also think that GN probably should have asked for comment before releasing this kind of criticism against arguably their largest competitor.

          GN responded to this in a follow-up. I think they said something along the lines that they don't do it for other companies either. I'm personally a bit divided. Most of the information presented was factual and not of the nature "he said she said" with the exception of the Billet question. The size difference (especially when in similar scenes) could also be seen as a reason not to reach out so that the story isn't buried by the larger companies reach and resources.

          Important considerations, especially considering Linus first response where I felt he played around with semantics a lot. What I like about GN is that they always seem to back things up with references.

199 comments