While I'm one to frequently laugh and dismiss "nerd drama", GN has some pretty valid points, considering how much reach and influence they have on the PC market, candidly dismissing it as "online drama" seems a bit hand wavy.
The follow up from GN [1] was interesting as well... ironically many of the techniques Linus used in his response are taught in PR and crisis communications, telling me that they didn't really care or understand the scope of the issue.
A smaller channel posted a detailed critique of LMG's output. Linus was an ass about it. Essentially the entire company including his new CEO called him in over it. This is the result: a video talking about what happened, how it happened, and how they plan to fix it.
LMG/LTT has a systemic culture of quantity over quality in video production that led to significant factual errors in video production being the norm rather than the exception, and corrections to factual errors weren't handled appropriately. There was also unethical conduct around a prototype they received from a company called Billet: exactly how unethical is unclear right now, some elements may have been negligence rather than malice. While this was happening, an employee of theirs stated during a tour of their new "LTT Labs" facility that their videos and testing were going to be/were better than the testing of channels like Hardware Unboxed and Gamers Nexus, for reasons that were not true. They called out these other channels by name and essentially said their rigour in testing wasn't as good as LTT. I want to be clear, this was a small video and the comment was made by an employee (albeit a senior employee) during a tour, this probably wasn't big higher-ups intentionally starting drama. Hardware Unboxed were offended and wrote online about both the claim being factually incorrect and also that this was an unprofessional way to act. Linus responded on their WAN show by essentially stating that while he wasn't 100% on board with the way everything happened, he essentially supported the comments as true. At this point Gamers Nexus published a 45 minute video detailing not only exactly how and in what way the comments were not true, but also doing an expose on the general very poor quality of LTT/LMG fact checking and information, including really serious informational errors that ended up likely changing the outcome of a review. This expose is where the information at the start of this comment is from, and the majority of the expose is just a technically proficient analysis of the publicly available, incorrect material that LTT/LMG have published and continued to publish throughout. Linus's response to this video was bad and emotional by his own admission, and included more untrue statements (and really memeable silliness, like saying "we didn't sell it, we auctioned it off", even though Gamers Nexus had specifically noted that the item they weren't permitted to sell or auction off had been auctioned off).
The video linked in OP is essentially the rest of LMG that isn't Linus saying basically the right things about the whole affair. Specifically, they claim they will address the near-proximate cause of the factual errors (too much time pressure due to their self-imposed video release schedule), that they will improve inter-departmental communication both to enable fact checking that prevents meaningfully false information from being released and to prevent things like selling a small companies best-in-production prototype without permission. Both the CEO and CFO committed to a lessened video release schedule and a minimum one week off posting, which is significant as it's the channels first time in eleven years that they won't be posting a video every day. Linus does appear in the video towards the end and is, in my opinion, the worst appearance in the video by far as his manner suggests that he really doesn't understand what he's done wrong about at least some of these things, even if he does seem to understand others. Luke also appears and is very apologetic, which feels weird to me as my main exposure to him as someone who is a casual watcher of LTT/LMG is that he is constantly trying to prevent Linus from saying or doing really, really dumb things on the WAN show - maybe he actually has more responsibility for some of these errors behind the scenes, or maybe he has generally higher integrity which caused both the apology from him and him to try and stop Linus from making significant mistakes publicly; I don't know.
Fantastic summary and for those reading it who want a little additional social confirmation , I feel this summary is accurate.
The part about Linus appearance in the ‘what do we do now?’ video is on point too.
I would add that the general tone of the video is appropriate, but as LTT is wont to do, they contaminate their sincerity with repeated product placement, ‘in jokes’ and humour. The very root of this ‘drama’ appears to be LTT’s lack of understanding of their serious and influential position in the space they occupy. This video serves or additional evidence of that lack of understanding, but at least a desire to improve.
I watched all of these. I usually skip over the drama, but I think what LMG is doing with their Labs setup is pretty cool, so anything related to inaccuracy is interesting IMO.
I really like the GN reviews and technical analysis. It's where I tend to go if I want a product opinion, but I'm not a huge fan of Steve's way of calling people out.
I don't mind too much when it's a big company like LMG, but I wasn't impressed with the way he called Jon Gerow a "Corsair rep" and publicly highlighted some of the mistakes he made on that (IIRC) 4090 power cable debacle. The guy was the OG critical reviewer for power supplies. I think that should have earned him some respect and an opportunity to self correct or, at the very least, an opportunity to comment publicly. That whole thing was a big thumbs down for me :-(
On the LMG side, I think some of the criticism is fair. The water block thing is flat out unacceptable. As if a bad review and follow up criticism from Linus wasn't bad enough, what would possibly give them the idea they can sell that thing without asking Billet first?
I don't think the criticism about making mistakes is completely fair. They're trying to scale up to do consumer focused testing that no one else is going to be able to afford, so, for me personally, I give them some slack on that. I can tolerate some growing pains if it gets them to the point of doing testing that's so expensive that no one else can even take a shot at it.
I think the criticism about doing a poor job of correcting the record is fair, but I think it's unfair to frame it in a way that makes it seem like it's their business strategy. Prior to the GN video, Linus and Luke were talking on the WAN show about the difficulties they've had with accuracy and some of the ideas they'd considered to improve it. For example, I think they considered giving early access on Floatplane so people could critique videos prior to widespread publication, but would never do it because that would simply lead to someone leaking all their videos early (which is likely correct IMO).
I think the LMG video was well produced. The one thing that really jumped out for me is how they mentioned that every mistake results in improved process to help prevent it from happening again. That resonated with me because it's the same thing I do and it can make for a drastically better work environment if mistakes are tolerated as long as the process is being iterated on and improved.
I can also see where someone like Steve from GN doesn't like that approach. I always used to land on the side of "don't do it if the process isn't perfected", but eventually reality creeps up and sometimes you don't have any options besides doing your best and striving to improve. I'm sure there's sentiment that LMG could eat the cost of developing their processes privately, but I think that overlooks the value harsh public criticism can bring to those processes.
I do think Steve deserves some credit for being very accurate / competent, especially if it's limiting the growth of his business.
Overall, I think Steve's critique is fair, but I'd bet it's a situation where they already know about all of it on the LMG side and it's probably frustrating / insulting to have those deficiencies highlighted publicly if they're striving to improve and simply haven't gotten to the end goal.
It's kind of like the time Steve interviewed those Newegg guys. IMO they already know what's broken and they don't need "ideas" to fix things. They need the authority to fix things, which Steve's video might have helped with (hopefully). I would be so frustrated if I had to listen to a minor celebrity chastise me for things that I already know, especially if the publicity was the thing that finally got me the authority to fix it while forcing me to play the role of being the one...
>what LMG is doing with their Labs setup is pretty cool
buying expensive measurement hardware and then saying he cant, and I quote directly, "spending another $100, $200, $300, or even $500 of several employees” time' to do proper testing? yeah that sounds pretty cool
>The one thing that really jumped out for me is how they mentioned that every mistake results in improved process to help prevent it from happening again.
funny, because just yesterday Linus posted that they _wont change a thing_. What you watched today was pure C level PR damage control. Also those errors arent from few recent videos, they have been doing it for years but you somehow buy "every mistake results in improved process" line because video was well produced?
> saying he cant, and I quote directly, "spending another $100, $200, $300, or even $500 of several employees” time' to do proper testing?
I have no idea on that one. I usually think he does an ok job of considering both sides of an argument, but he really seemed to hate that block which is a bit odd considering a lot of their content is based on impractical things.
> funny, because just yesterday Linus posted that they _wont change a thing_.
I wouldn’t consider that shocking. If you’re him and think you’ve already set things on the best path for improvement, would you change course after one video from someone you may not have a great relationship with?
> What you watched today was pure C level PR damage control.
I wouldn’t even be surprised if they consult with a PR firm at this point. Regardless, if you’re personally invested in the way everything works, because you built it, and suddenly realize a large chunk of your audience agrees with the recent criticism you’ve dismissed, what would you do? You either double down, which is a huge mistake, or you back off and promise to reevaluate your position, which is seen as “PR damage control”. There’s no easy option that suddenly makes everything ok.
The main thing I thought was good about the video was involving everyone that has input on how things work and what can be improved. I thought it did a good job of reminding the viewer that LMG isn’t just Linus and that the structure isn’t as simple as having one cross domain (tech / entertainment) expert with a full view of everything that happens.
When I called the Lab “cool” all I really meant is that I like the goal of ramping up consumer focused testing. We’ve had a decade long lull in that area and I’d like to see things ramp back up to what it was like when reviewers would torture SSDs until they died. I don’t see any value in rooting against anyone getting into that space, including LMG. I hope they improve the quality of their reviews and get back on track.
13 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 41.0 ms ] thread"The Problem with Linus Tech Tips: Accuracy, Ethics, & Responsibility"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGW3TPytTjc
The follow up from GN [1] was interesting as well... ironically many of the techniques Linus used in his response are taught in PR and crisis communications, telling me that they didn't really care or understand the scope of the issue.
[1] - https://youtu.be/X3byz3txpso
The video linked in OP is essentially the rest of LMG that isn't Linus saying basically the right things about the whole affair. Specifically, they claim they will address the near-proximate cause of the factual errors (too much time pressure due to their self-imposed video release schedule), that they will improve inter-departmental communication both to enable fact checking that prevents meaningfully false information from being released and to prevent things like selling a small companies best-in-production prototype without permission. Both the CEO and CFO committed to a lessened video release schedule and a minimum one week off posting, which is significant as it's the channels first time in eleven years that they won't be posting a video every day. Linus does appear in the video towards the end and is, in my opinion, the worst appearance in the video by far as his manner suggests that he really doesn't understand what he's done wrong about at least some of these things, even if he does seem to understand others. Luke also appears and is very apologetic, which feels weird to me as my main exposure to him as someone who is a casual watcher of LTT/LMG is that he is constantly trying to prevent Linus from saying or doing really, really dumb things on the WAN show - maybe he actually has more responsibility for some of these errors behind the scenes, or maybe he has generally higher integrity which caused both the apology from him and him to try and stop Linus from making significant mistakes publicly; I don't know.
That is about a full summary.
The part about Linus appearance in the ‘what do we do now?’ video is on point too.
I would add that the general tone of the video is appropriate, but as LTT is wont to do, they contaminate their sincerity with repeated product placement, ‘in jokes’ and humour. The very root of this ‘drama’ appears to be LTT’s lack of understanding of their serious and influential position in the space they occupy. This video serves or additional evidence of that lack of understanding, but at least a desire to improve.
I really like the GN reviews and technical analysis. It's where I tend to go if I want a product opinion, but I'm not a huge fan of Steve's way of calling people out.
I don't mind too much when it's a big company like LMG, but I wasn't impressed with the way he called Jon Gerow a "Corsair rep" and publicly highlighted some of the mistakes he made on that (IIRC) 4090 power cable debacle. The guy was the OG critical reviewer for power supplies. I think that should have earned him some respect and an opportunity to self correct or, at the very least, an opportunity to comment publicly. That whole thing was a big thumbs down for me :-(
On the LMG side, I think some of the criticism is fair. The water block thing is flat out unacceptable. As if a bad review and follow up criticism from Linus wasn't bad enough, what would possibly give them the idea they can sell that thing without asking Billet first?
I don't think the criticism about making mistakes is completely fair. They're trying to scale up to do consumer focused testing that no one else is going to be able to afford, so, for me personally, I give them some slack on that. I can tolerate some growing pains if it gets them to the point of doing testing that's so expensive that no one else can even take a shot at it.
I think the criticism about doing a poor job of correcting the record is fair, but I think it's unfair to frame it in a way that makes it seem like it's their business strategy. Prior to the GN video, Linus and Luke were talking on the WAN show about the difficulties they've had with accuracy and some of the ideas they'd considered to improve it. For example, I think they considered giving early access on Floatplane so people could critique videos prior to widespread publication, but would never do it because that would simply lead to someone leaking all their videos early (which is likely correct IMO).
I think the LMG video was well produced. The one thing that really jumped out for me is how they mentioned that every mistake results in improved process to help prevent it from happening again. That resonated with me because it's the same thing I do and it can make for a drastically better work environment if mistakes are tolerated as long as the process is being iterated on and improved.
I can also see where someone like Steve from GN doesn't like that approach. I always used to land on the side of "don't do it if the process isn't perfected", but eventually reality creeps up and sometimes you don't have any options besides doing your best and striving to improve. I'm sure there's sentiment that LMG could eat the cost of developing their processes privately, but I think that overlooks the value harsh public criticism can bring to those processes.
I do think Steve deserves some credit for being very accurate / competent, especially if it's limiting the growth of his business.
Overall, I think Steve's critique is fair, but I'd bet it's a situation where they already know about all of it on the LMG side and it's probably frustrating / insulting to have those deficiencies highlighted publicly if they're striving to improve and simply haven't gotten to the end goal.
It's kind of like the time Steve interviewed those Newegg guys. IMO they already know what's broken and they don't need "ideas" to fix things. They need the authority to fix things, which Steve's video might have helped with (hopefully). I would be so frustrated if I had to listen to a minor celebrity chastise me for things that I already know, especially if the publicity was the thing that finally got me the authority to fix it while forcing me to play the role of being the one...
buying expensive measurement hardware and then saying he cant, and I quote directly, "spending another $100, $200, $300, or even $500 of several employees” time' to do proper testing? yeah that sounds pretty cool
>The one thing that really jumped out for me is how they mentioned that every mistake results in improved process to help prevent it from happening again.
funny, because just yesterday Linus posted that they _wont change a thing_. What you watched today was pure C level PR damage control. Also those errors arent from few recent videos, they have been doing it for years but you somehow buy "every mistake results in improved process" line because video was well produced?
I have no idea on that one. I usually think he does an ok job of considering both sides of an argument, but he really seemed to hate that block which is a bit odd considering a lot of their content is based on impractical things.
> funny, because just yesterday Linus posted that they _wont change a thing_.
I wouldn’t consider that shocking. If you’re him and think you’ve already set things on the best path for improvement, would you change course after one video from someone you may not have a great relationship with?
> What you watched today was pure C level PR damage control.
I wouldn’t even be surprised if they consult with a PR firm at this point. Regardless, if you’re personally invested in the way everything works, because you built it, and suddenly realize a large chunk of your audience agrees with the recent criticism you’ve dismissed, what would you do? You either double down, which is a huge mistake, or you back off and promise to reevaluate your position, which is seen as “PR damage control”. There’s no easy option that suddenly makes everything ok.
The main thing I thought was good about the video was involving everyone that has input on how things work and what can be improved. I thought it did a good job of reminding the viewer that LMG isn’t just Linus and that the structure isn’t as simple as having one cross domain (tech / entertainment) expert with a full view of everything that happens.
When I called the Lab “cool” all I really meant is that I like the goal of ramping up consumer focused testing. We’ve had a decade long lull in that area and I’d like to see things ramp back up to what it was like when reviewers would torture SSDs until they died. I don’t see any value in rooting against anyone getting into that space, including LMG. I hope they improve the quality of their reviews and get back on track.