this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2024
294 points (89.3% liked)

Technology

58863 readers
4452 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 1 year 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.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 45 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

prevent many people of

This actually stuck out more than the comma splices.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I hope they do I bought a nothing phone 1 after reading promises of how they wouldn't move to another phone until they had everything right etc.

Not only did they not keep it but after launching the 2 almost right after this claim they actively sabotaged the 1 the camera got worse the battery got way worse and thing is now super unstable and I really believe it's on purpose as custom roms make the phone great.

The company is dead to me but I am kinda enjoying seeing the phone 2 users now complain because they are starting to get the same treatment now.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 76 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Is this about the Humane thing?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 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)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 6 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

[–] [email protected] 39 points 6 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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

Comcast is a great example.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 6 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

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 months ago

“Git gud companies” -MKBHD

[–] [email protected] 85 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Don't think he's a member of the company though.

[–] [email protected] 61 points 6 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.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 6 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

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 29 points 6 months ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 94 points 6 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.

[–] [email protected] 49 points 6 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Well, this is MKBHD who has an even larger audience

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Well, this is MKBHD who has an even larger audience

And is known primarily as a reviewer.

LTT do some reviews, but that's not their primary focus.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago (3 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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

The problem on Amazon, especially for all these dropshippers that all sell mostly the same products: if you don't have the best rating, nobody will buy your shit. So here it might indeed kill the company. Or at least this listing.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago

Which...fine. Don't build your business on a faulty model.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 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!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Product is an input, reviews are an output.

If your product can be killed by bad reviews you're either bad at making the product or bad at marketing the product. Managing a launch, including the relationships with reviewers, is part of shipping a product.

Now, that's for consumer goods. For artistic works it's a bit of a different beast and you can get a lot of other factors and definitely, by design, a lot more subjectivity. But if you're shipping cars and computing devices... yeah, no, this is a weird fixation to have. I'm guessing it's because it's the first time when whatever mismanagement happened becomes noticeable, so you can have the false impression that something was fine until the bad reviews told you it wasn't.

Although I'll say I've often owned and very much enjoyed products that don't review well. Computing device reviews in particular tend to focus on specific aspects, just because they're the easy A/B comparisons between the dozens of similar things they cover. The effect is sometimes only very general use devices get good reviews, so more specialized or targeted devices get worse marks just because they're not competing on the same areas. You see this a lot with gaming phones, and it stands out to me on a lot of the new PC handheld reviews, too. So if you ask me whether reviews can homogeneize a product and end up making every phone look the same? Maaaybe. Over time. Eventually. For most of the market, perhaps, but not all of the market.

Otherwise no, that premise is nonsense.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 6 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.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 6 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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 23 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Ackchyually

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

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago

Sssssshhhhhh! You're scaring the Americans!

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›