Associate
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2017
- Posts
- 1,962
you mean you don't come here for the technical discussions?
LTT called out
- Thread starter kieran_read
- Start date
- Status
you mean you don't come here for the technical discussions?
He made some good stuff in between that and more recent years, which is what built the entity up to a company with multiple employees but he has seemed to become increasingly careless with it in recent years.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Aug 2023
- Posts
- 236
- Location
- Glasgow
Totally agree, I watched a few of his videos when researching parts etc but I just can’t stand him. His voice, his mannerisms, the scripting and, yes, that damn earring.
He has a face you’d never tire of slapping.
Last edited:
Yeah but doesn't sound like they have much money it's a two person company trying to go against a $100mill mega corp
Like I said, its an ambiguous statement, its not even clear if it was intentionally ambiguous or not. The rest of the statement is not exactly a shining example of the use of the English language.
It could have meant that they have agreed a resolution with Billet labs since GN posted their video or before GN posted their video. That is the substance of my post, the statement is ambiguous, its open to interpretation, you can not draw definitive conclusions from it either way, we do not know the intent and you can not infer intent within the statement because it is ambigious.
All that can be drawn from it is it meant before the time Linus posted statement because that's literally the definition of the word and how it is ordinarily used if the context is not set out in the sentence, which it wasn't in this case.
I don't know how many different ways I need to say the same thing for it to be understood.
A message from our sponsor
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,221
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
Doesn't matter, they may have insurance which covers legal expenses or if they have a strong case a law firm might take it on anyway.
For £650 for the non-return of their product. Sure if that is what you call major wonga.
There is no comeback for the video, they submitted it for review, reviewer didn't like it because its an $800 water block that serves little purpose. That's tough in the eyes of the law.
Edit: See Musk vs Top Gear case.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,221
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
For damage to the brand and loss of future sales from Linus ripping on the product without testing it correctly they could even try and go down the misrepresentation route.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 1,149
- Location
- United Kingdom
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 1,149
- Location
- United Kingdom
Hardly, more like "Youtuber who's well known for watercooling wants to try out their watercooling product after their company hit the news"
With the flak Jay has copped over the last couple years for his videos about dying GPUs and when to buy a GPU, I imagine he's probably having a good old chuckle at this story while drinking beer and sinking ships in world of warships
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,221
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
My understanding is the videos being released are prior sponsor commitments.
People still need paid, rents and utilities still need paid. No doubt Linus is quite well off (looking at his new house shows that to be true, it's HUGE) but I doubt he even has enough to cover wages and utilities and rent for more than a few weeks.
Like I said, its an ambiguous statement, its not even clear if it was intentionally ambiguous or not. The rest of the statement is not exactly a shining example of the use of the English language.
It could have meant that they have agreed a resolution with Billet labs since GN posted their video or before GN posted their video. That is the substance of my post, the statement is ambiguous, its open to interpretation, you can not draw definitive conclusions from it either way, we do not know the intent and you can not infer intent within the statement because it is ambigious.
All that can be drawn from it is it meant before the time Linus posted statement because that's literally the definition of the word and how it is ordinarily used if the context is not set out in the sentence, which it wasn't in this case.
I don't know how many different ways I need to say the same thing for it to be understood.
A message from our sponsor
He made a claim and parenthetically attached two "facts" to that claim. Is it's your position that those "facts" were totally unrelated to the claim to which he attached them?
"To Steve, I expressed my disappointment that he didn't go through proper journalistic practices in creating this piece. He has my email and number (along with numerous other members of our team) and could have asked me for context that may have proven to be valuable (like the fact that we didn't 'sell' the monoblock, but rather auctioned it for charity due to a miscommunication... AND the fact that while we haven't sent payment yet, we have already agreed to compensate Billet Labs for the cost of
their prototype)."
Before I put words in your mouth, is this your position, or are the "facts" he attached to the sentence related to said sentence? If they are related, in what way, if not to bolster his claim that GN could have asked him for valuable context in creating the piece?
He didn't misrepresent the product, watch the video and listen to the conclusion.
They clearly stated they were using a different card which might work.
It didn't work
They concluded it was cool, beautifully engineered and even if it did work, the product didn't make any sense because it costs $800 which is an insane amount of money for a water block that doesn't actually fit normal off the shelf parts that people use to build computers.
The conclusion isn't invalid because you don't like the way they tested the product in the video which was a train wreck in itself. The conclusion was probably written before they shot the video, they are scripted at the end of the day.
Even if they did, and it performed about the same as the best EK blocks (it isn't going to be materially better because physics is a thing), the conclusion would have been the same, cool but it makes no sense as a product. I mean I could have told you that before watching the video and I have not water cooled a PC since Danger Den were still a thing and motherboards still had north bridges.
People don't like they didn't test it properly which is absolutely fair enough and it got a lot worse with auctioning the block off. You cant litigate because of community backlash against the reviewer for doing a terrible job.
I noticed that GN throughout this whole debacle has been very careful not to express his opinion on the product. Knowing GN's reputation for criticising expensive products that don't deliver good value, I can't see how they would be impressed by it as a product either.
Also what brand? The brand has no value.
Like I said, you can't litigate someone because they didn't recommend your product (which is ultimately the conclusion of the video). They didn't libel the company either.
They could argue that there was a breach of contract by not returning the block, but it retails for £650 so that's the remedy. Unless it was made clear upfront it was a loan that needed to be returned, that is a tough argument.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2007
- Posts
- 14,868
- Location
- Area 18, ArcCorp
In that apology video Linus' wife looked beyond peed off and tired of Linus' shenanigans.... I wouldn't be surprised if there was divorce in their future.
- Status