nVidia's Ethics Questioned 180
rawrats writes "Kyle at HardOCP has an editorial on the ethics of strongarming review sites." Its a wierd story and you'll have to read the links to get the full history, but essentailyl nVidia appears to be muscling sites out of posting reviews of competitors cards in exchange for demo cards. Its a bit odd and full of all sorts of he-said she-said so read it and sort it out for yourself. Similiar opinions can be read at Hypothermia, and Insane Hardware if you want a 2nd and 3rd opinion.
Re:Three points (Score:1)
man-0-man (Score:1)
This all depends. (Score:3)
But, things have changed. Back then, nVidia was the new kid on the block, and they were very careful about how they went about things. They needed to be a success. I think the company has fundamentally changed, but I will not judge.
If Mr. Bennett was indeed telling the truth about nVidia's words and actions, then I will make a decision. Everyone keep that in mind - he COULD be wrong. While nVidia doesn't really support Linux(bad drivers, trust me, I know from experience), they DO produce good hardware, and at reasonable prices.
We should all hold back our judgement until we have more information.
Dave
That said, if it does turn out to be true, I'll be as pissed as anyone - it's just not right. I was planning on buying a Matrox card next(better Linux driver support), and I was going to wait a while, to see if nVidia opened their drivers. If they did, I would have bought a new nVidia card. Now, if what Kyle says is true, it doesn't matter what they do. I'm going somewhere else.
Evidence? (Score:1)
Re:Evidence? (Score:2)
I do.
I fully believe the numbers posted by review sites. However, it's quite feasible that in order to skew results the way they want, they pick a different motherboard, different benchmarks, change memory timings, et cetera.
For example: The nvidia card has to come out on top of a benchmark. It runs like crap in Turok (not that anyone cares about turok any more) but works beautifully with Shogo (See above) so they include the Shogo benchmark and ditch the one for Turok.
So what (Score:1)
Re:RTF.FAQ (Score:1)
Re:(-1 Troll) (Score:1)
Re:You have GOT to be kidding (Score:1)
Guess what, the prices here in the US are high because of socialism. Medicare / Medicaid / Insurance are willing to pay the ridiculous prices, so that's what's charged. It prevents the free market from working, and screws Joe Blow without insurance that has to pay cash for 'em.
Re:Leftists and Anti-Corporate hatred (Score:1)
Gotta be careful, or the US will turn into Canada, and then I'll have no place to go to escape the help-the-poor-before-you-buy-a-Mercedes-and-enjoy- the-success-you've-worked-hard-for Canadian attitude, political system and tax structure.
If nVidia uses strongarm tactics against reviewers, that's fine and dandy. Post on your website your story about nVidia, indicate that you won't review any of their products until their policies change, editorialize about how you feel nVidia may be feeling a little insecure in the face of [insert competitor's name here]'s product.
Sit back and let capitalism work. nVidia's tactics will soon change.
Above all, consult with your lawyer to see what you can and cannot say without incurring slander or libel suits.
Re:Not a new thing (Score:1)
If, in your scenario, this were true, then Pepsi would have to prove that Coke is a monopoly (remember the first few months of the Microsoft fiasco which had DOJ trying to prove Windows is a monopoly, and Microsoft trying to refute it?)
This is very similar to both of the mentioned scenarios, and also the scenario with the Internet censorware companies trying to block websites from saying something damaging about their product.
All these issues are related. They all stem from large companies trying to strongarm smaller groups to control public perception.
nVidia Mess (Score:4)
I recall reading about this whole mess as it actually happened. Yes, the "open letter" that Kyle alludes to did actually exist, and it would not shock me in the least to learn that it's true.
One issue I've not seen addressed is the question of how much support these hardware manufacturers actually provide. If they're just sending out evaluation units to the media (common practice in any industry), then they should expect fair reviews, but that's it. If they're buying advertising and / or making other monetary contributions to the web site, then the webmaster should feel comfortable being 0wn3d, because he/she is. I mean, anybody who reads a car magazine (or PC Magazine, for that matter), should more or less intuitively understand this.
I'm also wondering how many review sites are actually necessary in the online community, and how many the hardware / software manufacturers should feel they have to provide with evaluation product. There are probably at least 50 out there right now, which is about 40-45 more than we, as a user community, need. I mean, how many GeForce 2 vs. Radion vs. Voodoo 5/6 numbers does anyone want to see before they get a headache?
My bet would be that the mentality of some of the vendors out there has degenerated to "Well, as long as we're giving out 100 evaluation units to the online media (in addition to the stuff we give to friends, family, the managers and minions at CompUSA, Fry's, Electonics Botiuque, etc.) we expect some #$@! good reviews. I mean, we've given away so many free units, there are only 4 people left to actually sell them to." And let's face it - at least a few of those sites must exist for the sole purpose of getting the webmaster free stuff. If they don't get it, we get long open letter rants posted about how evil and unfair nVidia / 3Dfx / ATI / Intel / Microsoft / Electronic Arts / etc. is. No one should be shocked that things have degenerated to a quid-pro-quo arrangement. A shakeout of the online media is definitely needed.
This being said, vendors do need to go back to expecting nothing more than a fair, honest, and factually-based review of their product in exchange for making evaluation copies available. If this has to go with the understanding that only the "major" sites will be getting the eval units for free, than so be it. A possibly workable compromise would be to let the smaller sites purchase eval units at cost (treatment currently given to the minions at most retail outlets)
Just my $.02.
-Erik The Red
(-1 Troll) (Score:1)
That would be nice. I'm kinda getting sick of my 12 hour work days here in the liberated USA. I should move to the third world and start putting in 2.20 hour days in a sweatshop.
Payola or antitrust? (Score:1)
Is there a lawyer in the house? Say someone wanted to complain about this and make it stop, who would they write to? I mean instead of just bitching and hoping that nVidia PR will stop pulling this kind of stunt, how do we really do something about it? I don't trust the honour system to do the trick on this one.
Re:Not a new thing (Score:2)
Car and driver issues the smackdown regularly. While the score is usually above five (Shouldn't half the cars be below five point five? Whatever happened to the curve?) it's not always eight. When a car sucks, they let you know.
Re:You have GOT to be kidding (Score:1)
Re:nVidia? Ethics? (Score:1)
Tell reviewers not to benchmark the Operating System in slow machines/play down slow machine stats (because of Linux's strong numbers there), or not to test on 386s
Show me a reviewer that tests on 386's, and I'll show you a person that's been out of a job since 1992.
Re:RTF.FAQ (Score:1)
Re:(-1 Troll) (Score:1)
See my
Re:Kyle: High on ideology, low on content. (Score:2)
Look at the second link: Hypothermia [gamershardware.com].
There's your direct evidence blow by blow.
Re:Come on... (Score:1)
Sharky the Shill loves [sharkeyextreme.com] their free Intel(TM) products...
blessings,
actually I like Usenet (Score:2)
On hardware websites, you're only reading what is spoon-fed to you, so take it with a grain of salt.
SEAL
Re:nVidia? Ethics? (Score:1)
Geez, people seem to think that they can expect any ethics when dealing with Microsoft. In the past Microsoft has been known to:
And now we know they do something nasty with reviewers and other operating systems. Big suprise.
Re:Riva is an NVIDIA trademark (Score:1)
Re:nVidia? Ethics? (Score:1)
Not a new thing (Score:5)
Re:Kyle: High on ideology, low on content. (Score:1)
Re:Ge what a surprise (Score:2)
(There was a review on FiringSquad about a CD-R or something a few months ago that was one of these -- and it was the last time I visited the site.)
I miss the old Tom's HW. That had good comparisons with lots of info. The last great article they did was the second roundup of BX motherboards. Everything since has been advertising-supported *shit*.
-Chris
What? Explain. (Score:3)
I wish people would think for a second before making comments like these.
The issue isn't whether or not the sites get free cards
That's certainly an issue.
but whether or not a small site should have to bend towards a corporation's wishes when posting up a positive review of a competitor's product.
You're having a really hard time grasping what I was saying, aren't you?
If nVidia gives you free cards, good for you. If you do something they don't like, they can stop giving you free cards. They can do whatever they damn well please. If you don't care if you get the cards or not, you can tell nVidia to piss off. If you do care, you dance to their tune.
And, if you need me to explicitly generalize this for you, both the small site and nVidia are perfectly free to do what they damn well please; they just need to keep the consequences in mind.
Simple enough?
Re:nVidia Mess (Score:1)
Not Everyone (Score:1)
Is that journalistic integrity or just being stupid?
Re:I think Tom's hardware is one of em... (Score:2)
People have been saying that Tom is biased for a long time now, but I haven't seen any evidence.
Nvidia cards have been getting the good reviews because nvidia cards have been the best. We'll see what happens in the future.
Re:Murder is nothing new so don't be outraged by i (Score:2)
The thing about murder is, you know it happened. There is a person who was alive before and is now dead. There's not really any getting around the fact that a wrong was done.
With coerced-marketing stuff like this, it's a lot harder to point a finger. Can we prove, 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt, that any particular reviewer was not influenced by any outside entities during the review of a particular product? If the company says, "we didn't do it", how are we to know? Maybe the reviewer just has an axe to grind and is spouting accusations at a convenient target.
Re:Am I the Only Who Who Doesn't Care? (Score:2)
So what you're saying here is that you would like to have the minimum number of sites available to do reviews.
To put it another way, if you say that the 3dfx card is better than the nvidia card, it seems likely that nvidia will stop giving you cards to review, and if you don't happen to have much cash, that means you just lost the ability to do reviews. What good is that?
The more reviews you have to choose from and interpret, the more useful data you can get.
Re:You have GOT to be kidding (Score:1)
Re:Kyle: High on ideology, low on content. (Score:5)
"An Open Letter to Our Readers
This letter is written to address the issues surrounding the recent removal of the 3DFX Voodoo 5 review. I have gotten a great deal of email regarding this, and have also noted the discussion spreading around various other websites. I have very strong feelings in regard to this whole situation, and want to set the record straight regarding this issue and the whole idea of what an enthusiast website is and isn't (or rather what it should and shouldn't be). In addition, I hope this will give you a good deal of insight into the current state of affairs in the 3D industry in general.
Let's start with a little bit of the history of RIVA 3D. I started the site shortly after the RIVA 128 came out, mainly on a whim, because I thought it would be fun to do. The site was called the RIVA 128 Homepage, and was stuffed into my 5 MB of personal web space on Prodigy. As time went on, and the popularity of NVIDIA products grew, I was invited to move the site to a server run by Harold Riley, Jr. Harold gave me the opportunity to expand the site with more web space, the freedom to run it as I saw fit, and never charged me a dime. In addition, after we came up with the RIVA 3D name, he registered the domain for me, and transferred it over to me without ever asking for a dime. I'll always be in his debt for giving me the opportunity.
In other words, I've been with NVIDIA since the beginning. When the RIVA 128, ZX, and even the TNT were ridiculed on the major hardware sites, I was there fighting for the card, providing tech support, fixes, and in general, trying my best to help a product line and a company that I truly believed had tremendous potential to impact the 3D gaming world and give 3DFX a run for the money. At the same time, I made up my mind to be fair and honest in my reviews of products. I've always wanted RIVA 3D to be a website that people would see as being above reproach. Truth, honesty and integrity have been important to me both personally and professionally.
One of the first companies to take RIVA 3D seriously in the beginning was STB. When no one else would send me their products, Brian Burke at STB sent me review products without hesitation. Brian and I have also been friends ever since. Brian came to know me and trust me to be honest, as have many other reps from other companies. I have been told many things in confidence that I could have used to bolster the website, but have never done so because I've always felt that the relationships we have in this life are more valuable than anything.
Consequently, when STB was purchased by 3DFX, Brian and I have continued our friendship, and it was his trust in me that allowed RIVA 3D to be one of only 11 sites worldwide to preview the V3 line, despite the fact that RIVA 3D was undoubtedly an NVIDIA fansite. Brian knew that I would be fair and objective in my review, and I received a great deal of email commenting on the honesty of the review. Many said that it was refreshing to see a site give a good review to a competing product. I was very pleased with the response, because I want everyone to know that when they read a review or commentary here at RIVA 3D, they can trust what they read.
No one at NVIDIA gave me any grief about that article, although they may have preferred that I'd rather not have done it.
But everything changes, and as NVIDIA has grown, it seems as if they've been more than willing to flex their muscles when it comes to things they don't like. I never even considered that it would be a major deal for them when I did the V5 5500 review, but shortly after the article was posted, I received a conference call with two of the PR reps, and they made it very clear that they were not happy with an NVIDIA affiliated site doing a review of a competitor's product. There were no complaints about the accuracy or methodology used in the tests. There were no complaints about inaccuracies or with the content in general. There was never any spoken threat of them pulling support from RIVA 3D if I chose to leave the article up, but I think anybody in my position would sense what wasn't being said.
Other things had changed as well, even before I posted the article. When the GeForce 2 was unveiled, we were all invited out to NVIDIA's HQ for a presentation. I was unable to go, but sent Ben Whitney instead with the stipulation that the preview board be shipped to me. Not that I lacked confidence in Ben, but because I had a wealth of experience and all the necessary hardware to do a proper review consistent with all the previous product reviews. Ben had no problem with this, and NVIDIA had no problem with this. Despite all this, the card was sent home with Ben, who badly wanted to prove himself by doing the review. It wasn't until the day of the NDA expiration that Ben realized exactly how demanding, difficult, and time-consuming a review can be. Consequently, we wound up missing the "golden window" that would ensure maximum coverage, and the review was out well after the debut date. But in the midst of all this, I was lied to by one of the PR people who promised me that I, too would receive a review board in order to make the GF2 release date. This person then denied having ever made any such promise, or even so much as implying anything of the sort, no doubt due to the fact that he was in the same room as his boss. What really set me off however was the fact that it took them THREE DAYS to finally admit that there was no way I was getting a board to review, and that they just plain screwed up by giving the board to Ben in the first place. Being strung along like that for three days takes a bit of a toll on you, especially when it ends with you finding out that there was never any intention of them correcting the situation.
There's one other thing that's really bothered me in addition. The same major hardware sites that blew off the NVIDIA line previously now get the green light to post their reviews before the fan sites that have been there all along. Seeing Anandtech post a review of the MX (that covers virtually every aspect of the new chip, leaving no room for anything new for anybody else) before the time given to the dedicated fan sites tends to take the wind out of your sails. And this without even a heads up from NVIDIA. The same thing happened with the GeForce debut when Firing Squad and Sharkey Extreme were allowed to post before any of us were, again, without any sort of heads up until after the fact.
How are sites like RIVA 3D supposed to grow when you're given no chance to be the first with breaking news? How do you think it feels when you've busted your ass for three + years, ALWAYS being there for the company, even when those major sites weren't, and then see those same sites get preferential treatment?
And now to be made to feel like you have to bow to the potential threat of being cut off for posting a review which nobody disputes for its accuracy and integrity. Well, I think I've had enough, thank you. The V5 5500 review is back up, and it's STAYING UP. If NVIDIA punishes me for being honest about a competitor's product, then so be it. I would prefer that that not happen, but at a certain point you just have to go out on a limb for what you believe in.
RIVA 3D will not die, however. I still plan on being a primarily NVIDIA enthusiast site because I've always believed in the company and the product. If I'm forced to change the content of the site, then so be it, but with the lack of support shown by NVIDIA over the last 6 months, maybe that's exactly what needs to happen in order for the site to grow and become better.
Yours,
Ross Voorhees - Webmaster/Founder - RIVA3D.com"
Re:Murder is nothing new so don't be outraged by i (Score:1)
yes, it should be brought to the consumer's attention, but we shouldnt go nuts over it. Almost every successful company out there does something similar... they just dont get caught right away.
maybe slightly offtopic, but there was an article recently (or something), which said the purpose of a board of directors is to come as close as possible to breaking the law as they can.
the goal of business is to maximize profits while minimizing expenses. for a company to make maximum profits, it may have to cheat a little. the trick is to come as close to that line as possible, without doing something blatently illegal or unethical. if they dont, they arent maximizing resourses, if they go too far, they cross that invisible line, and when they get caught we see it. or something like that. :)
.sigs are dumb!
Re:Ehnnnnt (Score:1)
Actually, I'm a developer for one of the 'big boys'. I left my previous employer, also one of your big boys, because they deliberately ignored a major security hole in the name of marketing deadlines.
Pretty common stuff in the gaming industry (Score:3)
A week later my editors get a call from the game company saying unless the review is redone in a more favorable format:
a.) They will stop advertising on the site
b.) They will stop sending product samples (like full-version games) and
c.) They will begin to advertise on other, competitor sites
Needless to say my editors (and the executive editors) said "we're not going to take this bullshit" and told the company in no uncertain terms not to threaten us.
But this was my first real-live experience with politics in reviewing and the gaming industry (I was only 17 at the time). (I also heard that EGM once had advertising from Capcom pulled out from under them by giving Super Street Fighter Ex 2 Turbo etc. a bad review. Imagine that?)
Re:(-1 Troll) (Score:1)
Re:Have you actually SEEN FSAA in action? (Score:1)
You may have seen FSAA, but have you seen 3dfx's FSAA? It use an entirely different algorithm from Nvidia's, and also functions in all 3D-accelerated games automatically, be they Direct 3D, Glide, or OpenGL.
I beg your pardon? You don't know where I'm getting the Diablo II nonsense? The cutscenes are full-motion video, not 3D accelerated; the game itself is 3D accelerated (if you turn that feature on).
You have been poorly informed. These facts are true.
those bastards! (Score:1)
Re:Leftists and Anti-Corporate hatred (Score:1)
Re:What? Explain. (Score:2)
However, by providing reviews that supposedly will tell you whether a product is worthwhile or crap, they are implying that their review is based on the merits of the product, not on any outside influence. Yes, any idiot would take a review with a grain of salt. But the fact that they are providing these reviews implies that the reviewer was not influenced in anyway, other than the quality of the product.
Only if they explicitly say that they were under no influence from nVidia.
Should they even have to explicitly state this? It should be a given. They should explicitely state that they were given free stuff, so they won't tell you about the bad aspects of a product. I know, it's a little naive. But just because it's assumed that these reviews aren't unbiased doesn't remove the responsibility to be unbiased and correct.
Everybody's out to make money in this world, and trusting people too much is your own mistake. Don't blame people for trying to make a living.
I don't blame them for making a living. All advertisers lie about their product. I just want these "review" sites to be held to a higher standard.
Re:Sweet Fancy Moses, what is this word??? (Score:1)
Odd thing is, I've seen similar posts moderated up to 4 or higher as "Funny".
So now that this one is +1 (I checked the box) I'll still probably lose another karma point for even replying
I still don't know what that freaking word is.
after thinking for a bit - (Score:2)
The ethical dilemma comes in for the reviewers and trade press. If a reviewee refuses to support the reviewer, then the reviewer should make a mention of that in the review: "Well, here's a review, a shootout between the ATI Radeon, and Voodoo 5, but unfortunately, ATI didn't supply us with product, so I guess they're going to lose. Too bad ATI doesn't understand the concept of Time To Market."
If the trade rag wants a scoop, and is willing to kiss-up to the vendor for said scoop, or advertising revenue for that matter, then they have to confront a little thing that seems to no longer exist: Journalistic Integrity.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
Re:Leftists and Anti-Corporate hatred (Score:2)
What you don't realize is the different value system and civil rights afforded in different societies. Try travelling a little. Visit the middle east sometime. Go to China, take a look around. Kick around in India for a few weeks. The world is a little broader than you seem to understand.
Bitch at the countries that allow this to occur, don't go after Nike - they're just making smart business decisions (ie. cheap labor).
I don't think it's right, either. And I'm not especially interested in buying Nike sneakers, but not for this reason.
Ask yourself this: why haven't the people of these countries fought off their governments and uprisen against the trampling of their civil rights? Is it my fault that they're not capable of doing this?
Now, sit back, think about your American citizenship, everything your forefathers fought the Revolutionary War for, and be grateful that for you, this part of history happened over 200 years ago.
Re:Nothing new. (Score:2)
Horsepucky. Nothing sours people on products / communities / whatever more quickly than stuff not operating as reviewed. If they want exaggerated claims they can read the box or the press release. Saplings grow into great oaks if and only if they are fit. Encouraging bad saplings with a pretense of objectivity just lets bad genes into the pool. Honest reviews will encourage natural selection.
My opinion? The small websites that don't have the budget to buy their own products should not do reviews. Or they should cheerfully admit they are becoming small tools of the manufacturers, allowing readers to weight the results accordingly. Thanks for asking.
WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?
nVidia? Ethics? (Score:3)
And now we know they do something nasty with reviewers and other cards. Big suprise.
Payola (Score:4)
Didn't we decide that that was illegal for record companies. Shouldn't those laws carry over?
Re:Kyle: High on ideology, low on content. (Score:2)
Re:Nothing new. (Score:1)
Re:Nothing new. (Score:3)
No, but I looked it up (sorry, if this is common knowledge, I had never heard the quote:
He was Prime Minister of Great Britain from 1874-1880.
I like it. (-:
Re:Corporate donations & reviews don't go together (Score:1)
Re:Sweet Fancy Moses, what is this word??? (Score:1)
Re:Why don't sites... (Score:1)
Re:Kyle: High on ideology, low on content. (Score:1)
I sometimes wonder if I could get Slashdotted by putting up a web page about how Microsoft sued me for claiming that all MCSEs were weenies. I don't think it would be unlikely. Slashdot, like the National Enquirer, doesn't exactly do extensive checking-up on its sources.
I've seen enough. (Score:2)
They Lie.
They dont reply to my email.
The hardware specs are NOT open.
And these latest tactics are ridiculous!.
Someone at nVidia has gone to Bill's School of Business.
Chris Williams
My Paranoia (Score:1)
Phone is out of service (Score:1)
This guy's phone number is not even valid. I just called to flame him/them/whoever like an animal. I don't know if in the USA the number is valid, but here in Canada is does not work... Maybe it's a good thing after all, I might have gotten into trouble with the things I felt like saying ;-)
We don't need nVidia strong arming the press (Score:1)
The fraggin' government does enough of that already! Sheesh
========================
63,000 bugs in the code, 63,000 bugs,
ya get 1 whacked with a service pack,
Re:Leftists and Anti-Corporate hatred (Score:1)
We speak with every dollar we spend. If we buy Shell Gasoline in spite of their killing peaceful protestors [mosopcanada.org] then the next time they have to make the decision, they may go "It didn't hurt us last time, let's try it again".
If, on the other hand, we disuade our school from accepting money to put a Nike logo on the basketball court because of what they're doing to their workers, Nike may actually look at making sure that workers are treated fairly.
Part of the cost of living in a Capital driven society is that we have the opportunity to be responsible for how our money speaks.
The helplesness theorum is an invitation to let companies ride roughshod over us. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy. If we don't act until it's too late to help, that's one definition of helpless. Apathy on the part of the population is what the greedy and evil hope for.
If you don't think that the little guy's money and actions can shape a society, then take a look at the history of open source. It's all about speaking with your keyboard and your wallet
Re:Dude... (Score:1)
Re:This all depends. (Score:2)
While nVidia doesn't really support Linux(bad drivers, trust me, I know from experience), they DO produce good hardware, and at reasonable prices.
And your experience with NVidia drivers is with which version...? Xfree86 3.3.6? Xfree86 4.0.1? Everything I've seen and read from people who have installed Xfree86 4.0.1 and the NVidia drivers has been pretty positive, with slight demerits on SMP and a few more exotic configs. Enough to get me to the point where if all goes well, I'll have a working Xfree86 4.0.1 installation going tonight with the drivers. At that point, I'll finally be in a position to work out whether these reports of near-or-better-than-Windows performance is true, and I may be an awful lot closer to punting Win98 off my machine. Win98 is only used for games on my system and decet 3D performance is 90% of the battle to go MS-free.
Anyway - if you are going to spout this sort of comment, give us some juicy details.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
let's not blame all of nVidia.... (Score:1)
More stinky editorials from kyle's arse (Score:1)
Quote from peanut gallery:
I totally understand that they want to support sites that support nVidia. That only makes sense.
Well then, 90% of your 'editorial' is out the window. Let me ask you this, if someone in your forum posted info on a better maxipadz what would you do? Right.. here comes your strong arm tactics. More unheralded (and anticipated)professionalism from kyle. yay.
Kyle puts up this controversial crap hoping he can make a big stink and be in the middle of it. He wonders why he didn't get a free Geforce2 MX card so he went out and bought one; now he is pissing and moaning about it. After your first editorial you should've just stopped, now you sound like a big fat baby.
Go back to selling industrial strength hose.
They should buy retail to avoid conf. of intrest (Score:1)
Just a quickie (Score:1)
I'm Not Entirely Surprised (Score:4)
I've had a handful of dealings [wgz.org] with NVIDIA in the past. After a few people started reading my saga (including some folks at VA Linux -- which has a partnership with the company), a product manager contacted me.
He offered to let me in on beta testing their new Linux drivers, and offered to send me a shiny new GeForce for testing. A couple of days later, the beta drivers went fairly public. There are still internal betas to which I, in theory, have access... but I haven't heard from the fellow since.
I haven't seen the card, either, and it's been a few months.
Was it a bribe for me to take down the pages on my site critical of NVIDIA? I don't know. It certainly wasn't specified in the e-mails -- the card was coming so I could "publish updated benchmarks".
Don't get me wrong, giving the company the benefit of the doubt is kinda painful. Just remember that there are people working there who are tremendously helpful (Terrence Ripperda and the other official folks in #nvidia on irc.openprojects.net) and sympathetic to our concerns. Heck, they even got rid of the GPL violations in three days (instead of the weeks they said when the story originally broke).
Still... I can't immediately dismiss these reports.
--
Murder is nothing new so don't be outraged by it! (Score:4)
Ok guys...time to stop freaking out over every last little thing like this.
I am profoundly weary of what appears to have become a kneejerk response in some quarters to any article (on slashdot or elsewhere) which attempts to raise public consciousness about unethical behavior going on which affects all of us.
That response generally goes something like this: "X is nothing new, don't get your panties all in a bunch over it" with the implication that the poster is therefor in some sense more worldly and less niave than those who are so "outraged."
Bullshit.
Murder is nothing new, it has been around since humanity came down from the trees, if not longer. Does this mean we should not be outraged when someone innocent is killed? Hell no it doesn't -- the fact that a crime or reprehensible act is "nothing new" is no reason whatsoever not be upset by it and respond accordingly.
No, unethical behavior on the part of industry is nothing new, whether that industry is making software, manufacturing 3d video cards, or reviewing such cards.
So what? If these people and their respective companies are behaving in an unethical manner we have a civic duty to ourselves and our communities (however you wish to define the latter) to express our outrage, both to the public and to the wrongdoers.
If we scream foul when this kind of thing happens, regardless of how old, or new, the behavior may be, there is a decent chance the perpetrators will change their offensive behavior.
On the other hand, if we are silent, or dismiss such behavior by succumbing to the kind of impotent cyicism some here seem to espouse, you can rest assured that not only will such behavior remain unchanged, it will probably grow in both frequency and magnitude.
Get some perspective (Score:2)
But not enough money to pay for every new card that comes down the pike, especially cards that might go for $200-400. Let's say that they have an advertising network that gives them $5 cpm (I'm being generous here). That means that after paying for site overhead, 40 to 80 THOUSAND page views have to happen before the card is paid for.
And that's just for one card. Nobody will take them seriously unless they have several reviews. Let's say the average cost per card is $300, and they need 5 reviews to be considered a "worthwhile net destination". That means they need to come up with 300,000 page views.
It's hard enough designing a site and coming up with content without having to deal with the ongoing hassle of Ebaying your old inventory.
Wow, what a concept (Score:2)
Has anyone bought a magazine that does hardware reviews lately? 3dfx always gets great reviews, or the highest reviews, but they don't always have the best picture quality.
Its the same story with other major hardware companies. They pay big bucks as well as demos to get a complete waste of money a good review. Thus, leaving us with no idea about true performances (us here is used as the consumer in general, not individuals who know better).
<RANT>
Sidenote: I have nothing against 3dfx. I rather like them, and I like what they are doing for the linux community. nVidia, on the other hand, has a great product but has no clue of how to please the people who will make a difference (lets face it: more technology inclined people will be willing to buy hardware than the everyday 'I just check email and that's it' user).
</RANT>
MunITioN
Re:Why don't sites... (Score:2)
Re:Consumer Reports vs manufacturer lapdogs (Score:2)
On a totally different track, anyone notice that CR tends to benchmark every automobile against the Honda Accord? When the most recent major change was made to the Corvette, I remember reading in CR that the car lost points because it could hardly hold two bags of groceries. Oh well.
Re:Murder is nothing new so don't be outraged by i (Score:3)
There was a time when busines ethics were considered of some importance, even by many in top management/ceo positions. Not that there weren't plenty of abuses, but at one time such abuses were not considered acceptable business behavior.
Obviously, given the tone of your post (and many others) this has changed, IMHO for the worse.
Perhaps if, when boards of directors actually did step over the line, they did hard time in a real prison (and no, Club Fed doesn't count), their behavior might become a little more acceptable.
Hell, if half the victims (read: the people) weren't constantly apologizing and playing down their despicable acts as "just business as usual" things might improve. As it is, they hardly need PR departments to do spin control -- we ourselves are spewing their platitudes before they even write their press releases.
I find this trend absolutely despicable, and I think we need to wake up and reevaluate just what sort of behavior we are taking for granted in the business/corporate world.
Furthermore, I think we should react to this sort of unethical behavior vehemently and loudly. It is unacceptable, and we should communicate that fact in no uncertain terms to businesses who engage in this behavior. Obviously, the law isn't a sufficient check on these entities anymore (not surprising when they can routinely purchase legislation wholesale from our congress), so it is incumbent on us as consumers to step up and be counted.
Re:Consumer Reports vs manufacturer lapdogs (Score:2)
WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?
Amazingly stupid of nVidia... (Score:3)
If I were in nVidia's PR department, I'd have my resume out now before the axe falls. The absolute first thing you learn in PR school is don't piss off the press.
A few years ago, Tom's Hardware [tomshardware.com] was nearly shutdown by Intel [intel.com] because he gave them a poor review on a single product. Intel got such enormous bad press, they had to stop.
Nowadays, Tom Pabst still gives them good reviews when their products warrant it, but never gives them the benifit of the doubt (which is, IMHO, is prefectly understandable).
The CEO of nVidia will sooner or later figure out how crappy his PR department is and fire them. If these strong arm tactics get the attention they deserve, I'd guess sooner.
Re:Nothing new. (Score:2)
This type of stuff should be reported
You suggest we that we review these things ourselves? HOW?! After we have purchased them and run them with applications under out own control? "Boy this TNT2's frame rate is kind of low compared to the Voodoo3's, which I bought last week. Guess I'm out $150 bucks. Sucks to be me!"
Folks, it *is* time to get pissed about this stuff. If a business is unethical *tell the world*. Embarrass them. Keep them honest.
Re:Look at this - tomshardware.com (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Three points (Score:2)
It's still a censorship issue.
As merger-mania continues and the clout of companies sometimes exceeds that of small governments, their ability to 'do what they want' becomes more ominous. I have seen the the coverage of majour issues strongly warped in the dominant newspaper [vancouversun.com] in the area by pressure from large businesses affected by the {,would be} news.
At some point people really do need to stand up and say something about such pressure. This is what hardocp did. They did it a lot sooner than many other people. I have to applaud them for that. I also applaud him for giving the background to his anger. It allows us to make a reasonable judgement on why he's saying what he is.
That's why I'll encourage people to read things like the Marxist-Lennist Journal. It's not that they are less biased than the Globe and Mail, but they don't pretend to be unbiased. They say "We're gonna give you the leftist spin on this", and then they do precisely that. Far easier to apply counter-spin that way.
Where do I sign up? (Score:3)
note about Tom... (Score:2)
Re:Payola (Score:2)
Read this [everything2.com] it talks about the loophole, and it's kinda what nVida is doing, except, the reviewers seem to be keeping the.. uh.. "merch."
Re:What? Explain. (Score:2)
The problem is that these sites are supposedly providing un-biased opinions. They may not expressly state it, but that's what they are implying. By nVidia providing free cards on the condition that they only get positive reviews, nVidia is acting unethically. Not quite illegally, but definitely unethically.
And if the sites accept the free demo unit with the understanding that the cost is that they receive a positive review, then the sites are acting just as unethically as nVidia.
Almost every computer manufacturer provided free demo units. It's a solid assumption to make that every hardware review site receives free demo units. And I'm willing to bet hard cash that a sizable portion of them sway the review to the favor of the provider of free equipment.
It's pretty bad when you trust an independent review site as much as the company's press release.
Re:What? Explain. (Score:3)
I don't even believe everything I read. Taking implied meanings for granted is really asking for trouble.
By nVidia providing free cards on the condition that they only get positive reviews, nVidia is acting unethically. Not quite illegally, but definitely unethically.
How is this unethical? The site simply can't say "we do not give positive reviews in exchange for product" any more (if they do say that, then they are clearly in the wrong).
Truly independent review sites should be proud of this and state is loudly and clearly.
And if the sites accept the free demo unit with the understanding that the cost is that they receive a positive review, then the sites are acting just as unethically as nVidia.
Only if they explicitly say that they were under no influence from nVidia.
Almost every computer manufacturer provided free demo units. It's a solid assumption to make that every hardware review site receives free demo units. And I'm willing to bet hard cash that a sizable portion of them sway the review to the favor of the provider of free equipment.
That's not a bet I'm willing to take. For me, it's quite simple: I trust any site that says, flat out, that they're independent. I don't trust any site that doesn't bring the issue up. And if a trusted site turns out to have been doing some shady deals, I'll try to make sure they get what's coming to them.
Everybody's out to make money in this world, and trusting people too much is your own mistake. Don't blame people for trying to make a living.
Have you actually SEEN FSAA in action? (Score:2)
I think you should go and actually look at FSAA in action yourself before you call it a "bullshit" feature.
ethics (Score:5)
I'm not saying nVidia is right either, or that they have an ethical past.. What I am saying is that it looks like nVidia is proposing partnerships with review sites. Now for a review site to accept that offer, and then claim to be impartial.. now that is not ethical.
wish
---
Kyle: High on ideology, low on content. (Score:5)
However, while his site blasted Nvidia for doing just that, I didn't see any kind of proof, or even evidence, that it had been going on. All there were were links to what we were assured was formerly an open letter blasting Nvidia for the practice. When I visited those links, all I found was a new open letter essentially apologizing to Nvidia for making invalid claims.
As it stands right now, I don't think it's improbable that Nvidia found a bad review, emailed their stance (i.e. "There are some misleading things with this article; our product is actually good") and that their letter was misinterpreted by some nervous web-journalist as a "cease and desist" letter.
In conclusion, I'm going to have to see much more compelling proof to get angry.
Nothing new. (Score:3)
There's only one review that you can possibly trust...the product in your setup running your applications under your direct control. Anything else should be held suspect.
Works the same with Developers (Score:3)
Re:Three points (Score:4)
According to payola law, in instances like these, the site publisher is required to inform the consumers that this exchange (free stuff for the reviewer) has taken place. nVidia, for obvious reasons, does not want their 'strong-arm' tactics publicised. And this is where the problem lies. The underlyng idea here is consumer protection.
Maybe its backwards here... (Score:2)
Ge what a surprise (Score:4)
Corporate donations & reviews don't go together (Score:4)
That's the problem, right there. You can't get your funding, or review models, or whatever, in that way. Independence and integrity go hand in hand.
---
Re:Kyle: High on ideology, low on content. (Score:3)
There's just too much evidence here indicating a pattern of abuse. I like nVidia's products but I want to see them win on merit, not through uncompetitive practices, there's already been too much of this in the computer industry. If they were more dominant this kind of thing would be illegal, infact it may be anyway. They are clearly asking that some sites remove advertising collateral (logos & reviews) from a competitor (3Dfx) in exchange for free review hardware. Is this legal?
If you read some of the ham fisted crap that the nVidia PR group has pulled (in the more detailed online accounts) you end up questioning their sanity never mind their tactics. It's a litany of how to piss independent web masters off. Those are the very people who are going to be reviewing the product, that's not smart.
Now it's really hitting the fan, and rightly so. PR are paid to prevent this kind of thing not CAUSE it. What a bunch of maroons.
Riva is an NVIDIA trademark (Score:2)
If had a product review site 'voodoo3d' and posted a review of GeForce, voodoo would be unhappy as well.
m
Re:Why don't sites... (Score:2)
phew (Score:3)
Consumer Reports vs manufacturer lapdogs (Score:5)