3 ms·

Here's my $0.02 MKBHD posted an IMO unnecessarily clickbaity title to his review. I watched the review and thought that he was mostly on the ball except for th

Here's my $0.02 MKBHD posted an IMO unnecessarily clickbaity title to his review. I watched the review and thought that he was mostly on the ball except for the once again exaggeration that it's the worst product ever (for the views). In a way, it seems that the recent scathing review for Fisker and the views generated might have gone to his head somewhat. Given that the Rabbit R1 is coming out soon (which he will likely review), I am curious to see if his reviews becomes a pattern of rage farming.

zarzavat 3y ago
Agree. The review was fine, but the optics of the title are bad because he makes $$$$ from the clickbait. Even if the title was accurate (I don’t think it’s likely to be literally accurate).
- addicted 3y ago
  The title is almost certainly literally accurate. Of the products he’s reviewed (it’s the worst product he reviewed he said), how many others are even half as expensive as the Pin? And what percentage of them almost completely fail to achieve their intended purpose? I’d bet the answer is indeed none other than the Pin.
arghwhat 3y ago
On the other hand, the video spends a significant amount of time explaining how the product is well super well designed and comes with a lot of features. It is just completely and utterly useless for its intended purpose with no redeeming qualities in use whatsoever. The title is clickbaity, but you get the same conclusion from watching the video and seeing the product in action. Other review sites seem to agree. You can argue that this indeed means that the company will sell fewer of this generation of product, which might make them unable to develop the next generation... But giving a favorable review to make people buy 700 USD paperweights in order to sponsor development would be deceit and wrong. Some ideas look good on paper and are interesting to make, but fail catastrophically when confronted with real users. Nothing new about it.
hoerensagen 3y ago
It didn't say that it is the worst product ever. Only the worst product he ever reviewed. of course I don't know every product he ever reviewed, but it seems plausible that a 700$ product that is extremely bad at everything it is supposed to do is actually the worst one.

zarzavat 3y ago

Agree. The review was fine, but the optics of the title are bad because he makes $$$$ from the clickbait. Even if the title was accurate (I don’t think it’s likely to be literally accurate).

addicted 3y ago
The title is almost certainly literally accurate. Of the products he’s reviewed (it’s the worst product he reviewed he said), how many others are even half as expensive as the Pin? And what percentage of them almost completely fail to achieve their intended purpose? I’d bet the answer is indeed none other than the Pin.

arghwhat 3y ago

On the other hand, the video spends a significant amount of time explaining how the product is well super well designed and comes with a lot of features. It is just completely and utterly useless for its intended purpose with no redeeming qualities in use whatsoever. The title is clickbaity, but you get the same conclusion from watching the video and seeing the product in action. Other review sites seem to agree. You can argue that this indeed means that the company will sell fewer of this generation of product, which might make them unable to develop the next generation... But giving a favorable review to make people buy 700 USD paperweights in order to sponsor development would be deceit and wrong. Some ideas look good on paper and are interesting to make, but fail catastrophically when confronted with real users. Nothing new about it.

hoerensagen 3y ago

It didn't say that it is the worst product ever. Only the worst product he ever reviewed. of course I don't know every product he ever reviewed, but it seems plausible that a 700$ product that is extremely bad at everything it is supposed to do is actually the worst one.