Asus UK PR believes it is ‘legal to buy positive reviews’
kitguru.net
kitguru.net
They did, however, leave the usual "this is beta, install on your own risk, this will void your warranty" disclaimer on, which currently backfires, as it seems as if Asus does not want to take responsibility. It is unknown if the statement was intentional , or just the usual disclaimer.
Of course, that PR statement doesn’t help.
Source: https://youtu.be/cbGfc-JBxlY
(There are more sources to it)
//Edit:
Another well-known channel stated that they used Asus for a long time, and noticed a decline in quality of the samples provided (as far as receiving boards that have been RMA'ed before), and also noticed that the RMA experience for average Jane and Joe has become worse. Asus also failed to negotiate further sponsoring the channel by simply not getting back to requests. As such, the channel completely canceled all business relations to Asus.
Source: https://youtu.be/wZ-QVOKGVyM
(Well at least for my tuf gaming x670e-plus wifi)
(Only half valid knowledge, just reiterating what I saw)
This is a sentence on a website. If they wanted it would be gone in 5 minutes. You don't need to "work on it".
things must change internally before you express to the public that the change has occurred.
Just because one can open notepad.exe and delete a line in five minutes doesn't indicate that that's the speed of business.
The speed of the change is proportional to personal authority within the organization of the person requesting the change. When ASUS says "we're working on it" what they mean is "leadership doesn't give a shit".
They get a favorable review or they cut the channel off. This is how media centered around consumable gear has always worked. Honest players aren't given early access or any at all so as to diminish their influence.
I could understand this Jay person being with upset with Asus if they had some skin in the game but getting upset about free merchandize is outlandish, especially when you're requesting gear to essentially give away which is exactly what he mentions doing. The level of entitlement is off the charts. I'm also unsure why he mentioned the box having all sorts of labels from China on it.
Here's the real irony. Just weeks ago this youtuber built themselves a rig with a 7950X3D, and given all the offerings available, they chose Asus. He even uses language in his rant to describe Asus as "seemingly solid". So the question is, what is this really about?
Why he has choosen Asus is also explained in the video. He doesn't rant about Asus because he didn't get a sponsorship, he rants about them because they screwed customers over and failed to stand up for their mistakes in present and past.
I think that's a huge difference.
He does rant about not having a sponsorship agreement with Asus. He clearly says all of his other sponsorship agreements finalized in Jan 2023, but that Asus hasn't.
He has no clue if customers have been screwed over because he's never been a customer, and if he is, let's say he used his own money to buy the Hero board he mentions in the video, why did he go Asus like 5 weeks ago for his own stuff if he thought they were bad products, or a bad company?
This sums up the entire ordeal perfectly, maybe it's backpedaling, but this doesn't seem like customers are getting screwed over.
https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/13g3yep/comment/j...
In this case, at this time, Gamers Nexus is pretty well respected as an entity that re-invests its success in increasing technical validation capability, and has been cut off more than once by vendors, leading to having to purchase its own hardware. They currently have my respect and trust on this motherboard topic.
Jayz2Cents? His content is just not the same, but he does have a genuinely consumer-focused attitude, though.
I’ve seen an increasing number of products I own prompt me to join a beta program that, if accepted, voids the warranty of the device.
I help them vet early features before they roll them out to all of their users and, in exchange, they… ask me to let them maybe brick my device at my expense?
Who agrees to these terms?
If you want warranty coverage, don't overclock no matter how much the marketing encourages you.
[1]: https://www.amd.com/en/technologies/expo
[2]: Overclocking and/or undervolting AMD processors and memory, including without limitation, altering clock frequencies / multipliers or memory timing / voltage, to operate outside of AMD’s published specifications will void any applicable AMD product warranty, even when enabled via AMD hardware and/or software.
[3]: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/gaming/extreme-memor...
[4]: Altering clock frequency or voltage may damage or reduce the useful life of the processor and other system components, and may reduce system stability and performance. Product warranties may not apply if the processor is operated beyond its specifications. Check with the manufacturers of system and components for additional details.
Overclocking has always voided warranties, it's why overclocking has traditionally been the realm of enthusiasts and tinkerers who generally aren't concerned with reliability, safety, or monetary value and know what they're doing.
The more mundane users really should be made aware that overclocking is tantamount to playing with fire, sometimes literally.
AMD themselves also make it clear that users who overclock "assume all risks and liabilities that may arise out of overclocking and/or undervolting AMD processors" per the footnote on their EXPO page.
Overclocking will void warranties, this is a fact that anyone who wants to overclock has to accept. AMD should be ashamed for hiding the literature behind a hidden footnote, but that doesn't excuse end-user ignorance.
I assumed not, but maybe I've just been away from it for too long.
Anyway, if you're running Win8+ in EFI mode you'll see "Firmware" in Device Manager, which just like any other "device" in the list can have its "driver" upgraded, this unsurprisingly being a special case of driver: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/b...
And yes, if you know how commercial PC firmwares are made [cooperation between CPU/chipset maker and firmware corporation, who then sells the semi-finished product to the motherboard manufacturer - most famously "To be filled by O.E.M." :P ], some times it goes wrong, namely when two different designs get the same ID like the generic default: https://web.archive.org/web/20170101104905/http://www.minixf... (scroll down to post 10)
This doesn’t really sound like an unbiased source with respect to the quality of Asus products.
There are certainly a lot of interesting subtleties and implications here though.
There have been multiple calls to reform it as the law obviously does not conform to European and International standards, but I believe the reforms haven't gone anywhere yet.
[1] > Under Article 230-1 of the Criminal Code of Japan:
> “(1) A person who defames another by alleging facts in public shall, regardless of whether such facts are true or false, be punished by imprisonment with or without work for not more than three (3) years or a fine of not more than 500,000 yen.”
Personally I like the UK model where the speaker is on the hook for knowing what they say is true. It shouldn't be too much to ask people to avoid making an unfounded claim ...
If you made up 100 negative reviews that’s going to be tricky.
In the UK, you are expected to prove that it is true for the defense to work though, whereas in the US it's generally enough to be able to argue that you reasonably believed that what you said was true. Hence why the UK is a favorite location for celebrities/companies/... to sue compared to the US: It's a lot harder to defend reporting based on hearsay and indirect conclusions there.
My limited understanding (not a lawyer, just a rando) is that truth may be an absolute defense to defamation in the US, but defamation isn't the only ground you want to cover here.
In particular, "public disclosure of private facts" seems to be illegal without the subject's consent in some states. [1] I can't tell if the effective law is significantly different in the UK, or whether the main difference is just the semantics of whether it'd fall under "defamation" or something else.
[1] https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/personal-injury/harm-to-reputat...
They might have some problems with the Advertising Regulator, but their bigger problems would be with the Competitions & Market Authority. Misleading & deceptive conduct to sell your goods is illegal in the UK (and the EU & Australia and other places).
Negative reviews would seriously open you to being sued by the people you are review bombing..
How often is this enforced?
Seems to have worked though, the dentist's office has lots of 5 star reviews.
There is a reason salespeople will bring you a coffee and donut.
Obv not a perfect solution and unfair to those who aren't gaming but over the top 5 star and bitchy one star reviews even when genuine aren't always that representative.
One of the reasons why the "5* rating or your driver gets fired" norms encouraged by the likes of Uber are so awful.
I'm glad to pay a modest premium for reliability. I'd like parts which are well-tested, use high-quality capacitors, and have basic safety features (like over-current / over-voltage protection on power supplies).
What I'd really like is a review site which steps through the engineering of things like motherboards and power supplies, tests things like short circuits on the output, and checks which passives are used and quality of things like solder joints.
Most of this stuff isn't expensive.
(Just a random fun fact, not implying its product quality now)
*EDIT: I mean ASUS funded it and owned it by the time. I'm not sure if "subsidiary" is the correct legal term here.
AsRock has the best technical support.
Normally, successful hardware companies are very good.
2 of 2 mainboards (TUF and Maximus series) with random reboot issues, 1 of 2 GPUs with firmware issues causing BSODs, 1 of 2 routers (high-end models) with power supply failure problems and sometimes corrupting settings on reboot.
Apart from that, tempted to agree.
I care about the product performance and how well it holds up after few weeks abuse.
The fight to be first with a review even if you haven’t even reviewed anything is getting ridiculous. Just wait until AI get thrown into this mix.
The obligation is on the reviewer to highlight they've been paid for a review, otherwise they are illegally misleading their readers.
Whether that's moral is another thing.
The UK Government are also in processing tightening this up…
Regardless, the legal obligation[1] to transparently advertise this is on the firm, not (just) the bought reviewer. IIRC the Advertising Standards Authority recently had a case on a social media paid promotion, which reinforced this. Regardless, IMO the statute is quite clear the obligation is on the firm.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/part/2/made
> Don’t commission third parties to write fake reviews – you may be liable for their actions
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-reviews-an...
With proper disclosure there may be some leeway, but I wouldn't just assume paying someone for a fake review is legal. UK advertising laws can be very strict in some cases (and rightfully so, in my opinion).
But perhaps it's viewed as too loosely defined or hard to enforce.
In context here, liable:
1) Liable for claims that the fake review makes, i.e. held to the same standards as any other marketing/claims you make about your product,
2) Liable if you mislead consumers by making them think it's a real review.
"You are liable, i.e. you are the entity that may break the law"
The Digital Markets Bill may affect this in 2024 (?) - Not sure whether it will be more focused on regulating 'platforms'.
The majority of companies that gets punished by consumers these days seem to me to be those who think that just because something is legal, then it's without consequences.
that was easy to deal with
I'll definitely stay clear of their product for the near future if they undervalue their product so much that they feel inclined to "cheat" their way back. Trust is hard to build and so easy to lose.
[0] https://www.wired.com/story/tiktok-platforms-cory-doctorow/