MKBHD posts a fair and thorough review of a shitty product, which is exactly in line with what every other reviewer has said about it as well.
One guy tweets about how he wasn't fair, and how he has a responsibility to not write bad things about companies because of the size of his viewer base (wut??)
Now the entire internet feels the need to come defend MKBHD, thus amplifying the other side even more.
The only person who won here is Daniel Vassallo, whose low effort post went viral because people kept sharing it to show how stupid it was, thus drawing more eyeballs to his $400 "I will teach you how to be a successful entrepreneur" course on X (because of course he has one).
Think before you make public accusations.
You sound like the guy standing next to the street hustler telling you about how he actually got paid.
Just a voice in support of Daniel here as this is a bit of a mischaracterisation.
He’s a really nice, gentle guy, who runs a small online community called Small Bets which I would characterise as the opposite of a “I will teach you to be rich” course. (I’m a satisfied paid member).
I don’t have an opinion on his tweet but both he and MKBHD are equally entitled to share their (strong) opinions on things.
Btw, kinda on-topic: did you notice this discussion yesterday?
Btw, ever heard of the duck test?
> If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
I don't see a button to reply to your comment below, but I'd suggest going to smallbets.com to actually see what this is all about, instead of random guesses about gambling.
Also, calling someone a "simp" is a sign of immaturity, just so you know.
It's not a "get rich quick" scheme by any stretch of imagination, because they teach how to grow your wealth slowly over time, in opposition to those who prefer to invest in uncertain stocks or go to a VC-backed startup.
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.
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.
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.
Glad you pointed it out and his crappy course.
You’d just be wrong. Because the title isn’t clickbait at all. It’s accurate.
If anything, most other media writers have correctly been even more harsh on it.
If you wanted to give Humane a ridiculous amount of leeway you could argue it’s a good concept but in Beta form but that’s not how they’re selling it to the general consumer. They’re charging them $700 and telling them it’s a consumer ready product.
By that standard it’s absolutely failed and if anything, the title could be far harsher.
I have no idea about Humane’s product or whether MKBHD’s review is accurate.
I’m simply making the point that “The worst product I’ve reviewed… For Now” is a bit clickbaity.
Ie it is specifically worded in a way that encourages clicks.
I'm sure there are some definitions of clickbait that don't require that, but at least colloquially with people I talk to, it's assumed that clickbait necessarily engages in deceptive behavior where the content is not aligned with the title / thumbnail.
In this case, it's certainly designed to draw attention and get a viewer to click, but it's also the thesis of the video. He literally considers it to be the worst product he's ever reviewed, and thinks that they may iterate on it to improve the functionality in the future.
You cannot just slap together a bunch of tech for no reason and then price it like Apple and pretend you're Apple. The fact that they received $240 million funding needs to be investigated in itself. Such terrible VCs need to be publicly humiliated.
I don't even care that it is clickbait. that's the game every YouTuber is playing. but, it is unashamed, by the book, clickbait.
Heck if anything not putting the company and product name in the title actually helps them in this case.
Clickbait does not mean bad. It does not mean I don't like it. It doesn't mean evil. It means it is bait designed to make you click.
And clearly, if you look around you, it's working.
There are Channels I subscribe to, that do not use titles like those too much. You can find examples from those channels that are clickbait from my perspective, but that is a general feeling I have.
I would also say that for complex stuff covered by a video you can't give a simple purely descriptive title and then my Clickbait detector allows some leeway. Just don't rely on terms, that almost automatically put a question in minds. Like: weird (weird, how?), the worst/best product (which product? - is it something I know of?).
One definition (maybe close to what your definition might be) is "a title written with the intent of getting people to click on it".
I think the other definition that many people hold would be something like: "a *misleading* title with the intent of getting people to click on it".
So, if someone thinks of clickbait as requiring some element of deception, misdirection, or other very mild fraud, then this wouldn't fit that category. I think that's why people are talking past each other a bit.
For the YouTube video in question, I guess it hinges on whether you recognize the device in the thumbnail you're looking at. If you do, then the title is giving away the lede and letting you have the takeaway if that's all you're looking for. If not, then you could argue that leaving out the product's name is clickbait-y.
So he's claiming that the title is in effect anti-clickbait. That by itself, regardless of the video content or whether or not people watch the video even, it could potentially cause harm to the product. I mean, he's not entirely wrong. It wouldn't be unsurprising if more people saw the title, and said to themselves, "Well, that sounds like a shit product, no need to even waste time watching the video," than actually watched the video.
He clearly says in the review that it’s the worst product he’s reviewed. So what other possible title could he have chosen?
If your objection is that it’s an interesting title that many people will click on … there’s nothing wrong with that. This is a guy with 15 years experience reviewing products, of course I want to know what he thinks is the worst. That isn’t clickbait though!
$$$$$$$$'s in the thumbnail
Youtube sad face thumbnail - youtube open mouth face thumbnail has been retired by the pro level influencers.
All classic youtube algorithm optimisation for clicks tricks - aka clickbait.
> I find it distasteful, almost unethical, to say this when you have 18 million subscribers.
> Hard to explain why, but with great reach comes great responsibility. Potentially killing someone else’s nascent project reeks of carelessness.
> First, do no harm.
It's pretty clear they're not referring to JUST the headline/title of the YT video.
It doesn't mention Humane or the AI Pin, there's also no brand logo in the thumbnail. Just a pic of the device itself. If you had no foreknowledge of the video or device itself, or what he was talking about, you'd have to watch at least 1 minute into the video itself to know the company and device name. The YT video title on its own can't possibly 'kill someone's nascent project' or 'cause harm' on its own.
I find it silly that people are pointing at MKBHD for the downfall of a company, instead of the people who ran the company and decided to launch when the experience wasn’t good and the value proposition was poor. Releasing early to ride the AI hype train was a risk, and this time it didn’t pay off.
People are also still free to try it for themselves if they were excited for the product and think MKBHD is wrong. While Marques doesn’t call the iPhone a bad product, he is very clear that he prefers Android, yet the iPhone is still outselling Android in the US, his prime market. That’s at least some proof that the market doesn’t blindly follow him and appreciates the perspective, without taking it as gospel.
He has said countless times that his main phone, and primary number, is on whatever Android phone he is currently carrying.
I’m an iPhone user, so I’m not projecting, trying say he prefers my preferred platform.
Here he is talking about using 2 phones, with his main number and 75% of usage being on the Android. That seems like a preference to me. That doesn’t mean he thinks the iPhone is bad, but it’s his special purpose phone, not the ‘default for everything else’ phone.
To that end, if the Android operating system is better suited for the business needs he has as a video creator, he would be incentivized to choose that platform even if it isn't what he "prefers" all else being equal.
Not that I particularly care about this topic... good day.
I don’t care enough about Shortcuts to get good at it, but would probably use it more if the learning curve wasn’t so steep. It seems odd to me that I need to put more effort into learning Shortcuts than a programming language.
It has to be some boneheaded attempt at "Privacy", to that end they also force you to accept a notification saying that there are N shortcuts running on the phone Every. Single. Time. you restart your phone.
They destroy everyone's UX (and force a non-0 number of folks to unnecessarily use their phone when driving) in order to kinda-sorta-maybe prevent some corner case where a stalker had access to your phone and wants to notify themselves whenever you're around a specific location? Except they could just enable the always-on location sharing feature to get precise location data at every moment?
It boggles the mind.
The actual video is way more balanced. Why not call it "Humane AI Pin: Pretty Bad" or something? But the worst...? There are waaay shittier products he's reviewed.
MKBHD is a millionaire... why clickbait?
People are like "Honest reviews are important"... yeah, exactly and we're saying the same thing. the concern is about dishonesty for clicks.
All sides in this argument have a kernel of truth that is being exaggerated somewhat.
That being said I trust him, just think he was off on the clickbait-iness.
Genuine question: Are there?
That's your candidate for "worst ever"?
A product isn't bad just because it's old and has obsolete specs. That webcam review is 14 years old and has to be interpreted in the context from that time, just like the Humane Pin will inevitably be compared to current smartphones and obviously looks inferior in almost every way.
(The actual review is good though.)
But that's probably all forgivable if it's a "public beta" with the clear statement that this is not a final mass-product...
I think reviews would have been much better (for the SAME product), with a "curious how it evolves!" verdict cutting Humane some slack for walking new grounds...
Overall it might have been the hubris of Humane to "end Apple" which harmed them more than anything else