Thing is, we should defend MKBHD. He didn’t do anything wrong. He did his job.
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.