Slashdot Mirror
nVidia's Ethics Questioned
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.
Disclaimer - I have been using nVidia products since the Riva 128 (I'm currently using a GeForce 256 DDR). I think that they make great products and I even own some nVidia stock.
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
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
The non-cyber world has had this sort of thing going on since forever. I personally have witnessed a television station threatened with advertising cancellation by Coca Cola over a story on how much sugar is in soft drinks like Coke. Most magazines and newspapers keep at least a partial eye on their editorial content for fear of offending an advertiser. While it's not pretty or the way I would structure the world if I were God, it's not surprising that a company would exercise whatever power it has to gain an advantage. The nice thing about the web is that now we have forums like SlashDot and others to call them on it. If they catch enough flack for heavyhanded tactics, we may see much less of this sort of thing in the future.
Here's a copy of the open letter that was taken down from Riva3D...
"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"
Sounds a bit like payola to me.
Didn't we decide that that was illegal for record companies. Shouldn't those laws carry over?
I've had a handful of dealings 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.
--
how to invest, a novice's guide
Nothing new.
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.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Should we not question the ethics of a site that accepts such an offer?
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
---
I'd agree with Kyle that strongarming reviews is not a very ethical practice.
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.
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
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.
---
Gort! Klatu Barata Nikto!
I get so fucking pissed off. Every fucking hardware review is biased to the product they are reviewing. I personnally have never seen a bad review for any card. Even when that ati maxx card was pulling only half of what the original geforce was getting people were still saying it was a viable alternative. And look at the voodoo 5 5500, what is relatively a mediocre card (at best) because of the appearant lack of balls by any reviewers, has once again turned into an excellent alternative. This fsaa business is such bullshit. "You might loose 20 frames but hey you will get one less jaggie over the geforce 2. So go out and buy a voodoo board". What they forgot to say is "Ok 3dfx i did my part now you give me another FREE board to review." I have lost all respect for every review site. It was the same with the radeon boards on monday. "And the Radeon is the absolute king of the 32 bit color absolutely crushing all competition by 2 frames." Fuck all of you. Get some balls and start telling it like it is, even if it means buying the card.
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.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
This is a lot like the accusations related to the tucows/mandrake [non-]situtation, only in reverse. The only way to even have a chance of getting true journalistic independence is to do what Consumer Reports does with automobiles and other products. You buy the product off the shelf with your own money. Don't let the dealer know who you represent either, although this doesn't really apply as much to products that are not tied to store brands / licensed dealerships. This way you don't get a "pick of the litter" sample. Also, you review what people are actually buying, not some prototype or enhanced card. Finally you gain true independence from the whims of the manufacturers, and you don't have to be their buddies, which will affect your reviews whether or not you believe it.