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.
Defend him from what exactly? There was literally no controversy until people started defending him from the controversy.
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).
> 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).
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.
Likewise, here. He's one of the most genuine and authentic folks out there, and the community is simply awesome.
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.
Seems like Daniel’s making the HN rounds these days. I’ve known him for a long time before he started working for himself. He’s a kind man that enjoys mentoring people and has insightful if almost intentionally contrarian views. However in my experience he’s more often right than wrong and when he’s right it’s often by observing some more simple truth than convention wisdom dictates. I’ve no relationship to his current work with his side projects and community but he’s absolutely no grifter.
> Right, a person running a group called "small bets" has no relation to people getting simps to gamble their money away.
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.
Right, a person running a group called "small bets" has no relation to people getting simps to gamble their money away. I'm sure you're right, you are not a simp after all!
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.
He doesn't sell snake oil at all, what he teaches works, is down to earth and pragmatic. He also has amazing guest lectures from folks highly regarded in the community.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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 somewhat agree that it's __somewhat__ clickbaity, but the other important part of something being clickbait is "being typically deceptive, sensationalized, or otherwise misleading". [0]
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.
The guy was specifically talking about the video's headline, which was written to be clickbait like everything else on YouTube because that's how MKBHD pays his bills.
It’s the opposite of clickbait. The title saves the viewer from having to watch the video at all, as it says everything someone really needs to know in that single line. It’s a bad product.
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.
It’d say the thing that pushes it (“The Worst Product I've Ever Reviewed... For Now”) over the clickbait line is that it doesn’t mention what is being reviewed, so you still have to open the video to learn what that the product in question actually is. Otherwise, yes, it would merely be reasonably hyperbolic.
Fair enough. Although I will say that titles seem to work in concert with thumbnails these days (for better or worse). Based on the thumbnail, I knew what it was about before I started watching. Of course, this assumes the viewer was previously aware of what the thing is; anyone who wasn’t wouldn’t be helped by a name either.
I personally have never once seen evidence that he "prefers" Android in any capacity. He has voiced opinions on things Android does well, and he has done the same for iOS. Anyone who thinks he has a personal preference one way or the other is very likely projecting.
He carries both, because he needs to stay familiar with both, and there are some things that the iPhone does better (in his opinion), like video, and of course there is iMessage.
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.
My work happens to require my primary computer to be a Windows machine, and there are many functions Windows provides that the Mac equivalent cannot compete with, when it comes to the work I need to do. Does that mean I "prefer" Windows? I don't think so.
He still has to provide a service to his "customers", and must do what it takes to accomplish that. Obviously, he could not choose to not make videos and still have a job, even if that was 'what he wants'.
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.
At one point he tried making an iPhone his main phone and gave up after 2 weeks because he couldn’t figure out how to use shortcuts. He made a whole video about it.
I hate iOS shortcuts as well, I think they're one of the worst designed features on the phone and they have put some idiot PM's definition of "safety" as a direct obstacle to every user experience with them imaginable. I could see how if my job required them I might use android. But I don't think we could take that data point and extrapolate out that I "prefer" android.
It seems every time Apple tries to makes some kind of automation tool for the every-man it’s difficult to figure out for people who know how to write actual code, because none of the normal conventions are there. I ran into this with Automator as well as Shortcuts.
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's not that it's difficult to set up, it's that they actively put restrictions in place to completely hamstring the usability. The only shortcut I have is a geofence to automatically text my GF when I am near her house so I don't need to use my phone when I'm driving and I don't need to wait out front for an excessive amount of time. But get this: you can't actually make a shortcut that runs on a geofence, the best you can do is get notified when you're in the target area, at which point you must manually unlock your phone and trigger the event.
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?
but to be fair the ability to schedule texts and messages in other apps is fantastic and much better than android which still doesn't have a native orchestration tool that apps can build against.
I'll also add that Shortcuts can do a lot of really cool stuff, but one major problem I've found is that sometimes it just... doesn't work. Sometimes there's no rhyme or reason for why the same shortcut fails one time, but works another (Nothing complicated either, just launching an app). No explanation other than the failed error message.
This was a bigger problem in earlier versions of iOS, I've found them to be a lot more reliable lately, I have a shortcut that takes a sms reminder and converts it into a calendar event, (bec that healthcare provider EMS doesn't support sending calendar invite emails) back on iOS15 it would work intermittently, but ever since iOS17 it's been rock solid.
It is clickbait. And people who think the product is shitty seem numb to that point because they're like "yeah it is shitty, just like I thought!"
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.
> How many frames a second does this webcam do? What's the quality like? Shit.
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 video title is "the worst product I've ever reviewed" and the thumbnail is the product with its $700 price tag. What exactly is the "clickbait" here?
regardless of your original point, which I happen to agree with, that title is as clickbait as it gets. it is a title designed to make you click to find out what product he's talking about. pretending it's not clickbait is disingenuous.
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.
We have different views of what clickbait is. Clickbait, in my view, is writing checks that your content can’t cash. MKBHD didn’t do that. He plainly said this was the worst product and then calmly explained why it was the worst product. The content completely fulfilled the promise of the title. No hyperbole, no exaggeration, just an honest review based on his weeks worth of use.
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!
Do you have an issue with the fact that he didn't put "AI Pin" in the title or that he called it the worst product he has reviewed? Because the "outrage" is very clearly about the latter.
Heck if anything not putting the company and product name in the title actually helps them in this case.
I think there are two different definitions of clickbait that people are operating with.
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.
"A title written with the intent of getting people to click on it" describes every title ever. What professional whose livelihood is dependent on people interacting with their work would possibly ever title their work in a way that dissuades people from interacting with it? Clickbait needs to be something more than simply "an interesting title" for the term to have any meaning at all.
Clickbait describes the replacement of traditional news headlines (a summary of what happened, e.g. "Tulsa high school student defeats chess grandmaster at tournament") with mystery lead-ins designed to leave you wanting to know what thing happened (e.g. "What this high school student did will SHOCK you", or "This high school student just changed EVERYTHING about chess").
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.
What's interesting is that that's basically the opposite of Vassallo's argument. He argues on X that it's not the video that's the problem; it's the meanness of the title that might effectively kill the product. He even says that the same video posted on X has a different title, and he has no problem with that.
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.
That seems like a poor definition of "clickbait" in the context of YouTube, as that definition would effectively apply to every video being put on the platform these days and as such makes the label meaningless.
It would be a comment on the state of YouTube. Also Clickbait is a spectrum. On one end there are disingenuous titles (1) on the other are academic titles (0). A typical book of fiction title would be somewhere in the middle of the scale. But we do judge fiction and other artistic efforts differently.
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?).
You are really reaching. I wasn't expecting a MKBHD review of the Humane Pin just yet, but it showed up in my feed. I saw the title, and I knew exactly what he was reviewing without watching it (I watched anyway and found the content to be in line with the title 100%). On a side note: I knew these things (Humane Pin, Rabbit R1, etc.) were going to be borderline useless, but definitely redundant as mobile phones will very soon make them obsolete.
The YT title was 'The worst product I've ever reviewed...for now.'
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.
It's not clickbait. It is the worse product ever reviewed at that price point because it solves nothing. For now.
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 do wonder what would have happened if Humane would have launched the product as an invitation-only beta with a different pricing-scheme.
The hardware is good enough to test it. Power-consumption, projector and voice-cloud-voice latency is too high.
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
Humane has raised $230 million dollars in funding. It was obvious from their rushed launch and last minute pivot to "AI" that this was a desperate attempt to cash out. A product operating in a niche category with a small but dedicated userbase is useless for a VC who is looking to 10x their initial investment. They'd much rather risk it all for explosive growth.
That’s an interesting thought, I think it certainly would’ve helped if they took a more “we build it as we go if you believe in the vision” approach. Reminds me of tesla and it’s approach, though that’s a pretty polarizing example.
It feels like some folks have a sense of entitlement for customers and success and for some reason they project it on companies they like. Maybe they feel like someone from the pack was attacked?
If you're in it for the mindless entrepreneur mindset and vc-backed openai-api wrapping bullshit, your pack definitely got attacked by MKBHD. Folks assumed that everything associated with AI will turn into gold.
Yeah, I don't see the point of the drama except for the amount of interaction this exchange got in Elon's bot swamp. If anything it seems more like the other dude was gunning for attention by taking a ludicrous position and backfilling arguments for it.
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.