Via The Inquirer
Uhhh...
And all because Voodoo sent a machine with a $500 yellow paint extra addon?Originally Posted by Alienware head guy
God, I feel sorry for magazine editors and writers sometimes.
But then I think about Scott Wolf and Jonah Falcon, so I realize that there are just assholes and idiots everywhere.
Ha! How does somebody so insane end up running a company like Alienware? I used to think being Jeff Green would be the coolest thing ever. Between this and that Wolf thread, I have realized how incredibly wrong I was. Jeff, you have my sympathy. (Wil would as well except that I don't like his column, plus he used "one" instead of "won." I hope that his "editor" position doesn't entail actually editing anything.)
Surprising to see a CEO's inability to articulate his points without the use of capitol letters. Or maybe not. CGW's hardware section has never been the same since Loyd left though.
Points for being a "gamer" creating systems for "gamers", the use of "loosing" really gives his yelling some needed street cred.
If the paint job make the system faster, just think what neons must do!
Chet
There was this letter that went out last year to a number of hardware editors, supposedly from a concerned reader:
This went to an address I use for freelance writing, so no end user would have this address nor reason to email a freelance hardware reviewer. And the clincher? Alienware is the only PC builder that I was on the press release list for. Somebody inside got annoyed at ATI and Dell and tried to make it look like a user was ticked. Couple of other editors I know got the same letter.
Alienware makes really good rigs, and doesn't need to resort to such silliness.
Not to mention the stupid window on the side of the case.
Sounds like Alienware is run by a bunch of pimply faced geeks.
Oooh we're getting scared now ...Again, I am going to proceed to let all my influential friends in the industry know how biased your magazine is and my customers which are for the most part gamers. I have over 200,000 customers and an email list of 400K. You will most definitely feel a lot of pressure. I also have pretty good relationships with game developers and publishers. I will also put a website up that links to us (which we get 50K worth of visitors a day) letting know what happened. Not to mention that I am also going to escalate this to the highest levels at Ziff-Davis.
"Where's my mommy ?! Waaaaaa ..."
Yeah, it definately sounds like Alienware needs a tissue. Maybe a WAAAAA-mbulance.
(Whistles, studiously avoiding direct comment).
We had our share of this sort of thing back in the past. I wrote the review of the Matrox Mystique back in the day. It wasn't even a terrible review (3.5/5), but Matrox pulled out all the stops to try to get it changed.
Oh, and to correct John Reynolds, I was never in charge of the hardware section. That was either Mike Weksler in the old days or Dave Salvator. I was just the primary freelancer. And while I appreciate the compliment, I'm also happy to note that Will has come a very long ways in the last couple of years.
[edit/add] Also, we had a lot more pages back then, than CGW has today. Will has to cram an incredible amount of stuff into far less space these days.
Probably because marketing is a rather different beast than the day to day operations of a PC-building company. Don't deny it, marketing is seen often by techies as money that could be better spent on engineers or hardware, or even a sales force to go out there and shake the money tree.
The funny thing about reviewing hardware is that, in most cases, it's all pretty good. I don't know that I've tested a "bad" machine before. Sure, machine A tests faster than B, and C is cheaper, so for some A is better than B than C, but they're all, um, good.
And Alienware versus Voodoo? Both make good machines. The parts are almost always identical, so you might as well go with aesthetics. In fact, I think looks shouldn't be taken into account (as they apparently didn't in this test), and so should noise. If you ignore those elements, the machines are more alike than different.
But it's always amusing for companies to say, "You are irrelevant, your award means nothing," while making a big deal out of it.
In today's era of a zillion web reviews, it may not matter as much as it used to. But a graphics card marketing guy once told me that a CGW review was worth plus or minus $20 million in sales, depending on whether it was good or bad. Dunno if he was serious or not, but it certainly made me take the reviewin process more seriously.
Back when I was in the market to get a laptop, Alienware refused to sell to me. Their sales folks were supposed to get back to me within 24 hours. A weekend and a Tuesday later, I called them, only to have them give me a credit check test. Apparently I failed the test, and had to go through some funky long-winded procedure to thereby purchase said laptop, which included having to send in some documents and stuff I think.
I then went to Dell, bought my current Inspiron 8500 in about five minutes, and cancelled my Alienware order. Good job Alienware!
--- Alan
Well, heh he's crazy but Wil works for a MAGAZINE
"Without the paintjob the Voodoo machine would have met our $5,000 price limit and since we didn't rate the machines on "how cool they look" Voodoo would still have one."
(not really picking on him, just thought it was funny and it took me a second to actually get wtf he meant)
So is the Voodoo machine under $5k or not? If it's over, it does sound like he's got a legitimate complaint, though he should be doing his yelling behind the scenes if he was smart.
The hardware is under 5K. Then, they added a custom paintjob, which, at retail cost, would have pushed the price over 5K. Since the magazine was evaluating the performance of the hardware, however, not the performance of the optional paintjob, it seems pretty fucking irrelevant to the final calculations.
CGW should offer Alienware the opportunity to resubmit the same hardware configuration, with a new paint job of Alienware's choice, for a re-review.
I think it's bizarre to do a roundup of $5K machines and not consider aesthetics at all.
Yeah, I kind of agree, since anyone spending that much on a PC is probably going to want it to look nice too. That's got to be part of what you're buying for $5k.
Most PCs nowadays use nearly identical parts, and their differences only show up in the almighty benchmark. So looks, case layout, and the noise it generates seem like areas to focus on. That's pretty much what I look for nowadays, because so few stand out as superior performers.
I agree as long Joe Blow customer can get the exact same hardware without any type of additional-cost paintjob. But if the review includes pictures of the system, it should have a caveat that identifies that you don't get the neat paintjob for under 5k. Similiar to the fine print in a car ad that says you're looking at the fully-loaded option package that would cost extra.The hardware is under 5K. Then, they added a custom paintjob, which, at retail cost, would have pushed the price over 5K. Since the magazine was evaluating the performance of the hardware, however, not the performance of the optional paintjob, it seems pretty fucking irrelevant to the final calculations.
Agreed.
Probably should matter in any price range. Even the cheap $25 cases for newegg are getting sexy and everything these days.Yeah, I kind of agree, since anyone spending that much on a PC is probably going to want it to look nice too. That's got to be part of what you're buying for $5k.
It seems to me, if that were true, it'd be awfully easy to sway (read: bribe) an editor to swing the review score upward. I mean, no f'n way would I turn someone down if they said "pssst, hey, we have $2M for you for a good score"In today's era of a zillion web reviews, it may not matter as much as it used to. But a graphics card marketing guy once told me that a CGW review was worth plus or minus $20 million in sales, depending on whether it was good or bad. Dunno if he was serious or not, but it certainly made me take the reviewin process more seriously.
A couple of points:
1. I wouldn't. I'm not in this strictly for the money. I'd be very insulted and report him/her.
2. From the other point of view, anyone that offered a blatant bribe like that would run the risk of being fired or even look at potential jail time. It's illegal.
Yeah, I agree with Lloyd. I value my personal sense of integrity more than I value money. Sure, a few million could set you up for life. But then you'd have to live with yourself.
You're correct right up until that last point. Certainly taking a bribe for a review would violate all kinds of ethical considerations, probably violates the company policy of both the manufacturer and the reviewing magazine, and would indeed likely get you fired.
But it ain't illegal.
Neither Voodoo nor CGW are the government. If CGW wants to hock its scores to the highest bidder, it is free to do so. If Voodoo wants to offer a little quid pro quo in exchange for a good review, it is free to do so. Nobody would go to jail for doing that.
It would be a PR nightmare if it was revealed, of course, but it ain't illegal.
I think the PR nightmare part is why Alienware wouldn't dare do it. Given their customer base, I think it would *really* hurt sales and stock price (if they're public) if revealed.
Not that what they're doing now isn't accomplishing the same self-destructive goal.
It is if the payment isn't officially reported to the federal government. Tax fraud, and all that.
That's true of any unreported income, regardless of source. It isn't like there are special tax rules for bribes.
The bribe itself is perfectly legal. That the law may impose other obligations on you after accepting the bribe is wholly irrelevant.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote