Windows Vista Hardware from AMD & Microsoft: Here’s My Story

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.jasondunn.com/windows-vista-hardware-90' target='_blank'>http://www.jasondunn.com/windows-vista-hardware-90</a><br /><br /></div><i>"There’s a big blow-up about Microsoft “bribing” bloggers, so I figured I’d better get on the record now before someone accuses me of “hiding” something. On the 22nd of December I made a comment on my blog about receiving a new piece of hardware, but I mentioned that I wasn’t sure if I was allowed to talk about it yet - because the hardware wasn’t released yet and not up on the OEMs Web site for sale. Obviously now that this story has gone public, I can, so here’s the story."</i><br /><br />This isn't exactly on-topic for Pocket PC Thoughts, but I felt that the issue was important enough (since it involves my personal integrity) that I should step up and make sure everyone knows the history of this issue and my stance on it. It's a very long post (I started working on it yesterday), but I think it covers everything about this issue. Comments here (or there) are welcome.

[Mitch D]

I would have to say the detractors are suffering for a case of "sour grapes". You have never hid the fact that you support Microsoft (not a crime in any country that I am aware off) or even that Microsoft has supported you from time to time with various Thoughts Media websites. Having had the chance to get to know you over the last couple of years (through the Calgary PPC Usergroup) I have found you to be a honorable person.

Anyone that thinks otherwise whould seriously give thier heads a shake. :twak:

I am envious of the new toy you have though and look forward to your feedback on it.

[blazingwolf]

Sounds to me like a lot of people are just mad that they aren't recieving free stuff. To them I say get a life.

For me it doesn't take away from your sites or your integrity.

[Jonathon Watkins]

Yup, sour grapes. We at PPCT know that you are above board in all your dealings Jason. You do go the extra mile. Enjoy your new toy. :wink:

[bkerrins]

I guess because so many of us have read your stuff, it's just sort of strange to me that someone would attack your integrity. I think you have always said how you aquired something and what you really though of it, good and bad. I think you are happy to point out flaws in new devices in hopes that the manufacturers will listen to you and fix things for the rest of us.

[daS]

While I didn't get this particular computer system, as both an author and MVP, I do regularly get devices and/or software to review and often to keep.

I feel it's silly to assume that those of us that write about products regularly would be buying them ourselves. With the exception of Consumer Reports, virtually all product reviews receive demo and evaluation units without charge. Often, we are expected to return the units when we complete our reviews (and I always do when asked.) Other times, the companies are more than happy to have us keep the products since they can't be sold as new anyway.

While I sometimes will simply not write about something if I find that it is fundamentally flawed, I often do write about problems in a product and the fact that I received it as a review unit doesn't enter into my review process. Microsoft in particular has been on the receiving end of much of my negative comments (such as about removing Wi-Fi sync in WM5.0, or their conduct in the "browser wars.") And while they expect MVPs to conduct themselves "professionally", our independence and integrity are also valued and pure "yes men" need not apply.

The bottom line is that the public expects authors and bloggers to write about the latest hardware and software and to write from a position of knowledge. We can't be expected to perform that function without having the stuff we are writing about - and unless we work for a large organization with an equally large purchasing budget, it's safe to assume that the stuff we write about was provided by the vendors.

[alese]

Maybe I'm just naive, but I really fail to see why would this be a problem. OK, so certain people with access to Microsoft got some promotional hardware, nothing new or unusuall. Or is it the value of the systems that is a problem?

[Paragon]

I've noticed over the years that the people who complain the loudest about people receiving something for free to do a review have never done a review. Seldom is the value of the free merchandise ever worth more than all the time and effort put into doing the reviews.

In short, if anyone thinks that doing reviews is a profitable way of getting merchandise, think again. The time spent doing reviews usually far out ways the cost of the item. Occasionally there may be something like the PC Jason talks about here, but combine it with all the $9.95 software and other low cost items and at the end of the day you're better of buying the stuff.

Dave

[Jason Dunn]

Or is it the value of the systems that is a problem?

Yeah, I think that's mostly what this is about - few would complain if Microsoft gave out free copies of Vista (which they're doing now at the launch events), but the fact that it's a whole computer is what makes people hyper-sensitive about this issue. From their point of view, a free copy of $200 software isn't enough to make someone a Microsoft or AMD shill, but once it's a $2500 laptop, it's enough - I wonder what they'd say if AMD had sent out $1000 laptops? It's ludicrous to think that they think those of us receiving the laptops have some sort of "integrity threshold". I think the MCE unit I received is worth more than the laptops - if it is, does that mean I'm more of a shill than someone who received a less expensive piece of hardware? It's lame no matter how you look at it...

[The more expensive the item, the more jealous people get though as well...which I'm sure fuelled some of the fire.]

[peterawest]

It's all kind of silly.

I've been reading stuff on your Thoughts sites for years, and you've never had a problem with telling it like it is. Microsoft knows it too.

No successful person or business likes to be surrounded by Yes-men. They prefer honest feedback that will help them continue to succeed. That’s what you’ve always given, and I’m sure thats just what they want you to continue to do. This clearly wasn’t meant to buy you (or anyone else) off.

[Anthony Caruana]

I work as a journalist and I write a lot of product reviews throught the course of a year. I have, from time to time, been given free products such as cell phones, bags, software, accessories and other stuff.

My personal policy is to

1 - tell my editor where the work is done for a magazine

2 - not keep the item. I use the items as giveaways on my site, after offering them to the publication that commissioned the review.

3 - not keep the item and give it to a friend or organisation in need

Which way I go with Option 2 or 3 is a personal decision I make.

At risk of inflaming things - this is one of the places where bloggers are different to journalists. I accept that there is a continuum when it comes to ethical behaviour. However, if a journalist crosses the line then they lose their livelihood. This is why I see PPCT (and the other Thoughts media sites) not as blogs but as online magazines.

Independent bloggers aren't likely to lose income if they act unethically and don't disclose freebies.

I note from Jason's post at his personal blog that some bloggers have changed their story with regards to the review unit. If someone gave me an expensive notebook or media center then I'd NOT review the hardware. Better to avoid the entire question of whether the gift influences the review.

That said, I'm about review and give away a couple of portable power devices. They were give to me as freebies and I've chosen to give them away. I did the same with an iPod case recently. I'd hope that readers can see that I've been objective in the review but the whole question of payment (either through direct or indirect means) is one that will continue to plague the media.

In Australia, there was a famous court case over "cash for comments". This was where the two most prominent radio personalities were alleged to have offered positive editorial comment to companies in exchange for large sums of money. The problem arose where it was impossible to tell the difference between independent editorial comment and product/service endorsement.

The Microsoft/AMD/Acer giveaway, regardless of what the bloggers do, means that readers may be faced with a similar conumdrum - is the writer influenced by the gift?

[heliod]

While I do understand Anthony's stake about giving the product away shortly after the review, and believe this can apply to some simpler products like cellphones, I am not sure it MUST apply to more versatile products like computers and Pocket PCs.

Why? Mainly for two reasons:

1. These are products that you will not only do a review and use like a simple feature-phone. You will use this product to review other products, like software, hardware and accessories, and all kinds of stuff that will surely make your readers happy to see.

2. Websites like the Thoughts often help users with support. When not in the site itself, most writers are active in newsgroups and other frameworks in which they help people to use their similar devices. The learning of these devices with all the new goodies is not so short, and you need devices in order to understand them and support the users effectively. You can buy one or two of them, but when it gets to so many new things every year, any author would go bankrupt if he had to buy all of them.

So, there are two important things to have in mind when deciding if to keep the device or to give it away: the kind of publication you work for and what will be the purpose of the device after the initial review.

Now to the point itself: Jason, I believe that everybody here is acquainted with your integrity and clearness when posting about these items. I wouldn't be very worried about this case. Just use it in the best way to get your site full of interesting material.

As I reviewer myself, I also get some interesting gadgets from time to time. I believe any reviewer that says he doesn't will be lying. This is the way it goes: reviewers are interested in writing reviews, companies are interested in having their products reviewed, reviewers cannot buy everything they do review, so companies give some stuff to reviewers for facilitating the work. Who are the real winners? The readers, that see reviews they would never see if the reviewer had to buy the device.

I must admit that living in a country which has less access to these goodies, some times I envy your ability to put your hands on these things :wink: , but this is my problem, not yours :mrgreen: . What I don't accept is what others can do in the name of (undisclosed) jealousy.

So keep on with the good work, and forget the jealous. The more devices you guys get, the most interesting the site will be, and your readers will be the real great winners.

Happy new year, everyone.

Helio

[Deslock]

Unfortunately, this story has been sensationalized. However, there are still a couple eyebrow-raising issues here:

Some have reported that Microsoft initial said "you are welcome to send the machine back to us after you are done playing with it, or you can give it away to your community, or you can hold onto it for as long as you’d like." (the quote at Jason's site is slightly different, but it amounts to having the same meaning).

Any company that gives something to individuals to review should specifically stipulate that the product is to be given away or returned after the review is done. Not doing that allows for questions about possible bribery. Openly stating that recipients are welcome to keep the items pushes the issue even farther into a gray area, and it's not surprising that this caused some controversy.

Also, a note about daS's comment, "it's silly to assume that those of us that write about products regularly would be buying them ourselves." I agree with that as written, however, it is reasonable to assume that reviewers do not get to keep products for personal use after reviewing them. Even keeping a product for seemingly ethical and justifiable reasons (such as keeping a computer solely for reviewing future software) risks creating at least an appearance of impropriety. Reviewers/journalists/bloggers should always be up front about their subjectivity and bias... is there a reason that bloggers cant post a log that lists [1] items they've ever been given to review and what they did with them and [2] everything that had ever been paid for them by companies? (such as gifts, airfare, dinners, hotels, conference fees, etc)

[Jason Dunn]

At risk of inflaming things - this is one of the places where bloggers are different to journalists. I accept that there is a continuum when it comes to ethical behaviour. However, if a journalist crosses the line then they lose their livelihood.

There's absolutely a very big difference between the ethics expected of journalists and that of bloggers, and they're very different for very good reasons. I hope to explore that on my blog next week before CES.

This is why I see PPCT (and the other Thoughts media sites) not as blogs but as online magazines.

Interesting. So you mean you perceive us as being journalists writing for online magazines rather than bloggers writing a blog? I view as us being somewhere in the middle, but I try not to call myself a journalist because I'm definitely not. Frankly, I don't really want to be. I'm an Online Publisher that also happens to write reviews. ;-)

The Microsoft/AMD/Acer giveaway, regardless of what the bloggers do, means that readers may be faced with a similar conumdrum - is the writer influenced by the gift?

I think this is where the regular readers of the blog come in - they either know the person or they don't, and probably have a good idea if the person tells it like it is. But I suppose for the casual reader who might visit for the first time, they might not believe the blogger when he says it won't influence him. And to be fair, perhaps some bloggers will be influenced - but then from my point of view, those are the ones that shouldn't have been trusted from the beginning. ;-)

[ADBrown]

I've heard this same sort of argument before, often perpetrated by certain people who shall remain nameless, who seem to draw some sense of personal and journalistic superiority out of this sort of distinction. Looking at it from my perspective, I can't see how it matters. If one of these mooks really believes that an otherwise unbiased person's objectivity can be bought off for the price of some hardware, then perhaps said mooks really should be on the outside looking in.

The way I see it, companies trying to curry favor with free toys is a practice to be encouraged, not shunned. :lol:

[Anthony Caruana]

This is why I see PPCT (and the other Thoughts media sites) not as blogs but as online magazines.

Interesting. So you mean you perceive us as being journalists writing for online magazines rather than bloggers writing a blog? I view as us being somewhere in the middle, but I try not to call myself a journalist because I'm definitely not. Frankly, I don't really want to be. I'm an Online Publisher that also happens to write reviews. ;-)


So, what are you publishing? You provide news updates, analysis, product reviews and opinions. Your team works to a "house style" (at least you did when I wrote for you) with templates for specific types of contributions. You have a staff with editors, reviewers and other contributors.

Sounds a lot like a magazine or newspaper to me. ;-)

[twpd]

TBH I lost interest in the blog after the first few paragraphs - perhaps because my perception that a large part of the "journalism" on this site is somewhat skewed in favour of Microsoft anyway. I've already decided that based upon my previous experience of reviews and comments here on this site. This is by no means a judgement on Jason's integrity.

[Jason Dunn]

Sounds a lot like a magazine or newspaper to me. ;-)

Well, I guess that begs the question what exactly defines a "journalist" then. To me a journalist is someone who covers news stories for a living. They strive for absolute objectivity, have a strict moral code and will refuse anything that compromises their objectivity.

That's not me - I'm fairly pro-Microsoft, and certainly when I'm writing something on Pocket PC Thoughts I'm pro-Pocket PC, on Zune Thoughts I'm pro-Zune, etc. I also deal with every other aspect of running Thoughts Media, up to and including advertising dollars - so I don't have the luxury of the journalists pure moral code. I'm not a journalist, nor do I particularly want to be.

[Jason Dunn]

TBH I lost interest in the blog after the first few paragraphs..

I guess I need to work on developing a more gripping writing style then. ;-)

perhaps because my perception that a large part of the "journalism" on this site is somewhat skewed in favour of Microsoft anyway.

Yup, very true - and not something I or anyone else here would deny. And that's not a bad thing as long as everyone knows it.

[Yahdie]

This entire situation is much ado about nothing.
Why?
There is no "quid pro quo"; nobody said to the recipients "We expect a favorable outcome in exchange for this hardware".
What would be the consequences if the recipients failed to deliver, and wrote something negative about the hardware/software?
Maybe they wouldn't be getting any toys to play with when Microsoft releases Vistas replacement in 2010 or so?
Finally, if all the recipients are indeed unethical people, if there are no consequences for breaking this implied bargain, then being so flawed aren't they going to break this agreement and write unfavorable reviews, because they can?

So, Jason, the members of this forum and the entire world of enthusiast Sites, Forums and Blogs, Thank You!
All your reviews, everybody’s comments, questions and criticisms, you make my day a just a little better!
Happy New Year everyone, even the trolls!

[kcwester]

I have also received a Ferrari 5000 to review. I was sent this and feel that the email was a "no strings attached" email. I have been blogging on it as the consumer I primarily am. I am being honest and never even considered it to be a bribe until I read that at this site and a few other sites. When people do a review they are often sent product. It would be impossible to review without it. Sometimes the product needs to be returned and other times it does not. I don't feel that Microsoft, Acer, or myself have been unethical at all in this.

For reference, I'm a high school teacher, and active in User Groups in various communities.