Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by FrgMstr, Aug 21, 2018.
Sign it and begin your journey into the darrrrrrrrrrrrrrrkkkkkkkkkkkk side..........
I hate to burst your bubble but that's where everyone is going to be if he doesn't sign it.
If you think the NDA is standard why are you saying to not sign it. lolwat
Kyle doesn't hold back on amd either. So it doesn't benefit amd fans.
Kyle is honest. That benefits us all.
I wish there was a "I'll back you no matter what you choose" choice in the poll.
Why would anyone agreeing to something bad mouth it and thereby themselves.
Your ... "everyone says its cool" defense. Sounds a lot like Nvidias defense of GPP. "This is industry standard stuff really... "
If the current NDA is different from the one in June, will you post the unsigned NDA for forum lawyers to review?
I will not buy a card without the Hard review, except certain rare exceptions for work when based on a released architecture.
As long as the NDA doesn't stipulate that you lie on reviews, I say go for it. And not sure how an NDA could even do that...
And I don't see how an NDA could prevent you from voicing opinions on "practices" either...
Just read all the fine print first.
Counter with an ala carte NDA specific to this release. Multiyear with so many unknowns seems silly.
Sign it. Yours has always been my day 1 goto review for these cards.
Seriously, people need to go view Gamer's Nexus video on the last NDA. They had their real and actual lawyer analyze it. Everything said about it is just flat wrong. There is nothing wrong with the Nvidia NDA.
That's great you'll make your ultimate buying determination by the [H] review, but doesn't change what I said.
Problem is, nobody screaming "No!" is also committing to hiding their heads in the sand and ignoring day one reviews.
So all that a mickey mouse boycott would accomplish is chasing site traffic away to the day one sites, and costing Kyle money.
Do whatever you think is best for [H] ......
I won't stop reading [H] and waiting for their review either way.
$4k is too rich for my blood, but I also don't race Vipers on the weekend lol.
If the practices where detailed to Kyle under the NDA... its up to Nvidia if he or anyone else under NDA can talk about them. GPP was detailed to NDA holders... not in full but the broad strokes. No one said anything about GPP cause they where under NDA. Which clearly states they say nothing unless Nvidia says they can. The only way out is if the information becomes public knowledge. Which is why some sites chimed in after Kyle posted his GPP story. Had Kyle signed their current NDA prior to that... he could have been in legal trouble. Many of the sites that remained quite I'm sure did so on advice of their council. Who would have read their NDAs and said... well if you say something and stray into ANYTHING Kyle hasn't already said you may well be in an exposed position. If you confirm anything he has said you may still be exposed as one source isn't always enough for a judge to rule something as public knowledge.
The silence on the GPP thing makes perfect sense if everyone involved had signed NDAs written as the one Kyle posted.
This may sound super conspiratorial, but if Kyle does sign. He won't be able to post about anything any "confidential informant" at any vendor says to him. Unless someone else does so first... and even then one source likely wouldn't be enough to consider such information public. For Nvidia who is clearly we all know still pissed to now flip 180 and say... "sure welcome back buddy just sign this". To me this sounds like a setup.
I come to Kyle's site daily. Regardless of the review or not, I am a frequent visitor to this site. I never run Ad-blockers on his site, and I'm a Patreon. I voted No and I will continue to support Kyle regardless of the eventual direction that is taken.
That's a comment only a person who loves Nvidia would make.
IF he is going to ignore the fanboy talk then he should stick to the advice his lawyer gave him. Which was not to sign it.
If you sign it and they don't send free samples, then what.
And ignore his attorney's advice too?
If it goes sideways further down the line, that's too late, your locked into a multi year NDA agreement. So if something like GPP comes up again, Kyle won't be able to report on it.
Would creating a separate business entity that only handles reviews allow you to have your cake and eat it too?
I voted no because I dont think kyle should have his hands tied by nv in any way, shape or form. yes I will look at other "reviews" before [H]'s but theirs will be the final say before I make any decision on this and most things. they wont be loosing any traffic from me.
Where did you get your law degree? If you don't have one, I kindly recommend a spoonful of STFU.
62% of voters are immature and would like the site to cut their nose off to spite their face. But yeah, whatever. I'll just get my reviews anywhere else, just like most of the no-voters will. Welcome to the internet.
I'm a small patreon donor and I voted yes. I've been visiting this site since almost 2 decades ago. Most of the quality tech journalism sites are gone now, except HardOCP. I wish to see Kyle and team continue to do well. I would rather see HardOCP receiving free samples instead of paying for these cards, which will only benefit Nvidia in the end.
I'm not buying until I read the HardOCP review, either way. It's the only review site I trust these days. Everyone else is in someone's pocket, or has signed an unfavorable NDA.
I say don't sell out your principles. You should always live and die according to your personal values, that gives your life meaning and dignity. So, do what is morally right! Don't sell out to them for access, do your own high quality review in your own time.
Nothing wrong with that NDA if you agree to it. I had my lawyer of 20 years, go over the NDA and the GN video. He specializes in IP law. We have no clue what the GN lawyer practices. Don't believe everything you see on Youtube. Here is what my attorney said:
If I’m a reporter, I probably would not sign it. I could pick on several elements but basically, it is intended to provide a strong control over work product of the reporters. The definition of confidential information is way too broad. Broadest I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen and drafted and enforced a large number of these. Also, the typical exclusions to confidential information are not provided, but they exist at common law anyway. The 5 year duration of the obligation is just stupid for this type of technology. It’s pretty ridiculous top to bottom.
That said, I do not think signing this NDA is a big deal if you are only a "Reviewer." However, many times what HardOCP publishes is outside the sphere of reviewing a specific product. I believe signing this NDA could hamper efforts in actual tech journalism going forward.
See my signature and join date. I by no means want HardOCP to fail and currently own nVidia. I donate to them to keep operating and visit the site many times a day and even click the ads.
Just because you suggested it I will not read any reviews of the 20XX series until it is posted here. Going to literally put my money where my mouth is.
... versus signing a multi-year nda which also only benefits nvidia in the end ...
What, you mean there is financial motivation for being a shill?! If that is true, then there just may be motivation to prance a lawyer on video with a tech website and proclaim the Nvidia NDA "is not that bad"...
The idea of having to sign an NDA to get review samples of a product to me is ridiculous in of itself. You're just supposed to get what the customers get, no? So everything you can gleam from examining and testing these cards, any customer can too. What is the part that needs confidentiality here? I can understand an embargo nda agreement, as in not releasing info before a specific date, bat an all encompassing blank check of an NDA? Why?
This stinks of them trying to control the narrative, and have reviewers by the balls.
I'd rather read an honest review late, than a controlled one early. And even if they don't yet try to control what reviewers say. I'd not have you give your freedom to investigate things like GCP in the future just to get earlier access to review samples.
I think the "No" option, along with the added GofundMe to cover the cost of review samples followed by the raffle to those of us that kicked in on the GofundMe campian is a win win for everyone. The fact they are trying to make this a ~5 year contract and the fact that you often "report" on things outside of normal product reviews means that this NDA will hamstring you. I have been a supporter of this site since '99 when you published my 3DFX info I sent you. This site is my "home" on the internet, and I do not want anything to change that. Get the Gofundme up and running, I have $20 waiting to be sent.
You are assuming that [H] will lose views, rather than merely not receive a spike on launch day.
You may also think about whether or not [H] will generate more organic traffic when they release their review. I would market the hell out of not being under NDA. Wear it like a badge of honor.
Yeah, this is the only tech site I really visit anymore, and the only reviews I typically go by. I don't need day one coverage, just information I can trust. Lots of us like that here.
1. Day 1 is moot to me, as if there is going to be any availability once reviews do come out.
2. Could this NDA be used against you for future issues (like GPP). I don't see a NVLink in your order & I kinda wonder if they will let AIB's make custom NVLink devices. Wasn't this an issue in the past?
3. Umm we're going to read this review regardless of when it comes out.
Do you need to sign this to get a card from an AIB after release date? Tho personally, I would rather see reviews on non cherry picked devices anyways.
My vote is a [H]ard NO.
Go with your gut. Whatever the decision is this will remain my go to site for reviews, tech news and at times savage forum banter.
This is like my cozy dive bar corner of the internet and I love it.
Do what is best for the site and for you Kyle B. We have your back.
+1 to the whole post, but in particular these first two points - well worth extra emphasis.
i voted no , the 5 yr. NDA is bullshit, i could 100% understand a NDA time limit of "until release", or even a NDA "per product", but a 5 yr blanket NDA, no.fkn. way.
i have mad respect for this sight and all the reviews and reporting you and your staff do. This seems to be a matter of principal and that is something that is getting harder to find in todays world. I say stick to your guns and screw the NDA.
BTW, this just caused me to become a patron, just to support you and help offset that cost .
I voted no. I would rather see a GoFundMe page to help cover the cost of the cards to get an honest review without any strings.
And I ended up finding this site because of his reporting on GPP.
Technically no. I did take into account that NVIDIA might exert pressure on AIBs sampling HardOCP when I made the decision to publish on GPP.
I have gotten mail from one AIB that was asking for reviewer information specifics, as to who exactly and site affiliation, for reviewing AIB cards. This information was requested by NVIDIA from the AIB. First time I have ever seen anything like this. Maybe innocuous, maybe not.
This is the mail from the AIB:
BCC MEDIA LIST
If you’re included in this email, I just wanted to confirm if you’re interested in the next GEN GPU.
I have no info (no dates, images, price, specs) except we’re preparing a preliminary seeding list which we will provide to NVIDIA.
Who will be doing the review?
Email info so NVIDIA will know who to contact for drivers and other info
Please provide me this 3 info so I can compile together a list. You can reply back to me on this email thread.
This was from a couple of weeks ago.