I see they don't want a "thing", but that hardly seems to be a reason to not name names. Is there some special status of companies that the non-conformant status of their devices should be private?
It turning into a "thing" sounds like a net win for consumers.
> I see they don't want a "thing", but that hardly seems to be a reason to not name names.
I see you've never experienced the shit-storm of abusive messages sometimes received from fans when you say something bad about the products from a company they are unreasonably attached to. Or the rather aggressive stance some companies themselves take when something not complimentary is said. Or in the middle, paid shills (the company getting someone to pretend to be one of those overly attached people).
Perhaps, it's the author does not want to name vendors which fail giving them time to contact him with some attractive suggestions. Or I am too suspicious? :)
In the Twitter thread it's explained they don't want to name the vendors who failed the test ATM.
I see they don't want a "thing", but that hardly seems to be a reason to not name names. Is there some special status of companies that the non-conformant status of their devices should be private?
It turning into a "thing" sounds like a net win for consumers.
> I see they don't want a "thing", but that hardly seems to be a reason to not name names.
I see you've never experienced the shit-storm of abusive messages sometimes received from fans when you say something bad about the products from a company they are unreasonably attached to. Or the rather aggressive stance some companies themselves take when something not complimentary is said. Or in the middle, paid shills (the company getting someone to pretend to be one of those overly attached people).
That might be what is meant by "a thing" here.
2 replies →
Perhaps, it's the author does not want to name vendors which fail giving them time to contact him with some attractive suggestions. Or I am too suspicious? :)