Confusing “long-term loaners” and “bribes” ? Inconceivable !
well… disclosure that the review is paid for might matter as well.
(full disclosure: I’m neither a lawyer nor a fan of paid reviews. Since I am not a lawyer, I am not qualified to make a judgement on the legality of the current attempt. I have also had heated exchanges with LGC peeps in the past, because my personal opinion is that people with a little bit of time and know-how can do as well rolling their own, functionally similar devices (yes, I know, optical, no, I don’t think it makes a difference, hence my comment). This criticism has, in the past, been met on their end with baseless insinuations that I have a financial incentive at criticising their work. Given this, I do have a bias as to the quality of their ethical compass. I also do not harbour any ill-will towards them, and can perfectly conceive that they might provide a valuable service to those who do not have the inclination, time, or know-how to DiY. Those people should, in my opinion, most definitely give serious consideration to their products.)
"An actual patron of a restaurant, who is neither known to the public nor presented as an expert, is shown seated at the counter. He is asked for his “spontaneous” opinion of a new food product served in the restaurant. Assume, first, that the advertiser had posted a sign on the door of the restaurant informing all who entered that day that patrons would be interviewed by the advertiser as part of its TV promotion of its new soy protein “steak.” This notification would materially affect the weight or credibility of the patron’s endorsement, and, therefore, viewers of the advertisement should be clearly and conspicuously informed of the circumstances under which the endorsement was obtained.
Assume, in the alternative, that the advertiser had not posted a sign on the door of the restaurant, but had informed all interviewed customers of the “hidden camera” only after interviews were completed and the customers had no reason to know or believe that their response was being recorded for use in an advertisement. Even if patrons were also told that they would be paid for allowing the use of their opinions in advertising, these facts need not be disclosed."
Yes, I do agree that Sonore/SGC should have stated that in order for the review to pass muster it has to have a qualifying statement added to the end (i.e. 'this is a review in exchange for an $29 OS card upgrade" or something like that).
Sure does. Some of us don’t want RPI’s. It’s my money, my choice. Sonore never held me at gunpoint and demanded I use one. I also felt the upgrade from the mR to the oR was a leap in sound quality, though I know you’ll just tell me I’m delusional. Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat on this forum…
Yes, unfortunately for some. The reason is in the SGC announcement:
Cleaning up the new version by removing legacy software that no longer builds correctly (Songcast, YMPD, and Logitech Media Server).
This version supports our long term plan to move remote servers away from the Rendu series and on to the sonicTransporter series products where they are much better suited.
I would just stick to the current OS if using one of those.
Almost every site that has reviews now has paid for in some way or another so I hold no faith in any of them, I research for myself. Probably get better recommendations on sites such as this than any review.
Nobody said anything about downloading? The issue, if any, is undisclosed benefits for reviews. It’s not a new one either and a topic in many countries e.g. regarding “influencers”
But after stricter rules were introduced to the Australian Association of National Advertisers’ code of ethics in February, social media figures who flaunt products or services – think anything from make-up and clothing to cars and holidays – must now be upfront about any commercial arrangements, whether paid or given for free.
I find it both ethically dubious and ironic (?) that a company with “Green” in its name requires purchase of a new SD card and the shipping this necessitates for something that could easily be done via a download.
Don’t upgrade then. The 2.8 card in my microRendu went wonky awhile back, so I pulled out the 2.7 card and was good to go (just using mine for the Bridge function). Yeah, I wish it was a different process, but they have their reasons, or so we’re told (perhaps with the major OS upgrades less customers bricking units this way?). But staying where I’m at won’t break my Rendu’s functionality. It’s my choice to spend that $29 or not.
I was merely trying to point out that “unethical” often goes both ways.
Exactly! What Sonore and Small Green Computer could easily do is post a link to a download of the ISO file for Version 2.9, which a user could then download and burn to a blank SD card.
I agree (obvs).
But I was just thinking this does fit into their business model: Charging exorbitant prices for those who aren’t comfortable with DIY alternatives.
And that’s fine I suppose as I was once one of those people.