Why I distrust reviews on YouTube, and why you should too.

When reviewing a product like a piece of technology or a movie for example, one would expect the reviews and the reviewer to be objective in their reviews. However, given the popularity of YouTube and independent websites like Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes (Ewww!) even, you cannot distinguish whose reviews are being genuine and which ones are fake. Unfortunately this is becoming difficult and nearly impossible to tell with the pantheon of reviewers saturating both the Internet and YouTube.

Over the past couple of decades however, these reviewers have gotten so bold that anyone who is anyone is able to review a movie or a piece of technology whether they are qualified or not, have been churning out reviews that are not entirely objective, nor provide clarity on who would be the right target customer based or the right target audience for a movie for example. They defend their poor quality criticisms by calling them constructive criticisms. They argue that they are expressing their opinions. Maybe some of them are and maybe some of them are justifying their poor criticisms with excuses. Zeus only knows the answer to this. And to add insult to injury, nobody seems to be analyzing their feedback or criticisms and challenging them on this by asking relevant questions.

And where are these 'critics' coming from or originating from? Mostly from the Internet and YouTube if you were to ask me. Some of the critics are down right paid trolls and it shows in what they say about a particular product or reviews.

The biggest problem with critics:

The nitpicking - especially in product reviews. How on great Zeus' Olympus can they sit there in their armchair, with that flashy looking headset of theirs (while trying to look cool/stylish), and in front of their computer with that fancy keyboard that they spent more money than necessary for focus on every god forsaken flaw of a product or a movie and claim that you are expressing an opinion or providing constructive feedback? Let me tell you, these so called 'reviewers' or 'critics' aren't doing themselves any favors by nitpicking. They simply need to stare the crap out of themselves in the mirror and ask: "why I am doing this in the first place?" 

The fact that these critics on the Internet need no documentation or anything to show that they are qualified to offer any sort of criticism (constructive or otherwise) should be a cause for great concern.

Examples of poor quality criticisms:

• When it comes to movies and TV shows, every single aspect of the story is over analyzed and shredded to bits and heavily criticized as not being realistic or not believable. This is true when it comes to action movies and fantasy based movies and TV shows. What these idiots fail to see is that movies and TV shows are make belief, they aren't meant to be realistic because the audience wants to 'suspend their disbelief' when they watch the movie or TV show in question. They also fail to understand that when movies are made and stories are written, they are based off of the "What if" scenario and then answering that question in the end of the movie. 
• Here's the scoop: any movie or TV show that is heavily criticized is the best one to watch and anything that is heavily praised is to be avoided at all costs. 
• If you'd like an example, the critics who heavily criticized the film The Tomorrow War deserve a super strong and harsh slap on the face. They criticized anything and everything wrong with it. Are you fluffing joshing me? When I finally got to see the movie, it was a fantastic experience. Very well planned and executed. With J.K Simmons and Chris Pratt as the duo hero team working together to defeat the enemy.
• Smartphone reviews. Okay, I will give a pass to two individuals on this one: MKBHD and Mrwhosetheboss on YouTube. Most reviewers of smartphones however, are a different story: They start off with the specs as always and they compare it to other popular smartphones on the market. Some even argue how Android is better than iOS and make the same old dumb ass recycled arguments about the operating systems that are often refutable. They forget who the target customer base is for each operating system of the smartphone. These are also the type of reviewers who only focus on the hardware features and specifications and base their criticism off of that. They never really touch on the user experience. I have seen a lot of debates (some of them heated) arguing why this smartphone is better than that smartphone and yadiyadi yadda. Not even a mention of who really goes for something like that. Not everyone needs the features boasted about a particular smartphone.
• Camera lenses. When reviewing these lenses, I am pretty sure reviewers not only zoom in on a particular section of a still image or a moving image, they also fault the lens for having these imperfections and expect the rest of us to fork out big money to buy the lenses that they recommend. Since the final image will be viewed in its entirety, why would they bother with the darn details? The average Joe will not be purposely looking at the image for these flaws so what the bloody Lucifer are they doing here? The average Joe will only be interested in the experience of it all. Plus, they're not even mentioning who would use the lenses they are reviewing. There are areas that these critics are focusing on that aren't really relevant in some professional settings:
• De-clicked aperture ring: This is where when you turn the aperture ring to a desired number setting, the ring clicks when moving to the next number until it reaches the desired setting. I can only thing of one scenario where this could cause a problem: If you are recording a moving image and changing the aperture at the same time. However, I am not sure why this is relevant because most of the time, you'd keep the aperture constant and change it before capturing the next image or another image.
• Chromatic adoration or purple fringing: This is one of the most commonly critiqued flaw when reviewing lenses. This is where there is discoloration in parts of the captured image. This happens when the reviewers zoom in on various parts of the image and spot it. Not exactly sure why this is such a big issue for them when they bring it up.
• Comparing lenses from two different manufacturers: Like most product comparison reviews, comparing two different lenses that are similar in focal length and specifications from two different manufacturers has become common, and one again, while comparing images taken by these two competing lenses, the critics focus on the same darn aspects of the lenses. The competing lenses may cost less and yes, the general consensus is to determine whether the drop in price is even worth the cost and investment into the lens, but no mention of who would be the target customer base for them.
• Other tech like cameras and computers. Again, the specs and the hardware features come into play rather than the user experience of it all. They don't even reveal in their review who the equipment being reviewed is for.
• When it comes to cameras, rolling shutter seems to be the popular point of critique when talking about cameras for video. A lot of these reviewers do test hybrid cameras like the Sony A7SIII or a Canon or a Nikon Camera even. Rolling shutter is where when a camera is panned in quick succession, it creates a jelly affect. In movies, the panning is consistently smooth and slow: not as fast as these guys are using for the test. It is not an accurate test.
• When it comes to computers on the other hand, the critics rely on scores provided by a website by Geekbench. They take this number and make a preliminary determination about the performance of a computer. A lot of these critics reviewing computers are either computer enthusiasts or hard core gamers - not the average Joe. They forget that the average Joe is not into gaming or the average Joe is not into fluffing Geekbench scores.
• Some critics will determine that if a computer does not have the latest generation processor, it is a deal breaker. My rebuttal to this would be that if it gets the job done in a reasonable length of time, it is up to the darn job. I would also ask the question: "What it is about a computing device not having the latest generation processor that is making it such a deal breaker? Why do you believe this BS to be true?
• Complaining that elements in a script, finished movie or TV show are unrealistic, not believable or illogical: Seriously? You really want to go down that road?  Let me ask you one question: You spend an entire of your life dealing with reality and now you're telling me that you want more of it? How sad is that? Movies and TV shows that are produced from a written and fully polished screenplay are make believe. They ask the "What if" question. Plus, a lot of the reviews on YouTube complain about elements that are easily refutable. The movies have been made for their entertainment value and not there to satisfy your so called "realistic" expectations. People really want to suspend their disbelief and escape reality for a change.

And it will still continue:

Even if every manufacturer of a product or producer of a movie or TV show were to address all criticisms raised by the so called 'critics', they still won't be happy. They will still find something to criticize about. That is the honest to Zeus truth. They are always on the lookout for anything and everything wrong with a piece of technology or movie or TV production.

And we trust these guys?

The consequence:

The more power we give them, the more we distrust ourselves in making decisions that affect us and our choices in life. Letting someone make some of these decisions for us is letting someone else manage our money when being accused of being incapable of managing it ourselves - when all the while, we are completely capable of managing it ourselves. It undermines our confidence. The same thing is happening when we let critics decide what to buy or tell us what not to buy, they are undermining our confidence in making this decision on our own.

Sure, when large sums of money are involved, you don't want to make the wrong move and lose it all unnecessarily.  We can trust our instincts and factor out any compulsion or temptation that is influencing our decision. We know better that to allow someone to rush us into making a hasty decision like a salesperson urging us to accept the deal he/she is offering right then and there. You especially do not want to do this with investing. Here, you also want to trust your instincts and remove all temptation or impulsiveness from the equation.

But not all critics are created this equally bad:

Some criticism is warranted. Examples include when critics criticized the first two God's not Dead movies, I could see their point. When critics criticized Nicholas Spark's movie The Choice as being predictable, I can absolutely attest to this because I went and watched it and concluded the same. There are instances where critics are right, but for the majority of the cases, they are so wrong on a lot of levels, and this is why I am calling for every person who comes across any of these types of critics to call them out on their BS or at least challenge their analysis of things.

Why I distrust the reviewers:

Time and time again, the reverse was proven true when I conducted the movie experiment some years back. I picked 5 movies that were heavily criticized and 5 that were heavily praised. I found that it was the ones that were heavily criticized were the ones that were really good. It has caused me to analyze the criticisms at hand and determine whether they were constructive or destructive in nature. To be honest, the majority of the criticisms you come across are destructive masquerading as constructive criticism and opinion based. They are not objective, but heavily subjective. This is why you see poor quality movies and TV shows being made and poor quality products being made because no one can win as long as these unqualified critics are running the show.

Critics are always wrong.

When critics told Elvis Presley that he had no talent and that he wasn't going to make it in the music business, we can see how wrong they were and this will never be openly admitted. As for Elvis, look at where he is now. He is the fluffing King of Rock and Roll for crying out loud.

Having said this, there are a few reviewers you can still trust. The key here is objectivity. You need to look for reviewers that are giving their objective view on any piece of tech or movie/TV show. Someone who understands who a particular piece of gear. tech, movie/TV show is aimed at.

So in conclusion, reviewers on YouTube and on the Internet are plentiful and are like the Wild Wild West (not the Will Smith kind). They are super subjective and have nothing of substance to offer except for nitpicking on everything and calling it an objective/constructive criticism or an expression of opinion where no qualification exists. And this is why we shouldn't be taking their criticisms at face value or accepting their criticisms as valid 100% of the time. Asking probing questions to determine how they came to this conclusion about a said product/service, movie or a TV show is key to deciding which critic we can listen to and which ones to ignore right from the get go.

We should be trusting our instincts and not let anyone undermine our confidence in our ability to make these kinds of decisions for ourselves just like we would never let someone manage our money when we are completely capable of doing this ourselves. Sometimes it can be an expensive exercise to try and figure out which product/service or piece of tech worked out for us and which ones didn't. However, if this can build our confidence in ourselves, then I'd say go for it.

We can do this people.

Don't let anyone, and I mean anyone, undermine your confidence and attempt to steal your dreams.

The Fundamental problem with independent computer shops and repairmen

I've spoken to quite a few independent computer shops and found that the owners are extremely bitter and have the propensity to complain a lot about one company: Apple. They criticize Apple with the same old dumb ass arguments that other critics use to discredit or find reasons to use against the company.

I found this to be extremely hypocritical because the accusations made against Apple under the false pretense of "Free speech" and "constructive criticism" is not unique to Apple. Their arguments fall flat because the majority of these accusations should be directed at any company that is guilty of what Apple is being accused of doing: i.e. price gouging, less hardware features, monopoly over its customers, calling Apple's customers "Fanboys", Apple copying another company, or being late to the game, etc, etc. 

When I assess these arguments for merit, I find that they fall flat for a variety of different reasons. A few of which are listed below:

Calling them "Fanboys" or Apple Sheep:

Seriously? I could easily walk up to an avid user of any brand and call them exactly that: Fanboys. This is primarily true of Samsung. if you love Samsung and if you love everything Samsung does, then that is your prerogative.  How are people who use Apple any different? Each tech company is doing this to its customers. They have something that their customers need or want. That is why their customers go to them or are loyal to them. The only difference here is Apple is offering something that the majority of the customers need: It simply works out of the darn box and is truly seamless and user friendly.

For critics of Apple to use this is an excuse to find something wrong with the company. What is stopping an Apple customer from saying the same thing?

Also, it is as simple as replacing the word Apple and inserting the name of any company that goes with the word "Sheep".

Apple copied <insert company name here>:

There is an old saying: 

Good Artists copy. Great Artists steal.

And that is exactly what Apple's competitors are: "Good Artists", and that is key. 

This argument falls flat because it is the exact reverse of what Apple is being accused of doing: Other companies copy Apple to compete with Apple - plain and simple.

Apple puts in the leg work when it comes to R&D and its competitors conveniently take the easy way out to save costs and turn around and encourage their fanbase to complain that Apple copied them.

Critics conveniently ignore this and continue to use this argument every time Apple releases a new product.

Apple is being Greedy:

If that is the best argument you're going with, then you fail again. This is not unique to Apple. There are other companies in the tech and other industries that are also this way. 

Again, why are critics singling out Apple? I know why: Those who complain are ignorant to the bigger picture and refuse to believe that the companies they support are also doing what Apple is being accused of.

The whole Throttle gate fiasco:

If you aren't aware, Throttle gate was when Apple was caught out throttling down its processors in an effort to prolong the longevity of the batteries in its iPhones and iPads. Critics accused Apple of "Planned Obsolescence", while other companies are doing the exact same thing. Apple explained that because of a risk of the devices shutting down when the battery itself has significantly worn out, Apple made the (controversial) decision to throttle down performance so that users can still keep using their device. If this was one of Apple's biggest competitors like Samsung or Microsoft, then they would have looked the other way. It forced Apple to release a software update to allow people to choose whether their devices will be throttled to conserve battery or turn the throttling off and continue to experience shut downs of their device until the customer gets annoyed and upgrades eventually.

Personally, I would rather have a working device that has a slight drop in performance than a device that shuts down unexpectedly while I am doing something midway.

Right to Repair Controversy:

Enter Louis Rossmann. One of the many complainants who conveniently makes money from YouTube videos complaining about Apple - while repairing Apple MacBooks. Seriously Louis? You're going to complain about a company while trying to repair their products for customers? You expect me to believe that you are fighting for the small independent repairman while making allegations of proprietorship and a company requiring consumers to go with genuine parts?

Hmmm. Let's list some examples of companies that are also doing this:

• HP,
• Epson,
• Canon,
• Brother,
• Samsung.

I could go on and on.

Here's the scoop: Some of these companies will tell you that the use of non-genuine parts will void your warranty and damage your whatever equipment you are trying to install the non-genuine part in. And yet, Apple some how is the big evil Goliath of a werewolf.

However, proponents of right to repair really need to step back and ask themselves an important question: Is it acceptable to blame the manufacturer if the consumer has deliberately destroyed their gadget and expects said manufacturer to fix it at their cost?

Also, 

• Will standards be set for repairmen to protect the consumer if any qualified or certified repairman does a botched job of fixing something? 
• Who is responsible when things go wrong with the repairman? 
• Is there a governing body the consumer can approach to refer their complaint to should the repairman refuse to make amends?
• Will there be penalties for wrongdoers?
• Will there be processes set in place to prevent unscrupulous repairmen from running wild and engaging in unconscionable business practices?

Nobody seems to be asking the hard questions when it comes to right to repair. It is simply: every repairman should be afforded the right to repair a gadget and have schematics available to them to do the job or every consumer should have the right to repair their own gadget since they bought it.

I can confidently tell you that this right to repair saga will yield a 10 headed, super thirsty Hydra.

Less Hardware features:

This is what's wrong with the tech community these days. They always seem to judge an electronic item or a piece of equipment by what it has on the outside. As the saying goes: "Don't judge a book by its cover." Unfortunately, a lot of them in the tech community do judge a book by its cover.

Sure, Apple may not have the bells and whistles that the tech community wants or wishes for, but where they shine is on the inside: the software side of things. The real power lies in the internals of all Apple products - more so than what is designed on the outside.

And yet, you find people who still end up complaining about Apple while using their products. I would call this hypocrisy at its finest.

You can have the most spec'd out PC or gadget that money can buy, but remember, it is all irrelevant if the hardware cannot keep up with all the software upgrades and the software changes that software developers introduce to the apps that you use on them.

A bad handyman will always blame his tools.

It costs too much (it's too expensive)

I can understand that this type of argument is made by those who are either price conscious or bargain hunting consumers. These individuals believe they are smart by paying less, but what they do not understand is the fact that this price reduction comes at the expense of product quality, durability and reliability.

Price is only one factor of the equation and definitely not necessarily a deal breaker when you weigh in the benefits alongside the short comings of the product that Apple has to offer.

Plus, the price conscious individual is not the type of consumer base Apple is interested in. They are more for people who value durability, reliability and simplicity.

I cannot begin to list the number of times I have been asked this question on Quora and in variations when it comes to the high price of an Apple product.

If the high price of a product is a deal breaker for you and you complain about it, then you also fail big time.

Everything listed here should never be controversial to begin with!

I don't know what it is, but critics go into automatic complain mode every time the subject of Apple comes up. It's like some of them are even paid to do it.

I now what you're thinking: that I am paid to write this article. Well, newsflash! I am not.

I'll tell you who is trying to get paid to bash Apple: the ones who go all out and sue Apple for the simplest of things and end up embarrassing themselves after the verdict is handed down in Apple's favor. I've seen people sue Apple for things like how the display didn't measure up correctly, or the frame of an iPhone didn't line up properly, or because someone typed the address of an inappropriate website by mistake and were 'traumatised' by it. So, they ended up suing Apple. 

Oh the insane humanity.

If you were to ask me why, I will simply say that their ulterior motive is to make a quick buck, and have this quick buck coming from Apple - now that they are valued at $3 Trillion (at the time of writing this article).

So in conclusion, if you are a computer store owner, your job is to give advise and sell what you have to offer to your customers in your store. Keep your super biased opinions about any tech company to yourself. You can easily turn off customers that way. Stop with the cliché arguments that can easily be refuted.