Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by redegg 2994 days ago
This happened in 2014, why the hell is this being brought up now? It should be noted that NextDesk changed their name to Xdesk after this debacle years ago.

Also NOT published and considered in this flame throwing is Wirecutter's response. There is a clear agenda. I only know this fiasco because I spent hours looking for a standing desk yesterday.

- In terms of durability: laminate > bamboo > powdercoat. Powdercoat feels EXTREMELY nice, but it's made of compacted shards so not really lasting.

- Most use Chinese motors but they're not really an issue.

- Just get whatever is the cheapest from a common brand. Fully (Jarvis), UPLIFT, VertDesk are all good. Jarvis and UPLIFT are similarly priced but UPLIFT's bamboo table is thicker. Xdesk is personally too expensive for something I would go to Herman Miller or Steelcase for a similarly priced desk.

- The wobble at high heights for the ones above ^ exists but is in practice not really an issue (at like the maximum height where your arms would be at an uncomfortable position then). Personally, I only want a standing desk so I can adjust to a good height for my chair, so I would never use it to stand at 5' for hours at a time. BTOD produces good reviews on YouTube and their site but keep in mind they create the VertDesk.

https://thewirecutter.com/our-response-to-nextdesk/

3 comments

"This happened in 2014, why the hell is this being brought up now?"

I just found out about it, and thought others might be interested. I have used The Wirecutter reviews to make purchasing decisions. For me, this incident just a few years ago makes me doubt their objectivity today.

Thank you for posting this, definitely interesting and useful.
Seems like Wirecutter's response didn't respond to things they didn't want to talk about. Looking at their standing desk guide now, they still haven't reviewed any of the newer xdesks. Kinda surprised Wirecutter got away with the better end of this.
FYI seems like this article was posted in 2016, not sure why it's labeled 2014.
It actually has an update from 2017.

I put 2014 based on the date of the original emails. I see no "published on" date on the page.