[ethbr0]

One curious question.

No names or details, but in hindsight was there ever news or review points that you felt should have been reported, but wasn't because of publishing / relationship concerns? (Read: actual, factual details... discounting pique at counterparties / PR being assholes from time to time and deserving to be blasted)

I've always been curious how that balances. Would hope the type of stuff AnandTech covers has more natural immunity (vs something like games journalism).

PS: Thanks for all your work over the years! Between you and Anand, you guided years of PC builds, starting with a Pentium IV on an Asus P4C800-E Deluxe to get my university fiber-to-the-room traffic off the PCI bus. ;)

[IanCutress]

There were stories over the years that I wanted to write but didn't get approval. Anything that might instigate a political discourse was discouraged, for example, such as a story about holding an event about wireless network connectivity in an area where locals struggled to get even basic phone service.

I mean, there have been times where PR have been rude and incorrigible. Nothing to the extent that it'd be worth putting them on loudspeaker for, as that'd gut any future relationship, and sometimes it's down to one person in the chain causing the fuss, not the culture.

Part of what I've learned at AnandTech is how these chains of command work - you're not speaking with Company X, you're speaking to Person A on behalf of company X, and sometimes the information they are feeding you goes through 15 hands before it gets to you and if there's a bad apple in that chain, it could cause it all to go pear shaped. That's also part of the 'behind the curtain' I've tried to showcase in my reporting, rather than just simply dealing with a big box with company logo on it that prints money.

Part of the balance you describe is, in my mind, simply the result of reporting on people. If you stick to the science, the research, there's less room for disagreement.

Then again, Samsung stopped sampling us smartphones because every Snapdragon/Exynos review we did, with industry standard tests and power measurements, showed Snapdragon ahead for several years. They felt it wasn't in their best interests to sample us anymore, so we ended up buying the hardware after launch. At least, that was the PR team who didn't want to talk. The SoC team still wanted our input, but the way Samsung works, it was always difficult to have those discussions. Compare that to Samsung Foundry, who have invited me to consecutive industry events to learn about new features - they loved the coverage, and the questions I ask. Same company, different BUs, different media list, different blacklists.

Perhaps it's worth a book. When I'm retired.

[chernevik]

> you're not speaking with Company X, you're speaking to Person A on behalf of company X, and sometimes the information they are feeding you goes through 15 hands before it gets to you and if there's a bad apple in that chain, it could cause it all to go pear shaped

This.

[KennyBlanken]

> There were stories over the years that I wanted to write but didn't get approval. Anything that might instigate a political discourse was discouraged, for example, such as a story about holding an event about wireless network connectivity in an area where locals struggled to get even basic phone service.

That was considered "likely to instigate political discourse"? That's just depressing.

Seems like the real reason is "don't piss off the telecoms"...

[ethbr0]

Thanks for the thorough answer!

Makes perfect sense. From outside the company, it feels like The Company speaks and acts. From inside, you realize it's actually the VP of whatever making a decision.

I always enjoyed the 'behind the curtain' aspect. It was humanizing to see that even Smart People doing Hard Things didn't always get them perfectly right, especially in the recurring "Annals of Bad Product Naming" theme.