Editor’s take: In a tersely-worded email, Nvidia told Hardware Unboxed (and by extension TechSpot) that it would no longer be providing them with GeForce Founders Edition review units. The stated reason? Spending too little time focusing on RTX ray tracing, as opposed to raster performance. Hardware Unboxed, apparently, did “not see things the same way that we (Nvidia), gamers, and the rest of the industry do.”
As most of you know, Hardware Unboxed is Steve and Tim’s YouTube channel, and both Steve and Tim have been long time TechSpot partners. To this day, our publications collaborate and share the same PC enthusiast DNA that we forged together over nearly two decades. At TechSpot, we are proud hosts of their work for written versions of their latest reviews and analysis on CPUs, GPUs and views on the PC hardware industry as a whole.
As a corporation, it’s Nvidia’s prerogative to decide on the reviewers it chooses to collaborate with. However, this and other related incidents raise serious questions around journalistic independence and what they are expecting of reviewers when they are sent products for an unbiased opinion. As an independent tech publication, we’ve spent the past 20+ years providing objective and informative content. Hardware Unboxed tech reviews are comprehensive. They’re meant to inform consumers about every aspect of a particular product, so you know exactly what you’re getting before making a purchasing decision.
Nvidia have officially decided to ban us from receiving GeForce Founders Edition GPU review samples
Their reasoning is that we are focusing on rasterization instead of ray tracing.
They have said they will revisit this “should your editorial direction change”.
In today’s dynamic graphics hardware space, with 350W flagships, hardware ray tracing, and exotic cooling solutions, there’s a wide range of data points HUB looks at. But at the end of the day, there’s only one real question every GPU buyer wants to know: how well do games run on a particular piece of hardware? Considering that 99% percent of Steam games feature raster-only rendering pipelines, rasterization performance was, is, and will be, a key point that Steve considers in GPU reviews.
Ray tracing is becoming increasingly important. AMD outfitted both the PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X/S with hardware ray accelerators, and we’ve seen remarkable ray-traced visuals in games like Spiderman: Miles Morales on PlayStation 5 and the upcoming Forza Motorsport on Xbox Series X/S. While performance isn’t really where it ought to be (even with the help DLSS), Cyberpunk 2077 delivers a jaw-dropping vision of the next-gen on PC, with RTX effects dialed all the way up.
However, most games (including almost all RTX titles) are built on raster renderers. A hypothetical graphics card with most of its die space reserved for ray tracing would run Quake II RTX great and… not much else. Ray tracing absolutely deserves a place in modern GPU reviews. But there’s simply not enough of it in enough games for any responsible reviewer to put it center-stage, in place of raster performance. It wouldn’t do justice to consumers, who will primarily be running raster workloads. This is why Nvidia’s complaint is so puzzling.
Thank you everyone for the support, while reading comments and stories I realized that I reviewed my first Nvidia GeForce product exactly 20 years ago, the GeForce2 GTS supplied by Nvidia. So, they just ended a 20-year working relationship and for what?
In his email to Steve, Nvidia Senior PR Manager Bryan Del Rizzo says that “Nvidia is all-in for ray tracing,” and “despite all this progress, your GPU reviews and recommendations have continued to focus singularly on rasterization performance and you have largely discounted all of the other technologies we offer gamers.” Del Rizzo goes on to state that “you do not see things the same way that we, gamers, and the rest of the industry do.”
This statement is particularly ironic and obnoxious. On Nvidia’s landing page for DLSS, the GPU manufacturer literally uses a Hardware Unboxed quote (“Extremely impressive”) to promote their AI upscaling technology. Our initial look at DLSS in Battlefield V revealed a technology that was in dire need of improvement. Two years later, we revisited DLSS 2.0 in Control and Wolfenstein Youngblood and recognized the tremendous improvement Nvidia made to this technology. Claiming HUB “doesn’t see things the same way” is disingenuous, to say the least. As an objective reviewer, it’s Steve’s responsibility to its viewers and readers to see things the way they are, which may not always coincide with the way Nvidia sees them.
Trust and objectivity are critical for any successful reviewer. Not every graphics card is a winner. Some, like the Radeon VII and the GeForce GT 1030 DDR4, were just plain awful. Not every graphics technology is a game-changer either.
I have something else to say about NVIDIA’s latest decision to shoot both its feet: They’ve now made it so that any reviewers covering RT will become subject to scrutiny from untrusting viewers who will suspect subversion by the company.
Clearly, reviewers know this is no isolated incidence, but it was very arrogant of Nvidia to write an entire email explaining you could either get in line with their views, or else.
A decade ago, Nvidia’s hardware PhysX acceleration was touted as a revolution, enabling advanced destruction, fluid dynamics, and particle simulation in games like Arkham City and Metro: 2033. Back in 2010, we included PhysX benchmarks in our review of Mafia II. AnandTech, Tom’s Hardware, and other outlets also extensively covered PhysX. However, it was never made out to be more important than raster performance. There were raster benchmarks, more raster benchmarks with anti-aliasing enabled, and then a PhysX test. There’s a clear, consistent thread here from PhysX to RTX: HUB and TechSpot give GPU technologies the amount of coverage we believe they need for consumers to make an informed choice.
[embedded content]
It’s even more trouble (and out of touch, as JayZTwoCents describes it), when Del Rizzo alludes to how Hardware Unboxed and other outlets “benefit” from GPU review units, in contrast to customers. Del Rizzo states the obvious here, that customers “don’t get free GPUs, they work hard for their money.” Setting aside the fact that HUB’s detailed reviews often take several days and weeks to put together, this statement misses the forest for the trees. Yes, most review outlets get units from hardware vendors. But they get these on the understanding that their reviews will reach hundreds of thousands of potential customers, who are looking for trusted information.
It’d be hard to assess exactly how many people purchased a GeForce RTX graphics card after watching one of HUB’s several RTX reviews — between TechSpot and HUB combined, we estimate in the thousands — but it’s certainly worth more than the cost of a single graphics card. But, ultimately, that’s not what’s at play here…
Attacking press freedom is always a lose-lose-lose scenario: reviewers, customers, and businesses are all impacted negatively. Shortly after Steve went public with Nvidia’s email, he’s seen overwhelming support from the tech community. Not just fans of Hardware Unboxed, or viewers and readers, but numerous tech outlets who understand that this is not just about Steve or Hardware Unboxed, but it’s about principle.
Clearly, reviewers know this is no isolated incidence, but it was very arrogant of Nvidia to write an entire email explaining you could either get in line with their views, or else. This could have happened to any other outlet. In fact, it has happened to many of them already, but either to a lesser extent or handled in a way that Nvidia (or any other big tech company) simply played the part of ignoring the reviewer without ever giving them any explanation.
Less than 48 hours later, Steve received the good news.
Nvidia apologized and walked everything back. Great news indeed, but let’s be clear this wouldn’t have happened if not for the support of the community at large and key people in the tech space that have such an enormous influence that it was too much for Nvidia to ignore. Linus from LinusTechTips (his angry rant on the WAN Show embedded above is pure gold) and Steve from Gamers Nexus, were two of those persons.
Our own Steve Walton (HUB) was the one living this whole situation close to his chest for the past few days and he’s expected to upload a video soon with his recount.
BIG NEWS
I just received an email from Nvidia apologizing for the previous email & they’ve now walked everything back.
This thing has been a roller coaster ride over the past few days. I’d like to thank everyone who supported us, obviously a huge thank you to @linusgsebastian
Things really don’t need to be this hard. At the end of the day, reviewers, customers (and “the rest of the industry”) all want the same things. We want Nvidia, AMD, Intel (and heck, even Apple!) to produce great hardware that can do justice to the next generation of games and computing. There is so much to look forward to in the coming years.
We’re going to continue to take a broad, holistic view so that every technology that we cover gets its fair space. As Nvidia said, consumers work hard for their money. We just want to make sure you know what you’re spending it on.
The federal government is ordering the dissolution of TikTok’s Canadian business after a national security review of the Chinese company behind the social media platform, but stopped short of ordering people to stay off the app.
Industry Minister François-Philippe Champagne announced the government’s “wind up” demand Wednesday, saying it is meant to address “risks” related to ByteDance Ltd.’s establishment of TikTok Technology Canada Inc.
“The decision was based on the information and evidence collected over the course of the review and on the advice of Canada’s security and intelligence community and other government partners,” he said in a statement.
The announcement added that the government is not blocking Canadians’ access to the TikTok application or their ability to create content.
However, it urged people to “adopt good cybersecurity practices and assess the possible risks of using social media platforms and applications, including how their information is likely to be protected, managed, used and shared by foreign actors, as well as to be aware of which country’s laws apply.”
Champagne’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment seeking details about what evidence led to the government’s dissolution demand, how long ByteDance has to comply and why the app is not being banned.
A TikTok spokesperson said in a statement that the shutdown of its Canadian offices will mean the loss of hundreds of well-paying local jobs.
“We will challenge this order in court,” the spokesperson said.
“The TikTok platform will remain available for creators to find an audience, explore new interests and for businesses to thrive.”
The federal Liberals ordered a national security review of TikTok in September 2023, but it was not public knowledge until The Canadian Press reported in March that it was investigating the company.
At the time, it said the review was based on the expansion of a business, which it said constituted the establishment of a new Canadian entity. It declined to provide any further details about what expansion it was reviewing.
A government database showed a notification of new business from TikTok in June 2023. It said Network Sense Ventures Ltd. in Toronto and Vancouver would engage in “marketing, advertising, and content/creator development activities in relation to the use of the TikTok app in Canada.”
Even before the review, ByteDance and TikTok were lightning rod for privacy and safety concerns because Chinese national security laws compel organizations in the country to assist with intelligence gathering.
Such concerns led the U.S. House of Representatives to pass a bill in March designed to ban TikTok unless its China-based owner sells its stake in the business.
Champagne’s office has maintained Canada’s review was not related to the U.S. bill, which has yet to pass.
Canada’s review was carried out through the Investment Canada Act, which allows the government to investigate any foreign investment with potential to might harm national security.
While cabinet can make investors sell parts of the business or shares, Champagne has said the act doesn’t allow him to disclose details of the review.
Wednesday’s dissolution order was made in accordance with the act.
The federal government banned TikTok from its mobile devices in February 2023 following the launch of an investigation into the company by federal and provincial privacy commissioners.
— With files from Anja Karadeglija in Ottawa
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 6, 2024.
LONDON (AP) — Most people have accumulated a pile of data — selfies, emails, videos and more — on their social media and digital accounts over their lifetimes. What happens to it when we die?
It’s wise to draft a will spelling out who inherits your physical assets after you’re gone, but don’t forget to take care of your digital estate too. Friends and family might treasure files and posts you’ve left behind, but they could get lost in digital purgatory after you pass away unless you take some simple steps.
Here’s how you can prepare your digital life for your survivors:
Apple
The iPhone maker lets you nominate a “ legacy contact ” who can access your Apple account’s data after you die. The company says it’s a secure way to give trusted people access to photos, files and messages. To set it up you’ll need an Apple device with a fairly recent operating system — iPhones and iPads need iOS or iPadOS 15.2 and MacBooks needs macOS Monterey 12.1.
For iPhones, go to settings, tap Sign-in & Security and then Legacy Contact. You can name one or more people, and they don’t need an Apple ID or device.
You’ll have to share an access key with your contact. It can be a digital version sent electronically, or you can print a copy or save it as a screenshot or PDF.
Take note that there are some types of files you won’t be able to pass on — including digital rights-protected music, movies and passwords stored in Apple’s password manager. Legacy contacts can only access a deceased user’s account for three years before Apple deletes the account.
Google
Google takes a different approach with its Inactive Account Manager, which allows you to share your data with someone if it notices that you’ve stopped using your account.
When setting it up, you need to decide how long Google should wait — from three to 18 months — before considering your account inactive. Once that time is up, Google can notify up to 10 people.
You can write a message informing them you’ve stopped using the account, and, optionally, include a link to download your data. You can choose what types of data they can access — including emails, photos, calendar entries and YouTube videos.
There’s also an option to automatically delete your account after three months of inactivity, so your contacts will have to download any data before that deadline.
Facebook and Instagram
Some social media platforms can preserve accounts for people who have died so that friends and family can honor their memories.
When users of Facebook or Instagram die, parent company Meta says it can memorialize the account if it gets a “valid request” from a friend or family member. Requests can be submitted through an online form.
The social media company strongly recommends Facebook users add a legacy contact to look after their memorial accounts. Legacy contacts can do things like respond to new friend requests and update pinned posts, but they can’t read private messages or remove or alter previous posts. You can only choose one person, who also has to have a Facebook account.
You can also ask Facebook or Instagram to delete a deceased user’s account if you’re a close family member or an executor. You’ll need to send in documents like a death certificate.
TikTok
The video-sharing platform says that if a user has died, people can submit a request to memorialize the account through the settings menu. Go to the Report a Problem section, then Account and profile, then Manage account, where you can report a deceased user.
Once an account has been memorialized, it will be labeled “Remembering.” No one will be able to log into the account, which prevents anyone from editing the profile or using the account to post new content or send messages.
X
It’s not possible to nominate a legacy contact on Elon Musk’s social media site. But family members or an authorized person can submit a request to deactivate a deceased user’s account.
Passwords
Besides the major online services, you’ll probably have dozens if not hundreds of other digital accounts that your survivors might need to access. You could just write all your login credentials down in a notebook and put it somewhere safe. But making a physical copy presents its own vulnerabilities. What if you lose track of it? What if someone finds it?
Instead, consider a password manager that has an emergency access feature. Password managers are digital vaults that you can use to store all your credentials. Some, like Keeper,Bitwarden and NordPass, allow users to nominate one or more trusted contacts who can access their keys in case of an emergency such as a death.
But there are a few catches: Those contacts also need to use the same password manager and you might have to pay for the service.
___
Is there a tech challenge you need help figuring out? Write to us at onetechtip@ap.org with your questions.
LONDON (AP) — Britain’s competition watchdog said Thursday it’s opening a formal investigation into Google’s partnership with artificial intelligence startup Anthropic.
The Competition and Markets Authority said it has “sufficient information” to launch an initial probe after it sought input earlier this year on whether the deal would stifle competition.
The CMA has until Dec. 19 to decide whether to approve the deal or escalate its investigation.
“Google is committed to building the most open and innovative AI ecosystem in the world,” the company said. “Anthropic is free to use multiple cloud providers and does, and we don’t demand exclusive tech rights.”
San Francisco-based Anthropic was founded in 2021 by siblings Dario and Daniela Amodei, who previously worked at ChatGPT maker OpenAI. The company has focused on increasing the safety and reliability of AI models. Google reportedly agreed last year to make a multibillion-dollar investment in Anthropic, which has a popular chatbot named Claude.
Anthropic said it’s cooperating with the regulator and will provide “the complete picture about Google’s investment and our commercial collaboration.”
“We are an independent company and none of our strategic partnerships or investor relationships diminish the independence of our corporate governance or our freedom to partner with others,” it said in a statement.
The U.K. regulator has been scrutinizing a raft of AI deals as investment money floods into the industry to capitalize on the artificial intelligence boom. Last month it cleared Anthropic’s $4 billion deal with Amazon and it has also signed off on Microsoft’s deals with two other AI startups, Inflection and Mistral.
