>>109477183
unbox therapy for the even more retarded retards

Did they get bought out by some media conglomerate, or change CEO or something?
What would prompt them to jew out so suddenly?

>>109477183
They purchased various monitors and TVs and tested them and their reviews went so in-depth that you barely find anything comparable in the market. And they offered that to is for free for several years.

Now they are at the verge of not being able to do this anymore because they don't have the money to continue. Instead of just shutting down completely they implemented a subscription system to get full access, but even if you don't pay up you can still read tons of stuff on there for free.

I'm sickened how entitled people have become these days. Go and build your own website, ungrateful cretin.

>>109477227
AI brought down their traffic

>>109477232
theres no such thing as private property

>>109477183
It's that or you watch ads for some zoomer garbage on youtube. It's just unfortunate that there seems to be no real way to fund this stuff without going down the youtube mass appeal route.
>>109477232
Yeah, they always seemed good to me, but most people aren't willing to pay for this.

>>109477183
just view the full reviews of relevant tvs when they open them up for free by reddit
it's only like 1-2 tvs a year that are relevant anyway kek

>>109477232
>in depth
they like every other mainstream reviewer does not touch on the most important thing of user goods which is the user experience and potential bugs and issues
which means they just run stat tools and report numbers
literal retard tier

all you need to know right now is buy the brightest qdoled display and that is the best display
until microled comes out

seeya

>>109477183
AI tards when they have to defend big techs stealing data on a massive scale
>adapt or die, free use, abolish copyright laws, that multi bilion usd data center works just like ur brain retard,do you pay for what you see?

AI tards wonder why internet is becoming a worse place and everything goes behind walls of captcha and pay per content business model aka adapting to new reality
>nooo, u can't
Ar u retarded?

>>109477618
freedomtards when google tries to block their adblocks
>this is hecking fascism, down with big tech!
freedomtards when they have to pay for literally anything
>this is so dystopian and greedy, wtf

>>109477618
also freedomtards regarding piracy
>we need less copyright laws. piracy is a human right.
same freedomtards regarding corporations pirating the same things
>we need more copyright laws. i'm being genocided by meta.
freedomtards when internet is being paywalled (even if this started years before due to declining ad revenue)
>i'm entirely blameless, though i am unwilling to watch any ads or pay for anything, i'm also going to pirate all of your games and shows, please ignore that little detail.

They did it to own le AI. Primarily Google Gemini because they already stole their traffic by summarizing their site so no click.

>>109477864
robots.txt and user accounts for bots that don't comply, that excuse doesn't make any sense.

>>109477917
It used to be they get traffic via google
The traffic ended, google got the traffic by using their work

how else are you going to figure out what overpriced shitty product like oled to buy without rtings?
saaar
oled solved issue :)

>>109477931
you haven't explained why they need a paywall, instead of just blocking parts of the site to crawlers.
they could have it partially exposed to the public and require an unpaid account for the actual review.

>>109477183
it was pretty good for headphones with their autistic testing but I would never pay for it

>>109477975
block site to crawlers
people search product, ur site doesnt show up
no traffic, site dies

enable crawlers
site pops up, directs people to buy sub
people dont buy sub but the site dies slower

>>109477183
They don't review poorfag tv's so its useless to me

>>109478006
you misunderstand, it would be exactly like it is right now, but only require the account.
site is crawled and shows up on search results but you need an account to get the full review.
if people still prefer the limited summary from other sources, did they even care about the in-depth reviews in the first place? if they do, they're more likely to be technical people who aren't just running the default browser on their phones.

All these hardware review sites must surely realize that this cannot be a sustainable business model, right? People aren't buying new hardware constantly, they buy one thing and then stop looking at your content for a long while.
And I'm not even referring to the subscription model specifically, just the concept of being a dedicated reviewer of something that people only need very sporadically.

>>109477183
>filtered by browser cookies
The absolute state of /g/ in 2016 + 10

>>109477183
do you want them to be sponsored like every other outlet.

You know they buy everything they review at steet prices

>>109477232
>And they offered that to is for free for several years.
No they didn't. Their site was always filled with ads and sponsored links.

>>109478515
>All these hardware review sites must surely realize that this cannot be a sustainable business model, right?
They don't. They did a whole article about MUH AI IS KILLING US so they probably got a bunch of pitty subs that will all cancel soon.
I predict that they will be forced to shut down or massively scale back the site in less than 5 years.

>>109477227
Their content was stolen by aislop scrapers and sharted out into the aislop summary every shit search engine insists on using, meaning fewer people were actually going to the site to give them page views and ad revenue necessary for the site to exist and their testing to be funded.

>>109477232
>rating only expensive gear on amazon good
>>109478030
Basically
>>109477982
Crinacle is better and actually right

>>109481889
Crinacle doesn't have anything like what rtings does for headphones. Never has and never will.

>>109477183
>wahh wahh the internet is all supposed to be 100% free
Get a job.

>>109479167
what this gay ass miguel is talking about?
you can bypass that paywall using a forged cookie?

>hurr da internet is supposed to be free
You people don't know what it was like paying $20-50 per research paper in the 90s when you didn't have a .edu and subsidized subscription.

>>109477428
they were doing this prior to the AI traffic bullshit.

>>109477183
are you too poor for $15?

>>109477232
Retarded site for retarded people who likes to spend thousands on a Talmud Vision

>>109483636
In english?

they probably should have pushed their youtube channel harder on reviews. they'd probably be a giant on tech youtube if they tried harder on it.
i don't buy any new products so i just use the internet archive to look at their old pages before they paywalled them. sucks to suck, i used to use their referral links when buying products sometimes and now they get shit all.

>>109477474
Your asshole is private property and I'm about to go trespassing

File: 21524369_p0.jpg (311 KB, 700x600)

311 KB JPG

>>109477183
I used to cite RTINGS constantly when ragebaiting /g/ about CRT superiority over OLEDs, as RTINGs actually did autism-certified motion clarity tests on a wide array of displays, often being the only one to have ever tested any particular tv or monitor. They were an incredibly valuable resource. I won so many internet arguments thanks to them.

>>109477521
>zoomer garbage on youtube.
this is the worst. Zoomers love that slop

>>109484992
i'm a zoomer idk what this unc is on about

File: skibidi.png (2.78 MB, 1356x2161)

2.78 MB PNG

Next time I buy a TV, I’ll pay the $7 to subscribe for a month. Seems to be worth it.

>>109477183
I just stopped using them. Ultimately their information isn't worth much.

rtards

>>109485222
I primarily used their data to check monitor pixel response times to make informed judgement calls about oled vs ips vs VA monitors. Maybe precise info about ports used, port speeds.

Now all I have is random outlets that do way smaller number of displays that are out there so you have harder time considering lcd's as viable displays.

>>109485018
this is what i'm thinking too. I don't mind paying for their stuff since it's actually pretty good, but who the fuck is paying it monthly? I buy a new tv or monitor once every 10-15 years and then i'll go on a week long review/test-binge. And all the other stuff they test aren't really the sort of thing you need some kind of in depth testing to make a smart enough purchase.

Quite a shame, because their data was quite useful, for example frequency response charts for headphones are extremely good and useful.
I do not feel bad for them though, and I have no interest in paying for journalism of any kind. If you rely on ads like that, you deserve to fail and I will laugh at your crashout posts about AI and scraping.

>>109477183
while i appreciate they need to cover costs, how do they really expect to get subscribers? i am not constantly shopping for TVs so why the fuck would i sub to their shit for more than a month?
similarly, idk how they get sponsored without taking deals from the OEMs and losing their objectiveness.
reviewing is dead.