Now they have automated benchmarks across more test configs. This is something almost no reviewers have available. That's partially from labs investment. They also have destructive benchmarks like they did with the power supplies - again almost nobody does those in public.

▲

alpaca128 8 days ago | parent [-]

That's true and I agree this is valuable for the audience, but still it is not necessary. Most successful tech reviewers put out good content without these resources.

▲

iamtedd 8 days ago | parent | next [-]

"Good" content without data is unsubstantiated content.

Data to provide evidence of performance objectively evaluates products, benefiting everyone. For example, show me who has been verifying the quality and performance claims of computer power supplies without equipment such as LTT labs.

If you want to be reductive about it - technology and their gadgets are valuable for the audience, but not strictly necessary.

	▲	alpaca128 8 days ago \| parent [-]
		The original point in this thread was that the lab isn't necessary for LTT to produce their content as they successfully appeal to a large audience either way. Which is obviously true, given the lab did not exist for most of the channel's lifetime and growth. You argue that it's beneficial for informing the consumer. It is, but no one here disagreed with that.

▲

avianlyric 8 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I would assume LTT does this to build and retain a clear competitive advantage over their competitors in the same space.

I don’t think LTT goal is just be another commodity YouTube review site whose entire appeal is dependent on a single personality. That not really a scalable or long term sustainable approach.

Large journalist organisations of any kind aren’t built by aiming to be mediocre.