dumpster scopes

[decibel61]

i recently saw a video of dave finding not one but five keysight dso's in the dumpster  of his building ....just wondering   what the hell were they doing in the trash.....who would  throw away one good scope let alone five

   this is my first post.....hope im in the rite place for this question.

[mmagin]

You shouldn't believe everything you see on youtube

[ataradov]

I have a bridge to sell to you.

PS: Giving away "used" scopes is some cases easier legally than giving away brand new ones.

[edpalmer42]

You shouldn't believe everything you see on youtube

Particularly if Dave is the one talking.   

[CatalinaWOW]

Things like this need to be observed with suspicion, but it could be true.

Various taxes, tariffs, environmental laws and the like can lead to strange behavior.

Disposal fines and hazardous waste rules can make (illegal) dumping of gear an attractive option. 

As pointed out numerous times on in this forum, if equipment has been depreciated to zero value for tax purposes, it is hazardous to a company's books to allow any value to become attached to it.  The dumpster is the only place it can go.

There are always the classic stories of a jilted business partner or lover getting a bit of revenge.

[Someone]

i recently saw a video of dave finding not one but five keysight dso's in the dumpster  of his building ....just wondering   what the hell were they doing in the trash.....who would  throw away one good scope let alone five

   this is my first post.....hope im in the rite place for this question.

This marks the point where dave became a sellout by not clearly (honestly) describing the situation as he has been so careful to do in the past. It's likely Keysight have pre-arranged all of this as part of their larger promotion and sent Dave a pile of scopes with some "strings attached".

[technogeeky]

i recently saw a video of dave finding not one but five keysight dso's in the dumpster  of his building ....just wondering   what the hell were they doing in the trash.....who would  throw away one good scope let alone five

   this is my first post.....hope im in the rite place for this question.

This marks the point where dave became a sellout by not clearly (honestly) describing the situation as he has been so careful to do in the past. It's likely Keysight have pre-arranged all of this as part of their larger promotion and sent Dave a pile of scopes with some "strings attached".

Yeah, Dave is really selling out. 

Selling out so hard he's making videos explaining how to hack the same scope less than a month after. I'm sure coordinated and approved that too.

[mmagin]

Uh, I'm feeling like I'm the only one who isn't cynical or gullible. 
Dave got a handful of new scopes to review/teardown/give-away/whatever.
Makes a silly video where he 'finds' them in a dumpster as the first video about them.

[Someone]

i recently saw a video of dave finding not one but five keysight dso's in the dumpster  of his building ....just wondering   what the hell were they doing in the trash.....who would  throw away one good scope let alone five

   this is my first post.....hope im in the rite place for this question.

This marks the point where dave became a sellout by not clearly (honestly) describing the situation as he has been so careful to do in the past. It's likely Keysight have pre-arranged all of this as part of their larger promotion and sent Dave a pile of scopes with some "strings attached".

Yeah, Dave is really selling out. 

Selling out so hard he's making videos explaining how to hack the same scope less than a month after. I'm sure coordinated and approved that too.

Why could it not be coordinated? Keysight have been mentioning dave in their marketing, and this sort of brittle "hack" (of trivial nature) that can be eliminated with a firmware update is exactly the sort of thing that can generate sales/interest at very low risk to Keysight (they then ship models with a fixed firmware for instance..). This is what happens when you let the professionalism slip, people start questioning everything. This probably isnt what happened but outright lying about the source of the scopes could just be the tip of the iceberg.

Queue dave talking about puffery etc and how no-one would be expected to believe it....


(in which case a big disclaimer or owning up to it later in the video wouldnt have mattered then )

[technogeeky]

i recently saw a video of dave finding not one but five keysight dso's in the dumpster  of his building ....just wondering   what the hell were they doing in the trash.....who would  throw away one good scope let alone five

   this is my first post.....hope im in the rite place for this question.

This marks the point where dave became a sellout by not clearly (honestly) describing the situation as he has been so careful to do in the past. It's likely Keysight have pre-arranged all of this as part of their larger promotion and sent Dave a pile of scopes with some "strings attached".

Yeah, Dave is really selling out. 

Selling out so hard he's making videos explaining how to hack the same scope less than a month after. I'm sure coordinated and approved that too.

Why could it not be coordinated? Keysight have been mentioning dave in their marketing, and this sort of brittle "hack" (of trivial nature) that can be eliminated with a firmware update is exactly the sort of thing that can generate sales/interest at very low risk to Keysight (they then ship models with a fixed firmware for instance..). This is what happens when you let the professionalism slip, people start questioning everything. This probably isnt what happened but outright lying about the source of the scopes could just be the tip of the iceberg.

Queue dave talking about puffery etc and how no-one would be expected to believe it....


(in which case a big disclaimer or owning up to it later in the video wouldnt have mattered then )

I think perhaps you can't take a joke. I thought Australians can take a joke. It is very obvious from the video that it's a joke. I am quite certain it was Dave's idea to "find" the scopes in the dumpster. It's obvious to anyone with even a modicum of intelligence that the were brand new scopes (hence having the plastic still on them).

The hack isn't trivial, it requires warranty voiding and hardware modification (so far) unlike the Rigol hacks.

This is a non-story. Keysight is doing their marketing thing; it so happens that they also gave Dave the scope early to he could evaluate it. They also gave him some to give away.

[jjoonathan]

The dumpster is a long running joke. A thread exposing the conspiracy pops up every time 

[Someone]

i recently saw a video of dave finding not one but five keysight dso's in the dumpster  of his building ....just wondering   what the hell were they doing in the trash.....who would  throw away one good scope let alone five

   this is my first post.....hope im in the rite place for this question.

This marks the point where dave became a sellout by not clearly (honestly) describing the situation as he has been so careful to do in the past. It's likely Keysight have pre-arranged all of this as part of their larger promotion and sent Dave a pile of scopes with some "strings attached".

Yeah, Dave is really selling out. 

Selling out so hard he's making videos explaining how to hack the same scope less than a month after. I'm sure coordinated and approved that too.

Why could it not be coordinated? Keysight have been mentioning dave in their marketing, and this sort of brittle "hack" (of trivial nature) that can be eliminated with a firmware update is exactly the sort of thing that can generate sales/interest at very low risk to Keysight (they then ship models with a fixed firmware for instance..). This is what happens when you let the professionalism slip, people start questioning everything. This probably isnt what happened but outright lying about the source of the scopes could just be the tip of the iceberg.

Queue dave talking about puffery etc and how no-one would be expected to believe it....


(in which case a big disclaimer or owning up to it later in the video wouldnt have mattered then )

I think perhaps you can't take a joke. I thought Australians can take a joke. It is very obvious from the video that it's a joke. I am quite certain it was Dave's idea to "find" the scopes in the dumpster. It's obvious to anyone with even a modicum of intelligence that the were brand new scopes (hence having the plastic still on them).

The hack isn't trivial, it requires warranty voiding and hardware modification (so far) unlike the Rigol hacks.

This is a non-story. Keysight is doing their marketing thing; it so happens that they also gave Dave the scope early to he could evaluate it. They also gave him some to give away.

Google are unequivocal on the matter:
https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2016/03/best-practices-for-bloggers-reviewing.html
And while Australia's regulators typically only go after those people paid for their endorsements:
https://legalvision.com.au/what-are-the-disclosure-requirements-for-bloggers-that-get-paid-to-advertise-for-businesses/
The American FTC is much wider in its discussion:
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking

Not explicitly stating the arrangement by which the product was supplied and if any other commercial arrangements are in place is dishonest and an extremely fine line to walk, especially when dave has legitimately pulled random bits of trash from the same location.

[technogeeky]

i recently saw a video of dave finding not one but five keysight dso's in the dumpster  of his building ....just wondering   what the hell were they doing in the trash.....who would  throw away one good scope let alone five

   this is my first post.....hope im in the rite place for this question.

This marks the point where dave became a sellout by not clearly (honestly) describing the situation as he has been so careful to do in the past. It's likely Keysight have pre-arranged all of this as part of their larger promotion and sent Dave a pile of scopes with some "strings attached".

Yeah, Dave is really selling out. 

Selling out so hard he's making videos explaining how to hack the same scope less than a month after. I'm sure coordinated and approved that too.

Why could it not be coordinated? Keysight have been mentioning dave in their marketing, and this sort of brittle "hack" (of trivial nature) that can be eliminated with a firmware update is exactly the sort of thing that can generate sales/interest at very low risk to Keysight (they then ship models with a fixed firmware for instance..). This is what happens when you let the professionalism slip, people start questioning everything. This probably isnt what happened but outright lying about the source of the scopes could just be the tip of the iceberg.

Queue dave talking about puffery etc and how no-one would be expected to believe it....


(in which case a big disclaimer or owning up to it later in the video wouldnt have mattered then )

I think perhaps you can't take a joke. I thought Australians can take a joke. It is very obvious from the video that it's a joke. I am quite certain it was Dave's idea to "find" the scopes in the dumpster. It's obvious to anyone with even a modicum of intelligence that the were brand new scopes (hence having the plastic still on them).

The hack isn't trivial, it requires warranty voiding and hardware modification (so far) unlike the Rigol hacks.

This is a non-story. Keysight is doing their marketing thing; it so happens that they also gave Dave the scope early to he could evaluate it. They also gave him some to give away.

Google are unequivocal on the matter:
https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2016/03/best-practices-for-bloggers-reviewing.html
And while Australia's regulators typically only go after those people paid for their endorsements:
https://legalvision.com.au/what-are-the-disclosure-requirements-for-bloggers-that-get-paid-to-advertise-for-businesses/
The American FTC is much wider in its discussion:
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking

Not explicitly stating the arrangement by which the product was supplied and if any other commercial arrangements are in place is dishonest and an extremely fine line to walk, especially when dave has legitimately pulled random bits of trash from the same location.

Absolute nonsense. Dave didn't review any of the scopes pulled out of the dumpster. He just gave them away as prizes.

Dave also really laid on the cheekiness when 'finding' the things in the dumpster, making it entirely clear (if not as funny as he had hoped) that they were new product destined to be given away.

[Someone]

i recently saw a video of dave finding not one but five keysight dso's in the dumpster  of his building ....just wondering   what the hell were they doing in the trash.....who would  throw away one good scope let alone five

   this is my first post.....hope im in the rite place for this question.

This marks the point where dave became a sellout by not clearly (honestly) describing the situation as he has been so careful to do in the past. It's likely Keysight have pre-arranged all of this as part of their larger promotion and sent Dave a pile of scopes with some "strings attached".

Yeah, Dave is really selling out. 

Selling out so hard he's making videos explaining how to hack the same scope less than a month after. I'm sure coordinated and approved that too.

Why could it not be coordinated? Keysight have been mentioning dave in their marketing, and this sort of brittle "hack" (of trivial nature) that can be eliminated with a firmware update is exactly the sort of thing that can generate sales/interest at very low risk to Keysight (they then ship models with a fixed firmware for instance..). This is what happens when you let the professionalism slip, people start questioning everything. This probably isnt what happened but outright lying about the source of the scopes could just be the tip of the iceberg.

Queue dave talking about puffery etc and how no-one would be expected to believe it....


(in which case a big disclaimer or owning up to it later in the video wouldnt have mattered then )

I think perhaps you can't take a joke. I thought Australians can take a joke. It is very obvious from the video that it's a joke. I am quite certain it was Dave's idea to "find" the scopes in the dumpster. It's obvious to anyone with even a modicum of intelligence that the were brand new scopes (hence having the plastic still on them).

The hack isn't trivial, it requires warranty voiding and hardware modification (so far) unlike the Rigol hacks.

This is a non-story. Keysight is doing their marketing thing; it so happens that they also gave Dave the scope early to he could evaluate it. They also gave him some to give away.

Google are unequivocal on the matter:
https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2016/03/best-practices-for-bloggers-reviewing.html
And while Australia's regulators typically only go after those people paid for their endorsements:
https://legalvision.com.au/what-are-the-disclosure-requirements-for-bloggers-that-get-paid-to-advertise-for-businesses/
The American FTC is much wider in its discussion:
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking

Not explicitly stating the arrangement by which the product was supplied and if any other commercial arrangements are in place is dishonest and an extremely fine line to walk, especially when dave has legitimately pulled random bits of trash from the same location.

Absolute nonsense. Dave didn't review any of the scopes pulled out of the dumpster. He just gave them away as prizes.

Dave also really laid on the cheekiness when 'finding' the things in the dumpster, making it entirely clear (if not as funny as he had hoped) that they were new product destined to be given away.

You havent watched the video then, wherein Dave does a short review of the product and provides his positive opinions of it (conveniently coming across the major new feature of the product). Its all mucky and a clear advertisement/personal endorsement without disclosure and the repeated distancing from the real source of the product.

[ebastler]

You havent watched the video then, wherein Dave does a short review of the product and provides his positive opinions of it (conveniently coming across the major new feature of the product). Its all mucky and a clear advertisement/personal endorsement without disclosure and the repeated distancing from the real source of the product.

I think it's fair to say that there is some mutual benefit in these kinds of previews/reviews etc., for Dave and Keysight in this case: Dave gets something to talk about in his videos, and for us to talk about in the forum, attracting viewers and readers if it is good stuff. Keysight gets some publicity for their scopes -- some good, some bad, but they certainly get attention. Look how busy the "New Keysight scope" thread was throughout all of February, based on very little content...

Nothing untowards in this, in my view: Dave is very clear and above-board about the rules for submitting any new equipment for review. He clearly reserves the right to critique the product, nitpick, rant etc.: https://www.eevblog.com/reviews/. There is no money changing hands. It is an exchange of "advance information for publicity" from the manufacturer's point of view, and "talking about products -- good or bad, as long as it is entertaining and attracts an audience" from Dave's point of view.

And it is not some private conspiracy between Dave and the big scope manufacturers either. Every little startup or semi-professional hobbyist submitting their stuff to Dave's mailbag essentially becomes part of the same symbiosis. No need for conspiracy theories here, as far as I am concerned. I think we can assume a grown-up audience which can put this in the right context.

[Someone]

You havent watched the video then, wherein Dave does a short review of the product and provides his positive opinions of it (conveniently coming across the major new feature of the product). Its all mucky and a clear advertisement/personal endorsement without disclosure and the repeated distancing from the real source of the product.

I think it's fair to say that there is some mutual benefit in these kinds of previews/reviews etc., for Dave and Keysight in this case: Dave gets something to talk about in his videos, and for us to talk about in the forum, attracting viewers and readers if it is good stuff. Keysight gets some publicity for their scopes -- some good, some bad, but they certainly get attention. Look how busy the "New Keysight scope" thread was throughout all of February, based on very little content...

Nothing untowards in this, in my view: Dave is very clear and above-board about the rules for submitting any new equipment for review. He clearly reserves the right to critique the product, nitpick, rant etc.: https://www.eevblog.com/reviews/. There is no money changing hands. It is an exchange of "advance information for publicity" from the manufacturer's point of view, and "talking about products -- good or bad, as long as it is entertaining and attracts an audience" from Dave's point of view.

And it is not some private conspiracy between Dave and the big scope manufacturers either. Every little startup or semi-professional hobbyist submitting their stuff to Dave's mailbag essentially becomes part of the same symbiosis. No need for conspiracy theories here, as far as I am concerned. I think we can assume a grown-up audience which can put this in the right context.

The mailbag is a great example where the context is clear and the disclaimer is that people are sending things to Dave for free, he just opens them and says what he thinks. In previous videos Dave has always made a clear explanation of where the equipment has come from such as the manufacturer or distributor and if its a loan or gift. Then we can take what Dave has said in the past:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/keysight-giving-scopes-to-youtubers/msg943896/#msg943896

There are very few instances where a company has said "we'll let you keep it". They simply send it to me and it's usually unclear whether they want it back or not.
It's actually important for reviewers to keep gear like this because then they can be used in comparisons and demos etc. I've done many such videos that would not be possible without having all different brands.
And I'll often include comparison with other brands in my reviews, and the company sending me the gear can't be happy wiht that because it looks awkward for them to publicise the review etc if it shows their competitors. But that is official review policy stated on my website, they either take it or leave it.

Which makes this video a big departure from his pervious efforts, and not just without a disclaimer of the commercial interest but a repeated and specific claim that they were simply "found" to distance it from the true source. So how do we know that Dave wasn't paid for any of this, or the hacking is actually part of their marketing plan to promote the scope through astroturfing? Without clear disclaimers as to any arrangements the viewer doesnt know and we can now enjoy speculating.

[mmagin]

Which makes this video a big departure from his pervious efforts, and not just without a disclaimer of the commercial interest but a repeated and specific claim that they were simply "found" to distance it from the true source. So how do we know that Dave wasn't paid for any of this, or the hacking is actually part of their marketing plan to promote the scope through astroturfing? Without clear disclaimers as to any arrangements the viewer doesnt know and we can now enjoy speculating.

Are you a troll or are you an idiot?

[kcbrown]

Which makes this video a big departure from his pervious efforts, and not just without a disclaimer of the commercial interest but a repeated and specific claim that they were simply "found" to distance it from the true source.

Because, you know, brand new scopes (especially of the yet-to-be-released variety) land in the dumpster all the time, so there's clearly no reason to disbelieve that "claim" ...

So how do we know that Dave wasn't paid for any of this, or the hacking is actually part of their marketing plan to promote the scope through astroturfing? Without clear disclaimers as to any arrangements the viewer doesnt know and we can now enjoy speculating.

Um ... the same way we "know" he wasn't paid for any of the other reviews of equipment he's done in the past where he didn't explicitly state that he wasn't paid?

[MrBungle]

Are you a troll or are you an idiot?

A little from column A, a little from column B.
https://youtu.be/pyhii0W6LAo?t=12