Educated Consumers,
I have spent the first part of this month investigating something very disturbing. It is important that any reader viewing the situation to analyze first what is being said, why it is being said, and the underlying story behind this.
I have come to an understanding that there is often more behind a story or irregularity behind many of our reviews that we read. Take the case of
www.bluecooling.com and their BTMS. I suspected early that their prototype and company were being unethically portrayed and reviewed as a finished product, and subsequently used to ruin a company's image. This company who I have later discovered has yet to sell a product, or release a finished product.
The reviews in question are [H]ocp's articles below:
Bluecooling's BTMS Water Cooling System: Keeping your CPU cool with H2O is getting more and more popular and kits can be a couple hundred bucks. We look at the newest on the market and try to get them to prove their performance claims.
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MzI5LDM=
Water Block Round-Up: 19 of the biggest baddest water blocks rounded up and tested, just for you guys out there that like your action wet and heavily overclocked.
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MzU3LDE=
I have submitted my emails in their entirety (I corrected some spelling errors) in an effort to show no bias toward [H]ocp, and non-favoritism to ProCooling's forum in which this writing is being published. I invite the readers to verify my findings by referencing the articles above and the responses from the Editor in Chief of [H]ocp.
I dislike open and unproven derogatory comments to anyone, and often find myself wanting to know the full picture. I have effectively proven beyond doubt to my understanding that [H]ocp has knowingly and willfully published false information about a PROTOTYPE received for opinions on improvement. Used unprofessional testing standards, and exhibited a product in an environment in which it was never designed to be used, for the creation of publicly defaming the yet to be opened Bluecooling.com. In addition to these acts [H] has yet to correct, remove the articles, offer apology, or deliver any evidence that can substantiate their actions in this matter.
Having no ill will for [H], I would like to say that I regret having to
expose them, but feel that I have given them time to remedy the situation, and time to prove their side of the story before writing this. I like Kyle as a person, and enjoyed prompt, open communication when dealing with him. He is a likable individual per my experience, and welcome any new information he would like to deliver. As Kyle has requested I have not included the third party emails between Bluecooling and [H], but have inserted relevant quotes from them for Kyle to review as to accuracy and
let him dispute any of them, which he did not.
This will be the longest post any of you have undoubtedly ever seen!
***********************************************
Start of email in chronological order
***********************************************
From: Johnathan Smith
Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002 6:18 PM
To:
kyle@hardocp.com
Subject: btms block reviewed on waterblock roundup
Kyle,
I have enjoyed your candid opinion on reviewing on
your web pages. I enjoy your pictures on your review
showing the step by step procedures with the
equipment. I do have a question though.. On the
waterblock roundup, you included a unit BTMS that has
not been released, nor is for sale. If this is the
case, why was it included in the review?
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MzU3
I also checked the manufactures link, and I could not
find the model that you reviewed. They aren't even
open for business. I was going to bring this to
www.procooling.com's forums, but thought it wise to do
my homework with your side of the story before I
posted my findings.
I enjoy your reviews, but this confused me.
Please respond.
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 18:33:55 -0600
From: "Kyle Bennett" <kyle@hardocp.com>
Subject: RE: btms block reviewed on waterblock roundup
To: "Johnathan Smith"
CC: "Steven Lynch" <steve@hardocp.com>
Johnathan
They were selling the model we reviewed at the time that this article posted (
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MzI5) as we verified the fact with several of their customers. Their BTMS solution was included in our roundup a bit over a month later.
It is my opinion that their best bet was to stop selling the unit and
go back and rethink their very poor design. If what you say is true, then kudos to them for wanting to hopefully sell a better product.
Hopefully this next BTMS will live up to their marketing statements.
Does that answer your question sufficiently?
From: Johnathan Smith
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 6:11 PM
To: Kyle Bennett
Cc: Steven Lynch
Subject: RE: btms block reviewed on waterblock roundup
Kyle and Steve,
I thank you for your quick reply. This does clear
some things up as to why you posted your reviews on
them in the website. It seems from talking to the
"info" email address at
www.bluecooling.com (I had
emailed them yesterday at the same time as you.) that
responded they had never sold any products whatsoever.
In fact as of now they have never opened for
business. Could you please inform me who these
'customers' were that you talked to? I could ask them
how they got their units?
Could it be that they have sent you a prototype?
Bluecooling stated that the only units to leave the
shop were prototypes that not for public review, but
for ideas on how they could improve from experienced
persons in the overclocking field before release.
Which is not uncommon for companies to do. If what
bluecooling claims are true, to include them in along
with other "for sale" units or finished units would be
in question professionally and ethically.
Note: I have not made up my mind on what I believe.
One party is not telling all the facts on this. I
will not make any judgments before I have heard them
from both parties.
If what [H] says is true, Bluecooling has sold units,
it has customers, and is lying about being open for
business and deserve all reviews. If they are
correct. Then the review, and latter WB roundup would
be in poor taste indeed to have included and
misrepresented them in that way. Mention of any
review of a prototype should then be removed as it
misrepresents them in an unfair way.
However, I will wait for your and bc's replies before
posting ANY information. If any party doesn't wish to
respond, then I will do my best with what information
I currently have.
Any customer emails or facts on the previous statement
will prove EVERYTHING. Thanks for your attention to
this! I hope to get to the bottom of this quickly.
-Johnathan
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 18:38:11 -0600
From: "Kyle Bennett" <kyle@hardocp.com>
Subject: RE: btms block reviewed on waterblock roundup
To: "Johnathan Smith"
CC: "Steven Lynch" <steve@hardocp.com>
Your are getting the BlueCooling story that they went with AFTER we posted our review. They never mentioned "prototype" at any time until we posted.
Here is an attached mail that I sent to BC in July that was never
answered that talks about exactly what you are looking into. It has been clipped but came from another concerned party via BC if I remember correctly.
The other attachments show you the mails leading up to us taking
delivery of the unit, notice that it is never mentioned that it is a "prototype".
Copied below is a mail from a reader about his BTMS that he purchased dated 7/22/02. I do not want to reveal his information as I have not asked him for permission to do this.
_________________________________________
Dear HardOCP,
I have been following the site and others like it, aka anandtech
and others, for quite some time. I have built many computers of my own. Most of the time for cooling I use peltiers or the infamous BLORB fans and stickin heatsinks on just about every chip i can find to increase performance.
I had had never gotten into water cooling due to the fact that
there are a lot of "low quality" products on the market and the risk of loosing a chip was just not worth it. Well surfing the web one day after getting a bonus check from work i decide i am going to make a "project computer" and figure bah what better to blow my money on then water cooling. I didnt have a specific use for the computer in mind so loosing it wasnt going to be a big
deal for me. I stumbled apon bluecooling.com and was quite impressed by what they "had to offer." Unfortunally it apears to me, and now you as well after reading your report, that it is all talk and no proof.
The first unsettling thing about them was the use of paypal for
payment. That struck me as odd seeing as how paypal is used primarily for person to person payments and such for ebay junkies.
When i got the package in the mail it was like christmas in july,
until i opened it. My stomach did a backflip. It looked like some kid had made the water cooler in shop class at school. Scratch marks ALL over the unit as well as oddly angled holes and improperly placed screws. Hardly the professional quality that their site boast by ANY length of the imagination.
To make a long story short, my bonus check was spent on a computer that this device single handedly destroyed. My processer made a pop sound that was quite like a small gun and then i here the sizzling of water hitting the motherboard. The inside unit had cracked and the water flowed out through the "cooling fins."
I have gotten no responses from anyone at bluecooling.com and i consider the whole thing to be a scam and nothing more. The statement "Our products are professionally manufactured to zero tolerance methods and tested before they are released." has to be a lie. If it were true A) the cooling system would have saved the chip. and B) apon reading my many emails they would
have responed with sympathy for the "Valued Customer"
I just wanted to let you know I am very please to see the company put to the correct spotlight like that.
Thanks..
p.s. yeah my spelling sucks.. but i refuse to use spell check. We all cant be good in english.. heh
_____________________________________________
That is about all I can offer you at this point and I am sorry abut I
really don't have much more time to research the issue. I would be very intested to hear what you find out about these guys. We did not leave the table opinion that the customer was their number one goal.
_____________________________
Kyle Bennett
Editor-in-Chief @ HardOCP.com
Owner @ Ratpadz.com
_____________________________
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 18:39:21 -0600
From: "Kyle Bennett" <kyle@hardocp.com> |
Subject: RE: btms block reviewed on waterblock roundup
To: "Johnathan Smith"
Let me ask you this as well, why are you concerned with this?
_____________________________
Kyle Bennett
Editor-in-Chief @ HardOCP.com
Owner @ Ratpadz.com
_____________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: Johnathan Smith
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 9:44 PM
To: Kyle Bennett
Subject: RE: btms block reviewed on waterblock roundup
Kyle,
You sent me some great correspondence. I want to check
it out (I have yet to read it as I am at work). I am
a new member to procooling forums. I am looking to
buy a tec cooler and found
www.bluecooling.com and
wanted a BTMS. I went to look for reviews and I see
that you have reviewed the unit, and procooling has
some banter in their forums about it as well when I
did my searches. I went to bluecooling after reading
your entire review (nice pictures btw
) I noticed
that the unit you reviewed was not pictured anywhere
on the site. I broke it down and was puzzled that
they weren't for sale. (strange!) I let it slide,
but remembered the fact that they weren't open yet. I
actually like the entire concept of the new unit that
they have. So I planned to go back after they opened
for business. I proceeded to look for more reviews
and found none. Odd I thought...
I have recently followed a huge thread on topic:
[H]|WB on the procooling forums (6+ pages of
squabbling). It seemed very interesting because the
procooling staff must have really mouthed of in your
forums and they got banned. I can't say that I blame
you for that HAHAHA! There were several references
that the only thing they were able to determine that
the BTMS was a bad thing.
I laughed about that since the BTMS in that October
review was non-existent per the website.. and was
about bring in some keen observation (my opinion).
I wanted to comment that everything was changed about
the unit, but then I wondered, since they were not
open, how you were able to get one... then use it in
your "19 of the biggest baddest..." post. (I hardly
think the BTMS you had should have been used in the
"Biggest/Baddest" category LOL, it seemed that you
needed a clear looser?) It seemed weird that [H] was
using a non-existent product that had theoretically
never been on the market. This would have spelt out
very irresponsible journalism.
I was about to post and fuel the fire, but I felt
responsible to ask you and bluecooling what the story
was. Too many people are quick to judge, and I
definitely wasn't buying procoolings innocence about
"just pointing out some errors" in the WB review. I
didn't take their arguments as innocent at all.
I think in the long run this was the most fair thing
to do to both parties. I don't badmouth anyone unless
it was deserved, and frankly the guys on procooling
are very anal about accuracy (did I mention VERY
anal??). Knowing this, I wanted to back myself up
about my discovery. I am quite shocked at the
comprehensive information that you have sent me. I
don't expect to get anywhere near the information from
bc'ing.
I may have just a few more questions later on, but I
want you to understand that I hate bandwagon jumping
and want to be completely fair about this deal, and I
hope you agree. I was always taught.. go to the
source. Now have some great info to sift through.
Thanks!
J
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 21:59:25 -0600
From: "Kyle Bennett" <kyle@hardocp.com>
Subject: RE: btms block reviewed on waterblock roundup
To: "Johnathan Smith"
Thanks for the reply and the explanation of why you were asking. We are pretty much the GREAT EVIL in those forums. And you are correct, some of the members there were banned at our forums for acting like idiots a long time ago. They just can't seem to let it go.
As for anal about accuracy, maybe so, but they seem to dream up a lot of "facts" about us that I find laughable. It does make for a fun read though.
When you get their emotions behind them, they do some really great work, there is no doubt about that.
Good luck with your quest. Let me know how it turns out.
_____________________________
Kyle Bennett
Editor-in-Chief @ HardOCP.com
Owner @ Ratpadz.com
_____________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: Johnathan Smith
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 1:01 AM
To: Kyle Bennett
Subject: RE: btms block reviewed on waterblock roundup
Kyle,
Well.. I guess I found what I was looking for. I want
to give you every chance to remedy this situation
before I start posting my findings.
I don't question at all the fact that you didn't know
it was a prototype on your first review. It was their
fault apparently for any lack of information to you
regarding this. I don't doubt any of the findings and
duty to post the findings on the BTMS in the original
review. You are not obligated to change your old
article.
The bottom line is this. According to below attached
email from George Edwards the President of BCooling to
[H]ocp, which was sent July 24th after your 1st review
and 2 moths+ before the WaterBlock review in Oct, you
had months stating that the BTMS was a prototype
before the WB article.
This knowledge of having a prototype and not a selling
or finalized unit per the president of the company
more than 2 months before the October posting of your
WB article suggests that [H]ardOCP is indeed sending
an inaccurate and irresponsible picture of BTMS when
you continue to compare it after this fact.
Knowing this information, [H] failed to mention that
the BTMS was a prototype in subsequent referrals AND
among the graphs of other "finalized and selling
products". And in a way compared apples to oranges.
It seems I have proof that you knew of its status
along with Steve well before the review.
In the WB article, BC is noted in the opening, and
readers encouraged to read the old information in the
first sentence, and then later in the Block
description. At the time of issuing this statement
you knew that product was a prototype when telling
readers to look at your uncorrected information. You
made no effort to comment (in light of months old
evidence) that it was a prototype. Later pages of the
WB article show graphs of your findings with the BTMS
side by side all non-prototype units.
In your original letter to George the Pres of BC...
July 24th
Quote:
We will not be sending the BTMS unit we have in our
possession back to you. I feel as though it behooves
us to hold onto it as it is the only bit of proof we
have as to the performance numbers we saw. As for the
condition of the unit, I doubt it would serve much use
to you anyway.
-Kyle
|
Therefore we know that as of July 24th you self
admitted that you had a unit of degraded capacity.
After reading your original review, we see how you
completely disassembled the BTMS breaking all factory
seals and glue as in your pictures. This would render
any unit un-testable AND of ever being tested again in
a fair review.
In the WB review you state that you tested the BTMS
with a DIFFERENT setup than the original reviews
setup. This implies once knowing that you had one
prototype and you reassembled it in a degraded state
and tested it after disassembling it. If you used the
old information you would be introducing complete
different set of variable to the tests. Therefore you
knowingly used a degraded product in your tests. If
you used old information before the unit's disassembly
in your new reviews, all findings could not be
compared to a the different test beds equipment.
Your WB article states that the test bed was a
Pentium.
Quote:
All units were tested with the Pentium 4 2.8GHz CPU at
3.4GHz (162x21) at 1.7volts. The Thoroughbred 2200+
(1.8GHz) was overclocked to 2.05GHz (152x13.5) at
1.8v.
|
The President of BlueCooling stated June 24th per the
email you [H]ocp sent me...
Quote:
By having the BTMS with the invitation to use any TEC
will allow you unlimited testing. Remember this is
only for the AMD family of Durons and Athlon's. The
Intel's design is coming on board quickly. -George
Edwards
|
I do not know exactly why this information and these
actions were taken out on the BlueCooling company. I
am requesting this information from Bluecooling as we
speak. I expect to find out the exact correspondence
or statements that caused the libelous animosity I can
see from your statements and inclusion of the review
on your site.
I am not posting your statement or Bluecooling's until
I get the entire picture. I certainly never dreamed
of finding this information, please correct me where
my observations are lacking or incomplete. I am
disappointed, but I wish to be TOTALLY fair when
releasing any findings. As for the review and where
it stands, I feel that the professional action would
be to remove the BTMS from your WB review. Also a
note saying that the BTMS was a prototype in any
subsequent referral to your first review.
I DO NOT wish unwarrantedly tarnish your Websites
image. I don't have anything to gain dispersal of
untrue 'facts', but will release the findings that I
have should the right thing fail to be accomplished.
I choose for the most ethical thing to be done rather
than hurt anyone. I will delay any mention of this
for 3 days as I will be away on business.
I have enjoyed your articles in the past and do not
want to believe that your data or testing methods on
your reviews is actually comprised of the loose
standards I have discovered in this case. Just right
the wrong, this is my first and foremost concern.
-J
Below is an attached message to a potential tester and
sent to Steve and Kyle.
-----Original Message-----
From: George Edwards [mailto:ge@bluecooling.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 6:20 PM
To: Malice D
Cc: Steve Lynch; Kyle Bennett
Subject: Re: interested in reviewing your BTMS cooling
solution.
Thank you for the insightful analysis. They tested a
PROTOTYPE. I do credit them for some interesting
comments that benefited us. Our new BTMS design is
coming out next week. I appreciate your interest and
I will get back to you with a product to review.
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 01:21:31 -0600
From: "Kyle Bennett" <kyle@hardocp.com>
Subject: RE: btms block reviewed on waterblock roundup
To: "Johnathan Smith"
CC: "Steven Lynch" <steve@hardocp.com>
Do what you need to do bro.
_____________________________
Kyle Bennett
Editor-in-Chief @ HardOCP.com
Owner @ Ratpadz.com
_____________________________
From: Johnathan Smith
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 1:38 PM
To: Kyle Bennett
Subject: RE: btms block reviewed on waterblock roundup
wow.. I really didn't want to expose anyone.. just
correct a mistake. This is not what I wanted to do.
Is there a reason you are leaning toward this
decision? I just thought this would correct an
oversight(s). You sure you just couldn't correct the
article? I really have no ill will against you.
Confused
-J
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:04:43 -0600
From: "Kyle Bennett" <kyle@hardocp.com>
Subject: RE: btms block reviewed on waterblock roundup
To: "Johnathan Smith"
CC: "Steven Lynch" <steve@hardocp.com>
It is my opinion that we have nothing to correct and that the BTMS was pulled back because of our review and their entire "prototype" argument was simply damage control to cover their mistakes. Yes, it is my opinion it was all a lie. They were selling that unit to end users and I can prove it. You don't sell prototypes to end-users and not call them "prototypes" and
that is exactly what was done.
Also, you seem to have some issue with us not returning the unit. It is standard operating procedure here at [H] to especially hang onto units that do bad. That way if push comes to shove in a court of law we have proof of our findings, which I am sure you understand.
As for the block being tested on another CPU, you can pick that
argument if you want to point to us and make whatever statements you want. I fully stand behind our testing and conclusions. This is far from the first time a product has been looked at beyond its specified intentions.
So please "expose" away, I am sure you will get tons of support inside the walls of the ProCooling forums.
Also, if you are as fair as you say you are, I would suggest that
objectively show our side of the story of well. Feel free to use this
email in its entirety.
I would appreciate it though if you did not post the personal
correspondences we have sent you in the past of our conversations with others. Posting those is not cool as BTMS did not intend them for posting, even though they firmly hold up our arguments made.
Quite honestly, all this is months old and really does not carry any
priority with me. I have no ethical issues with the information posted or how it was presented.
_____________________________
Kyle Bennett
Editor-in-Chief @ HardOCP.com
Owner @ Ratpadz.com
_____________________________
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 17:10:37 -0800 (PST)
From: "Johnathan Smith"
Subject: RE: btms block reviewed on waterblock roundup
To: "Kyle Bennett" <kyle@hardocp.com>
CC: "Steven Lynch" <steve@hardocp.com>
Kyle,
If you can prove that there was another customer then
by all means please show me. Your side and facts are
what I want to show, but if you give me none, I will
be forced to believe the data from BC.
If you believe that they have had customers and you can
prove this, then this justifies ALMOST everything you
have done. However, if you were wrong about them
having customers, based on ONE email, then this could
really do some damage to [H] in the long run.
Bluecooling is not a registered company in CA or TX
where I was told they operated out of. They have no
DBA (doing business as) or incorporation date. You
can check on the .gov webpages. If they made sales
under that name, then that would be tax fraud and a
federal/state offense.
Bluecooling sent me an email with the yearly paypal
statement (their customer basket, and invoice company)
and it showed 0 sales this year. They said they have
made no sales at any time, and are eager to see any
"proof" otherwise.
It seems you are the only person with this
information, and that is what I need to prove your
"they have customer(s)" understanding.
You have been very strait forward with me so far. I
would think that you have nothing to loose in showing
me the customer data. I am thinking that if you
reexamine your data and find that you were mistaken,
then this whole mess can be dealt with appropriately.
If BC is lying, then I will show that information
publically.
Quote:
> Also, you seem to have some issue with us not
> returning the unit.
I don't know what your talking about.. I don't care if
you return it or not. ??? I just pointed out that
you said it was in a degraded condition, and you
probably shouldn't have used that for objective
reasons.
Quote:
> This is
> far from the first time a
> product has been looked at beyond its specified
> intentions.
I just noted that when working with millimeters and
knowing that a blocks ability to fit properly on a cpu
can really destroy their ability to perform outside
specifications. Bluecooling says that there is no
mounting system designed to hold the unit to the
Pentium CPU. So, logically if it wasn't designed to be
properly mounted on a Pentium mobo then I can only say
"well no wonder the results were bad on the
prototype". No one I know runs butane on a gas engine
and says "been looked at beyond its specified
intentions" If it was beyond the specs, then it is
up to the evaluator to state that in a quantitative
review. It appears that you knew you were running it
"outside of spec's" but didn't report that.
-J
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 04:18:36 -0800 (PST)
From: "Johnathan Smith"
Subject: Fwd: RE: btms block reviewed on waterblock roundup
To:
kyle@hardocp.com
CC:
steve@hardocp.com
Kyle and Steve,
Were you able to find any proof that BC has customers?
I want to wait for this information to throw at BC,
and prove them wrong if they are... You guys have
the only evidence otherwise if they are lying. I
think a paypal receipt would be perfect!
You guys cut and pasted a letter from another
customer, could I have that guys email at least?
J
************************************************
End of all emails recieved/sent
************************************************
In Conclusion I have learned that [H] is intentionally attempting to use disinformation to defame a company that has never opened its doors. Kyle stated that, "They were selling that unit to end users and I can prove it." However in multiple attempts to see his proof, I was answered in silence. Bluecooling was able to show me evidence that they had not sold a single unit to anyone, and I found out myself that they were not even registered in any state to do business.
Second, I have learned that they had sent out several prototypes during the same time period as Kyle. Each was sent with a request for assistance in evaluating the flaws of the unit and so each company could provide recommendations. With this shipment was also a request not to "review" it for public knowledge unless authorized, until a final unit could be built
from the information gathered. These wishes were respected in every case but this one.
George Edwards the President of BlueCooling stated that the unit being developed from these tests is expected to perform with the top units on the market or surpass them. I say, "I look forward to the review of the final product." We will see.
The only question still out is why [H] has used the tactics they did, and why [H]ocp refuses to correct them. Journalistic integrity anyone?
Johnathan Smith