Between claim, expectation and reality: A debate about sampling, influence and independence

The relationship between industry and the media has always been a field of tension in which economic interests, editorial responsibility and consumer expectations clash. This discourse is regularly reignited in the area of technology reporting in particular, especially when it comes to hardware and consumer electronics – often emotionally, with exaggerated terms such as “bullying”, “courtesy journalism” or even “censorship”. What is often staged as a dramatic derailment in social media and comment columns often turns out to be an expression of a fundamental lack of clarity about how sampling – i.e. the targeted provision of products by manufacturers to the media – works, what conditions it is subject to and where justified criticism tips over into sweeping insinuations.

The supposed problem is quickly outlined: The media, according to the underlying assumption, receive products from the industry in order to test them – and are therefore automatically in a relationship of dependency. Those who report critically risk having these samples withdrawn, while those who write favorably secure privileged access. The reality is far more complex and characterized by a variety of interests. Manufacturers pursue strategic goals with product placement, be it for market launch, image cultivation or positioning within certain target groups. Media, in turn, try to create editorial added value from this selective availability – as up-to-date, informative and ideally independent as possible. And in between is an audience that is increasingly sensitive to any form of supposed influence, but rarely has an insight into the structural processes behind the scenes.

The emotionalization of this topic, especially in social networks, is based not least on a misunderstanding of what journalistic independence can achieve and where its limits begin as soon as economic mechanisms, such as advertising financing or product access, play a role. The real problem here is not the sampling itself, but the frequent lack of transparency in dealing with it. Whether a report is credible is not determined by whether a device was purchased or provided, but whether the journalistic claim to critically and comprehensibly classify a product is maintained.

These introductory considerations are not intended to relativize, but to create a basis for a differentiated discussion of a topic that has far more shades of grey than the common narratives of “bought opinion” or “suppressed truth”. In the following sections, I would therefore like to examine the positions and motivations of the players involved – industry, media and consumers – individually and critically question where the system works, where it has become dysfunctional and where real dependencies can be distinguished from purely emotional attributions.

Between expectation and reality: Is there a right to pre-sampling and what does fairness mean in both directions?

At the center of many debates about media relations and manufacturer relationships is an expectation that has manifested itself in the minds of numerous editorial offices over the years, namely that of a supposed customary right to sampling before an official product launch. The assumption: when a product is announced, there must be test samples in advance, preferably under NDA, with sufficient lead time for independent testing. And ideally in sufficient quantities so that smaller media outside of the industry giants can also be served. This idea is not only widespread, but is also treated almost as an enforceable claim in many places. But legally and morally, this raises a fundamental question: does a manufacturer even have to sample in advance and if so, to whom is he accountable?

The short but uncomfortable answer is: No, they don’t have to. There is no obligation to distribute a product to the media before market launch. Sampling is a voluntary, marketing strategy-driven process where the manufacturer decides who they deem relevant enough to be provided with limited samples – often guided by metrics such as reach, audience fit, editorial line or simply personal relationships in PR. It is understandable that a habituation effect has developed from this, especially as many products today are so complex that reliable reporting seems practically impossible without advance notice. However, this structural reality does not create a right, but at best a mutual understanding that should be cultivated and not demanded.

A current example of this problem is the launch of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060, where almost all media (including myself) did not receive any pre-release drivers or did not even have a sample available for the launch. Unsurprisingly, this led to a wave of comments, speculation and criticism, with accusations ranging from “deliberate press avoidance” to “disregard for journalistic work”. However, as justified as the displeasure about the lack of transparency and late communication may be in individual cases, interpreting this practice as “punishment” or even “censorship” falls short of the mark. Rather, NVIDIA’s behavior points to a strategic shift in dealing with mid-range products, where extensive media use is apparently no longer considered necessary. Criticism of this practice is certainly legitimate, especially with regard to the information situation of consumers, but it must not tip over into a moral absolutism that brands the absence of samples across the board as unethical behavior. However, I will also discuss the tests controlled by NVIDIA separately in a moment, because here, too, both sides must be considered objectively.

At the same time, a self-critical view on the part of the media is also appropriate at this point. In some cases, the impression arises that part of the industry has settled into a comfortable position: Samples arrive on time, benchmarks are created, content is filled and in the end you benefit from search engine relevance at launch. If this pattern is interrupted, some editorial teams are noticeably out of step. But it is precisely at this point that it becomes clear how important it is not to define your own independence solely in terms of access to samples. Journalists who concentrate on their own research, well-founded post-tests and critical long-term observations can also create relevant content beyond the launch hype. This may be economically more challenging, but journalistically it is often more valuable than the mere comparison in the minute of publication. Why do you think I always consciously look for topics outside the mainstream and also promote supposedly niche topics?

The limit of decency is reached when the tone between the parties, be it in PR communication or public media criticism, slips into the personal, insinuating or demanding. Manufacturers should explain why they do not carry out pre-sampling in certain cases and the media should accept that they are not part of strategic planning per se. Respect for each other’s role is not a weakness, but a basic prerequisite for a functioning ecosystem of information, transparency and criticism. However, NVIDIA has to put up with this criticism, as the communication was rarely stupid and clumsy. Just as wrong, however, is the blowing up of the whole thing into a supposed drama or Geforce-Gate by individual protagonists who, due to a lack of their own tests, see an opportunity for coverage here because the topic polarizes.

This debate is not new, but it is becoming increasingly heated in the context of rising economic uncertainty, shrinking editorial teams and growing dependence on advertising money. This makes it all the more important to move away from reflexive judgments and instead objectively question what role the media actually want to play: Information provider in the service of readers or distribution partner in the service of manufacturers. Both cannot function at the same time and both should not be taken for granted without being asked.

The staging of a product and the compliant extras role of some media

It is a story full of contradictions and unfortunately not a new one. However, the case surrounding the GeForce RTX 5060 shows us once again how certain media outlets get tangled up in their role between being an organ of announcement and a critical authority. You can’t act as the mouthpiece of a manufacturer and at the same time present yourself as a disappointed critic, just because the media headwind is likely to be strong or readers might realize that they haven’t been fully informed. Because you already know that beforehand. The fact is that some carefully selected media were allowed to test in advance, but not freely, but under restrictions imposed directly by NVIDIA. The tests were carried out with a driver that was only available to these selected media under certain conditions. The real problem, however, is the voluntary participation in a game whose rules were not made transparent.

When NVIDIA dictates the selection of comparison products, games and presets, it is no longer an objective test, but a staged one. One in which the test result is no longer primarily achieved through measurement, but through direction. The GeForce RTX 5060 does not appear in the best light under these conditions by chance, no, it is supposed to look exactly like that. And whoever agrees to this concept and then makes it ready for publication no longer takes on the role of the tester, but that of the multiplier and manipulator.

The fact that some media outlets have implemented this staging without criticism is already problematic enough. But it becomes downright grotesque when the same protagonists distance themselves from their own articles in the text of the test, for example through footnotes, half-hearted addenda or, in the worst case, through an indignant tone of voice on social media, which is intended to suggest that they have become part of a PR operation against their will or that they even want to uncover something. This form of planned whitewashing is not only implausible, but also damaging for all others who have deliberately refrained from such involvement.

Because while a few pushed their way to the front row of visibility, naturally also with calculated proximity to the manufacturer, full control over the narrative and maximum Google presence at launch, everyone else had to wait for a fair test basis. Those who nevertheless test later, without prefabricated conditions, often deliver a different, more differentiated picture, but are no longer perceived with the same reach. And this is where the real tragedy becomes apparent: voluntary participation in controlled launch tests not only shifts the authority of interpretation , but also degrades the rest of the industry to reaction organs. The few who take part control the narrative, and when things go wrong, they act as if they knew nothing.

It would have been the duty of those involved not only to disclose the conditions under which the test was created, that is far too cheap and complacent. It would have been better simply not to carry it out. Instead, we are witnessing a form of moral verbal acrobatics in which one first bows to the system and then plays the upright revolutionary. But you can’t be both an accomplice and a critic, at least not without dismantling yourself and your own credibility.

Anyone who is prepared to submit to the PR dramaturgy of a manufacturer should not be surprised if the public can no longer distinguish between advertising and journalism at some point. And those who believe they can save face with retrospective indignation are underestimating their readers and insulting colleagues who have deliberately chosen not to do so. This is no longer independent journalism, it’s window dressing. Just without a price tag, but with a disgusting aftertaste.

From playground to data center: When gaming becomes a sideshow and why this is not a betrayal, but a change in strategy

The shift in strategic priorities of large technology companies – above all NVIDIA – is currently as obvious as it is irreversible: what was once primarily known as a GPU manufacturer for gamers is now proudly presenting itself as an AI platform provider, data center operator and enabler of industrial future technologies. Gaming, once the flagship and emotional link to the community, is increasingly becoming a side note. The reasons for this are complex, but the consequences are tangible. For the users. For the media. And for the industry itself.

From an economic perspective, the move is understandable. The demand for accelerator hardware for AI applications has exploded, while the pressure on margins in the traditional gaming market has increased. While sales in the end customer business are stagnating or developing moderately at best, manufacturers are achieving returns on sales with professional and industrial solutions that can only be dreamed of in the consumer sector. NVIDIA, for example, now makes more profit with data centers than with gaming and visualization combined, a fact that not only shapes balance sheets but also shifts priorities in product development. Anyone who is supported by shareholders is also accountable to them and not to a gaming community, however large and passionate it may be.

For manufacturers, this means that there is no moral obligation to continue operating certain markets in the usual way if they no longer make business sense. Companies do not act out of tradition, but out of calculation and, as unromantic as it sounds, that is their right. Anyone who sees a higher strategic relevance in GPUs for AI, cloud infrastructure or automotive systems will deploy resources there and not for a segment that is loud but economically declining. This is not a “betrayal” of gamers, but unemotional market logic.

For the community, especially the gaming-affine readership, this development is often difficult or even impossible to accept. After all, it was this community that accompanied the rise of many brands, helped shape them and in some cases made them possible in the first place. Incidentally, the reflex to feel cheated is human and perfectly legitimate. But here, too, it is worth taking a sober look: There is no vested right to continuous innovation cycles in one’s own desired segment. The fact that, for example, a new mid-range GPU appears loveless, a launch takes place without passion or communication with the media and end customers appears increasingly technocratic and dismissive is an expression of a development that goes deeper than a single product cycle. And it cannot be reversed by outrage, but at best by market shifts, for example when AI budgets fall or new competitors emerge.

At the same time, we are experiencing another trend that exaggerates this development: AI as an all-purpose alibi. Where “gaming” used to be emblazoned on the packaging, “AI” is now being used – often without any real added value, but with a high marketing component. Fan control software with “AI tuning”, a headset with “AI noise cancellation” or a monitor with “AI upscaling” – the arbitrariness of these terms is just as revealing as the attempt to achieve maximum buzzword saturation with minimal technical effort. For developers and manufacturers, this is a welcome escape from the innovation trap: instead of actual innovations, the integration of an arbitrary, often irrelevant AI module is enough to declare a product “future-proof”.

But here too, companies are allowed to do this. They decide for themselves which markets they play in, which target groups they prioritize – and how they position their products. Nobody is obliged to develop a new dream chip for core gamers every year. And nobody has a right to technical revolutions when the market has long since demanded other things. Gamers are entitled to be disappointed, yes. But this disappointment should not turn into a sense of entitlement. There is no “customary right” to a gaming focus, just as there is no privilege to preferential treatment from PR departments.

What remains is a sober observation: the market has changed, and with it the self-image of its players. For the media, this means finally acknowledging reality and repositioning themselves, be it through well-founded reporting on AI technologies, by critically examining marketing rhetoric or by consciously cultivating those segments that are currently being abandoned by the mainstream. Because this is also where journalistic relevance lies: not just reporting what everyone is celebrating, but showing what is falling by the wayside. And now you also know why I changed my own investments and financial plan around three years ago and also focused on other fields that may still seem niche to many. You just have to recognize it in time, otherwise you’re out. All the indignation doesn’t help, you could have seen it, you should have seen it.

Own ways, own means, own standards and why it’s better not to follow the fast hype

The decision to take an independent and technically sound path with igor’sLAB was not a reaction to short-term trends, but the result of a conscious and long-term rethink as well as longer-term and strategic financial planning. In an industry that is increasingly defined by strategic media placements, closely managed manufacturer relationships and a growing dominance of superficial short formats, it has become necessary to break free from this dependency. Anyone who claims to not only depict products, but to analyze them critically, reproducibly and in depth, must be able to work independently. Financially, technically and in terms of content.

For this reason, I have consistently invested in my own laboratory technology in recent years, in the mid six-figure range and from my own resources. Because without such a basis, many statements about material quality, electrical properties or thermal behavior can at best be estimated, but not proven. And this means that any analysis, no matter how well-intentioned, would be vulnerable or replaceable. These investments enable me to continue where others stop, for example in the investigation of industrial heat conducting materials, the exact measurement of latencies or the decoding of technical relationships beyond marketing rhetoric.

Of course, I am not closed to the topic of artificial intelligence. I also see the relevance of these technologies, both as an object of technical consideration and as a tool for new forms of analysis. However, despite our openness to new ideas, there must also be room for topics beyond the AI hype. After all, technology reporting must not degenerate into a mere projection screen for current buzzwords. Any medium that completely subordinates itself to the mainstream will sooner or later lose its independence and, in the worst case, its raison d’être – and rightly so.

This trend is further fueled by the massive presence of short-lived content on platforms such as TikTok, Instagram or YouTube Shorts, where relevance is defined by fractions of a second, sensory overload and algorithm compatibility. The resulting displacement of traditional formats not only affects print media, as websites like mine are also coming under increasing pressure to adapt or disappear. If you want to survive in this environment, you have to make a decision: Do you go down the path of adaptation at all costs or do you stay true to your line, even if it means more effort and less immediate visibility?

I have opted for the latter. My site stands for in-depth content, explanatory contexts and the attempt to present complex technical issues in such a way that they are not only understandable but also resilient. This only works with a clear attitude, the willingness to self-finance and the courage to tackle uncomfortable topics. Even if they contradict the general tone. This form of work is more time-consuming, less popular and not always compatible with the mechanisms of the attention economy. But it is necessary if journalism is still seen as a task and not merely as a vehicle for generating coverage. But it is necessary. And as long as there are readers who expect more than just press releases set to music, it is worth pursuing it consistently.

Between ambition, attitude and consistency: why true independence has its price

If you combine all the aspects mentioned above, i.e. the strategic realignment of manufacturers towards lucrative AI business areas, the questionable role of some media in controlled pre-sampling, the dwindling customary right to exclusivity, the bending of journalistic principles for reach and the deliberate concealment of real limitations in tests, then an overall picture emerges that only allows one logical conclusion: If you want to remain credible as a medium, you have to consistently detach yourself from these mechanisms. And that means saying goodbye to expectations and comfort structures at all levels.

This is precisely why my presence at Computex 2025 was not sponsored, not externally financed and not part of any PR offensive. I traveled to Taipei on my own account out of conviction, without an invitation, without an agenda, without dependency. I paid for my flights, hotel, all meals, transfers and even trivial things like tips or writing materials myself. And not out of vanity or to set a moral example, but because this is the only way to ensure that my view of the industry remains uninfluenced. He who pays, determines, that also applies on a small scale. And those who don’t pay rarely have the last word.

The 23 (!) videos that I produced during my stay are therefore completely free of monetization or advertising. No upstream commercials, no inserted sponsorship. They serve solely to document and inform, not to capitalize on my reach. I am deliberately foregoing income in order to set an example against the increasing economization of technology journalism, in which content is often only a means to an end in order to generate clicks, leads or budget justifications.

My decision not to mention certain manufacturers in the first place was just as deliberate, not out of spite but out of principle. Anyone who disqualifies themselves through a lack of transparency, disinterest or arrogant self-reference is simply not mentioned by me. Media visibility is not a fundamental right either. It is a form of recognition that you have to earn as a manufacturer through respect, openness and relevance. Anyone who cannot or does not want to do this has no right to a stage, not even out of supposed journalistic duty. Objectivity does not mean giving everyone the same amount of space, but rather weighting relevance according to content criteria and not sacrificing personal integrity to the principle of “both sides get airtime”.

This attitude is uncomfortable, sometimes economically disadvantageous, and it doesn’t bring well-meaning thank-you emails from PR departments. But it protects what counts in the end: Credibility. And that is precisely why the path I am taking with igor ‘sLAB is not just an editorial line, but also a form of silent protest against the omnipresent hypocrisy, both on the part of the industry and within a media landscape that far too often gets in its own way.

Those who take a path that deliberately goes against comfortable conventions, who question systems and apply their own standards, are not only observed, they are also judged. And often not on the basis of content, but on the basis of personal perception, emotions or supposed contradictions. Particularly at a time when debates are increasingly being conducted over heads rather than arguments, the reduction to one person becomes a target. I am no stranger to this either. Comments in which I am accused of arrogance, dogmatism or a lack of accessibility are part of the daily accompaniment to my public work, especially on platforms such as YouTube, where attitude is often seen as provocation.

I don’t take this perception personally, but I don’t ignore it either. Because it points to a fundamental problem: anyone who avoids emotionalization and commercial consonance quickly comes across as unapproachable. Anyone who critically addresses things that others only quietly observe is perceived as uncomfortable. And those who consistently stand for technical depth instead of pleasing platitudes will cause offense. That’s part of the game, but it’s also part of the price you pay if you don’t offer yourself.

At the same time, I don’t want to give the impression that I’ve always done everything right. On the contrary: it was precisely through making many mistakes of my own, editorially, communicatively, in the assessment of situations or people, that I first learned what responsibility in this role really means. In the past, I published things too early, commented too harshly, formulated things too directly or chose the wrong stage. And I have sometimes understood too late how strongly my own behavior affects others, even if it was never meant to. These mistakes were real. And they were important. Because they are an integral part of my development. Not as an excuse, but as a basis for a better understanding of what to change.

Admitting your own mistakes is not a sign of weakness, but an expression of attitude. It is not about putting on a moral front, but about facing up to the responsibility that comes with an exposed position. Anyone who works publicly is read publicly and therefore also reflected publicly. This can be hurtful, unfair or distorting, but it is part of the process. You can’t control it, but you can learn to respect it.

If my appearance comes across as arrogant to some, then perhaps this is less due to arrogance than to a clear line that I follow, a line that does not adapt to every trend, does not subordinate itself to every format and does not meet every expectation. And it is precisely this deviation from what is expected that is often judged by character, because it is easier to criticize the sender than to deal with the content. I understand that and I accept it. Because at the end of the day, it’s not about me personally, but about what I want to convey: technical enlightenment, critical reflection and the claim not to be bought. The fact that I don’t offer myself to every audience is not a weakness, it’s a consequence. And that is precisely why I remain true to my path, with all its rough edges, even if it is not always comfortable. Because true independence doesn’t come from consensus, but from attitude. And through a willingness to be critical of yourself.

Independence is not a status that you acquire once. It is a daily decision, with every invoice, every conversation, every published article. And as long as I am able to make this decision on my own, I will continue to do so. Not because it’s easy, but because it actually seems urgently necessary.

(I wrote the text on the way, because there was enough time for one or two thoughts during the 22 hours)