COLLAPSE of Personal Computing | Investigation Into the Destruction of Ownership
Credibility score: 54/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "COLLAPSE of Personal Computing | Investigation Into the Destruction of Ownership" and rated it 54/100 for credibility (a BS score of 46/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-09-21. Its weakest claim — "Uses 'greedy feckless' to describe data center expansion — strong emotional language." — scored 20/100 and was flagged as emotional button. 65 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 65 claims analyzed: 8 scored under 40, 32 between 40 and 69, and 25 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Video opens with a highlight reel preview of the 'collapse' of personal computing. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 0:00
This intro is setting a very dramatic tone right from the start — lots of 'collapse' talk to grab attention.
Why this score: The video begins with a rapid-fire montage of clips, all centered around the theme of 'collapse' and 'scared' industry. This is a classic highlight reel technique to establish a high-stakes, urgent narrative before diving into the details. It primes the viewer to expect a dire situation in personal computing.
Original quote: “People are so [ __ ] scared in our industry right now. Sales have collapsed more than 70% year over year. >> There's a collapse. >> The options are quite limited to be honest. So, we also thought about what do we do? What is our emergency exit plan, right? If things collapse.”
Claims consumer PC industry is collapsing due to AI data centers and skyrocketing prices. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:18
Using 'collapsing' and 'skyrocketed' paints a very bleak picture, but the connection to AI data centers needs more unpacking.
Why this score: The speaker uses strong, emotionally charged words like 'collapsing' and 'skyrocketed' to describe the state of the PC industry and consumer prices. While there might be shifts in the market, this language frames it as an immediate, catastrophic failure. The claim that AI data centers are directly causing this 'collapse' and price increase is a specific causal link that needs robust evidence, not just dramatic phrasing. The mention of memory prices climbing 'five to nine times since October' is a specific, verifiable claim that needs to be checked against market data. Without that, it's a…
Original quote: “The consumer personal computer industry is collapsing at the hands of AI data centers. Scarcity has become the norm. Consumer prices have skyrocketed as a result of memory prices climbing five to nine times since October with storage”
Blames memory price hikes and US bans for market changes — uses specific numbers without context. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 0:30
Cites 'five to nine times' price increase and 'US bans' as causes, but doesn't explain the full market dynamics or specific bans.
Why this score: The speaker attributes market shifts to memory price increases and US bans on Chinese companies. While these factors can influence the market, presenting them as the sole or primary drivers without detailing the broader economic context, supply chain issues, or specific policies creates a 'Missing Context' frame. A more neutral framing would acknowledge these factors as contributors among others, or provide more detail on the specific bans and their direct impact.
Original quote: “result of memory prices climbing five to nine times since October with storage prices being dragged in tow and US bans on Chinese companies reducing competition.”
Claims 'endless demand' is 'caused by one thing' (AI compute) — oversimplifies complex market forces. — False Equivalence (45/100)
At 0:36
Boils down 'endless demand' to a single cause (AI compute) when market demand is usually multi-faceted. 🧐
Why this score: The speaker frames the 'endless demand' as being 'caused by one thing: AI compute.' This is a 'False Equivalence' because it oversimplifies complex market dynamics. While AI compute demand is certainly a significant factor, attributing 'endless demand' solely to it ignores other potential drivers like gaming, enterprise needs, or general technological advancement. A neutral framing would acknowledge AI as a major driver, but not necessarily the *only* cause of demand.
Original quote: “But, the endless demand is caused by one thing. The demand for AI compute is just continuing to increase. It is so unprecedented how much compute is being consumed right now.”
Compares human training energy to AI, then calls for 100x compute increase — a bold, unverified projection. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 0:52
Suggests AI 'probably' caught up in energy efficiency, then confidently states a 100x compute need. Big leap! 🚀
Why this score: The speaker makes a speculative comparison about AI energy efficiency ('Probably AI has already caught up') and then immediately pivots to a very confident and specific projection ('We need to increase the world's compute capacity another hundred times over the next few years'). This is a 'Confidence Mismatch' because the certainty of the future demand doesn't align with the speculative nature of the preceding comparison. A more neutral framing would either present both as speculative or provide evidence for the 100x projection.
Original quote: “It takes like 20 years of life. Probably AI has already caught up on an energy efficiency basis measured that way. We need to increase the world's compute capacity another hundred times over the next few years.”
Critiques 'small capital' claims from billionaires — uses 'billion dollars' as a counterpoint. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 1:14
Highlights the hypocrisy of 'small capital' advice from billionaires, using 'billion dollars' to emphasize the disconnect. 💸
Why this score: The speaker uses 'Loaded Language' to critique the advice from 'billionaire executives of trillion-dollar companies' who suggest 'small capital' is enough. By immediately countering with 'you do need to have, you know, a billion dollars,' the speaker uses hyperbole to emphasize the perceived disconnect between the executives' reality and their advice. A neutral framing might present the executives' statements and then offer a factual counter-argument about typical startup capital requirements without the loaded 'billion dollars' figure.
Original quote: “is fantastic for us. We've heard from plenty of billionaire executives of trillion-dollar companies over the past year like about how you just need some small capital. But, you do need to have, you know, a billion dollars. You need to have some reasonable fund.”
Uses 'greedy feckless' to describe data center expansion — strong emotional language. — Emotional Button (20/100)
At 1:33
Calling data center expansion 'greedy feckless' is pure emotional appeal, not objective analysis. 😡
Why this score: The speaker uses highly charged, 'Emotional Button' language like 'greedy feckless data center expansion' to describe the impact on 'normal people.' These words are designed to evoke a strong negative emotional response rather than provide a neutral, factual description of the economic or technological processes. A neutral framing would describe the impact of data center expansion on resource allocation and consumer access without using emotionally loaded adjectives.
Original quote: “we haven't heard much from everyone else that the greedy feckless data center expansion affects normal people and especially those working for consumer-first companies who have absolutely no control over the price of memory, the availability of CPUs and GPUs, or the ability of normal people to own…”
Claims AI 'took your job' by turning consumer computers into appliances — a specific, debatable mechanism. — False Equivalence (45/100)
At 1:53
Suggests AI 'took jobs' by changing computer ownership, not by direct automation. It's a very specific, indirect causal link. 🤔
Why this score: The speaker claims 'AI took your job' but clarifies 'not because AI has actually done your job' but because it's 'taking consumer computers as an appliance.' This is a 'False Equivalence' because it presents a very specific and indirect mechanism for job displacement as the primary way AI 'took jobs,' rather than the more commonly discussed direct automation. A neutral framing would differentiate between various ways AI impacts the job market, including both direct automation and indirect economic shifts.
Original quote: “AI took your job. Yeah. But, not because AI has actually done your job. >> No, it took it because it's basically taking consumer computers as an appliance.”
References a 'steady decline' in units per month (50k-100k) — lacks specific product or market context. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 2:12
Mentions a 'steady decline' in 'units per month' (50k-100k) without specifying what units or market. Hard to verify. 📉
Why this score: The speaker refers to a 'steady decline' in '50,000 to almost like 100,000 units per month' from November to January. This is 'Missing Context' because it doesn't specify what 'units' are being discussed (e.g., PCs, components, a specific product line) or which market segment. Without this crucial information, the claim is difficult to interpret or verify. A neutral framing would clearly identify the product or market segment being referenced.
Original quote: “something between 50,000 to almost like 100,000 units per month. And then you can see from November, December, January, you can see a kind of kind of steady decline. Yeah, so there's another one that that I found interesting uh”
Citing a specific item's revenue drop to below $10,000/month, implying a significant decline. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 2:37
They're giving a specific number without telling us what 'normal' revenue for this item actually is. What's the baseline?
Why this score: The speaker states a specific revenue figure ('below 10,000 per month') for 'this item' and implies it's a significant drop from a 'normal' level. However, they don't explicitly state what that normal level is, or what 'this item' even is. Without knowing the product or its typical performance, it's hard to gauge the true significance of this drop. It's a classic case of presenting a number without the necessary context for proper interpretation.
Original quote: “below 10,000 per month for this item is”
Claiming a 15% January decline for 'us and the market,' then a 40% market decline by April. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 2:45
They're throwing out percentages like 15% and 40% without specifying what 'market' they're talking about. Is it the whole PC market or a niche?
Why this score: The speaker presents two significant decline figures: 'around 15%' for January and '40% for our market' by April, spanning a '4-month decline.' The issue here is the lack of specificity regarding 'the market.' Is this the entire personal computing market, a specific component market (like GPUs or memory, which are mentioned later), or a particular segment of their business? Without this crucial context, the numbers, while potentially accurate for their specific niche, are framed to sound like a broader, more dramatic collapse than might be the case.
Original quote: “Our uh January decline from December for us and the market is around 15% and continuously on a 4-month decline into April [music] 40% for our market.”
Extending specific sales numbers to represent a 'shift' in 'at-home access to powerful, independent consumer computing as a whole.' — Volume Game (20/100)
At 3:41
They're taking specific, anecdotal sales figures and blowing them up to represent a massive, systemic shift in 'consumer computing as a whole.' That's a huge leap.
Why this score: This is a classic 'Volume Game' where specific, potentially limited data (sales numbers for 'computer parts to consumers') is used to make a much broader, more impactful claim about a 'shift that's happening to at-home access to powerful, independent consumer computing as a whole.' While a decline in component sales could be *part* of a larger trend, the speaker presents it as direct evidence of a fundamental, widespread shift without providing additional, broader market data or analysis to support such a sweeping conclusion. It's an attempt to amplify the significance of their initial data…
Original quote: “But these numbers don't just show what's happening to companies selling computer parts to consumers. They show a shift that's happening to at-home access to powerful, independent consumer computing as a whole.”
Claiming 'mega corporations' are building infrastructure to 'rent back' computing power, implying a nefarious motive. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 3:52
Using 'mask is off' and 'rent it back to you' implies a deceptive, exploitative agenda by corporations. It's a strong emotional appeal.
Why this score: The phrases 'the mask is off' and 'rent it back to you' are highly loaded. 'The mask is off' suggests a hidden, deceptive agenda is now revealed, while 'rent it back to you' implies that corporations are taking something that was inherently yours (or should be) and forcing you to pay for access. This framing uses emotionally charged language to paint 'mega corporations' as manipulative entities, rather than neutrally describing a business model shift towards cloud computing or subscription services. It's designed to elicit a strong, negative emotional response from the audience.
Original quote: “And now, more than ever, the mask is off for the mega corporations that control the demand drivers like GPUs and memory as they build the infrastructure to rent it back to you.”
Framing AI companies as 'digital lords' creating a 'feudalistic kingdom' of 'rent-ership' for computing. — Loaded Language (20/100)
At 4:32
Using highly charged, negative terms like 'digital lords' and 'feudalistic kingdom' to describe tech companies' business models. — This isn't neutral observation; it's designed to evoke strong emotional opposition.
Why this score: The speaker employs emotionally loaded language ('digital lords', 'feudalistic kingdom', 'rent-ership') to frame the shift to cloud-based AI as inherently oppressive and exploitative. This framing bypasses a neutral discussion of business models or technological evolution, instead pushing a narrative of corporate villainy and consumer subjugation. It's a classic rhetorical move to pre-load the audience's emotional response before presenting any concrete evidence or alternative perspectives on why companies might offer cloud services (e.g., accessibility, cost for high-end compute,…
Original quote: “We're also going to see personal AI. Instead of personal computers, we want personal AIs. And we're not the only ones interpreting this as if the AI companies have ambitions of leveraging rising prices to convert the possibility of computer ownership into rent-ership, just as we've seen with home…”
Claiming 'many contacts' agree and that tech companies would prefer consumers didn't exist. — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 5:00
Citing 'many contacts' without naming a single one. — Then making a wild, unevidenced leap about companies wanting consumers to 'not exist'.
Why this score: The speaker uses the 'anonymous authority' fallacy by referencing 'many of our contacts in the industry' without providing any specific names, roles, or evidence of their statements. This makes the claim sound authoritative while being impossible to verify. The subsequent assertion that these companies would prefer consumers 'not exist' is an extreme, unsubstantiated generalization that borders on a straw man, painting a cartoonishly evil picture of corporate intent without any supporting logic or evidence. It's an emotional appeal designed to demonize rather than inform.
Original quote: “Many of our contacts in the industry catering to consumers buying into owning highly personalized PCs also think they see this trajectory. They're not even not trying to help us. I think for them it would be even great if none of us exists so they can just do whatever they want.”
Acknowledging financial reasons for cloud services, but still framing it as a loss of ownership. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 5:33
They mention financial reasons for cloud services, but the overall framing still emphasizes 'loss of ownership' over 'increased accessibility'. — It's a partial truth, missing the full picture.
Why this score: While the speaker briefly acknowledges that 'the individual's financial situation' can drive the use of rental or cloud services (like GeForce Now), the overarching narrative of the video and this segment is still heavily framed around the 'destruction of ownership' and 'rent-ership'. This creates a 'missing context' scenario where the benefits of cloud computing – such as lower upfront costs, access to high-end hardware without maintenance, and flexibility – are downplayed or presented as a necessary evil rather than a valid, beneficial option for many consumers. A more neutral framing would…
Original quote: “We've definitely seen an increasing trend in rental programs or cloud compute services, right? And so, as much as we'd love for you to buy and own, we do recognize that the the individual's financial situation is ultimately going to be the determining factor. If they need access to powerful compute…”
Declaring the consumer PC industry 'gone gone' as we've known it. — Loaded Language (20/100)
At 5:58
Using 'gone gone' to dramatically declare the end of an industry. — It's an exaggeration designed for impact, not precision.
Why this score: The phrase 'gone gone' is a dramatic, emphatic, and emotionally charged way to declare the demise of the consumer PC industry. While there might be shifts in the market, this phrasing is an overstatement designed to create a sense of finality and alarm, rather than a nuanced analysis of market evolution. It's loaded language that aims to evoke a strong, negative reaction from the audience, reinforcing the video's 'collapse' narrative without offering a balanced view of how the industry might be transforming rather than simply disappearing.
Original quote: “The piece The consumer PC industry as we've known it our entire lives, that's gone. Mhm. Like it's gone gone.”
Narrating a series of travel mishaps and job losses, culminating in a Waymo encounter framed as AI destroying everything. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 7:39
They're building a narrative of chaos and struggle, then tying it to a Waymo incident to evoke a strong emotional response about AI. 🤖💥
Why this score: The speaker recounts a series of events – multiple flights, a job loss (Rob Teller's), and then getting stuck behind a Waymo. The framing here is to connect these disparate, somewhat frustrating events into a larger narrative of 'AI destroying everything.' The Waymo incident, while potentially annoying, is presented as 'cruel commentary on reality' to amplify the feeling of things going wrong and to emotionally prime the audience against AI, even though the car's actions might have been a simple navigation issue rather than an act of 'destruction'.
Original quote: “This was our most exciting adventure yet. Late last year, we flew out to China to learn more about the margin structure of computer hardware at the same time as running our black market GPU investigation. We flew back to North Carolina, then flew to California because we overshot it by accident,…”
Linking RAM prices to a visual of a car crash. Emotional Button. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 8:38
Connects high RAM prices to a car crash visually, implying a direct, dramatic cause. — It's a classic emotional button to make you feel the 'collapse.'
Why this score: The speaker uses a visual of a car crash (implied by the preceding 'What the []' and the sound of a crash) to immediately follow with 'This is why RAM prices are thousands of dollars.' This creates an emotional link between a chaotic, destructive event and the high cost of RAM, even though the two are not directly causally related in the way presented. It's a rhetorical move to evoke a strong feeling of alarm and crisis, framing the high prices as part of a larger 'collapse' rather than a complex market issue. A neutral framing would simply state the RAM prices and then discuss the actual…
Original quote: “This is why RAM prices are thousands of dollars.”
Framing San Francisco's AI billboard density as evidence of 'questionable startups.' Loaded Language. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 9:16
Calling startups 'questionable' based on billboard density. — It's loaded language to cast doubt without evidence.
Why this score: The speaker uses the phrase 'questionable startups' to describe companies advertising AI in San Francisco, based solely on the high density of their billboards. This is loaded language because 'questionable' implies a lack of legitimacy or trustworthiness without providing any specific evidence or criteria for why these startups are questionable. The high number of billboards could simply indicate a competitive market or aggressive marketing, not necessarily a lack of credibility. A neutral framing would describe the prevalence of AI billboards without attaching a subjective, negative…
Original quote: “different CEO. This is when we discovered that San Francisco loves AI so much that it has billboards for questionable startups every 15 ft. In about a 1-mile span, there were six billboards for AI.”
Recounting a personal experience of a car break-in and theft. Personal Story. — OK (70/100)
At 9:47
Sharing a personal anecdote about their rental car being broken into. — This is a personal experience, not a claim to fact-check.
Why this score: The speaker is recounting a personal experience of their rental car being broken into and items stolen, citing police information for the timeframe. This is a personal anecdote, not a claim that can be fact-checked against external evidence. It serves to add a narrative element to their journey and highlight potential challenges or dangers they faced, contributing to the overall 'investigation' feel of the video. The framing here is straightforward storytelling, sharing a personal event.
Original quote: “Then we grabbed a drink nearby, and according to police, sometime within 5 minutes of us arriving to get our drinks, the rental car was broken into and half our [__] was stolen.”
Detailing the extensive research process for the video. No Frame. — No Frame (75/100)
At 10:12
Outlines their research process, including duration and types of entities interviewed. — This is transparent and provides context for their claims.
Why this score: The speaker is providing transparency about their research methodology, stating the duration of their information collection (8 months), the geographical scope (Shenzhen to California), and the number and types of entities interviewed (around nine, from freight forwarders to Corsair). This framing is straightforward and aims to establish credibility by showing the depth and breadth of their investigation. It's a good example of 'No Frame' because it presents factual information about their process without using loaded language, omitting crucial context, or making unsubstantiated claims. It…
Original quote: “For this story, we spoke to a lot of people. We collected information over 8 months as we started to see the trend last year, beginning in Shenzhen and eventually ending in California. We met with around nine different entities for this one, ranging from freight forwarding companies to the near…”
Speaker expresses excitement for 2027, hinting at future roadmap items — Vague optimism. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 10:30
Expressing excitement without specifics is a classic 'just vibes' move. It's not a claim, it's a feeling.
Why this score: The speaker is trying to inject some positivity by talking about future projects and a 'roadmap' for 2027, but provides zero details. It's a way to shift the mood without offering any concrete evidence or plans, relying purely on a feeling of anticipation. It's not a fact-checkable claim, just an emotional appeal.
Original quote: “publicly traded Corsair. Some are more optimistic in trying to find the positives. Are you able to find positives you want to highlight despite kind of the negatives? We can now squeeze in projects that we wanted to tackle already a bit longer, which means, what I also said in between, I'm [music]…”
Speaker admits personal lack of positivity, inviting viewer input — Acknowledging subjective experience. — No Frame (75/100)
At 10:57
The speaker is being transparent about their personal perspective and inviting discussion. That's clean framing.
Why this score: This is a good example of transparent framing. The speaker explicitly states that their lack of positivity is a personal view ('at least personally, I don't see anything positive'). They even open it up to the audience ('Maybe maybe the viewers can tell us what I but I don't see anything'). This acknowledges subjectivity and avoids presenting a personal opinion as objective fact, which is fair.
Original quote: “>> Others don't share the positivity. I don't see, at least personally, I don't see anything [music] positive on it. Okay. That's fine. That's fine. Maybe there's something I don't see. Maybe maybe the viewers can tell us what I but I don't see anything.”
Speaker lists numerous industry experts interviewed, citing their roles and long-standing relationships — Establishing credibility through named sources. — No Frame (75/100)
At 11:12
Listing specific names, roles, and even personal history with sources is a strong way to build credibility. This is how you do it.
Why this score: This is excellent, transparent framing. The speaker isn't just saying 'experts agree'; they're naming specific individuals, their companies, their roles, and even the duration of their personal relationships ('I've known Roman for at least 10 years now'). This provides concrete, verifiable sources for the information they're about to present, allowing the viewer to assess the credibility of the sources themselves. They even add a detail about Wei Yang 'not brainwashed by the industry,' which is a subtle but effective way to frame his perspective as unbiased.
Original quote: “from someone who's not me. We met with a lot of people for this trip who shared unrivaled access to information, including revenue figures. In order of interview appearances, the experts we met with include Roman Hartung, aka DerBauer, the CEO of Thermal Grizzly. I've known Roman for at least 10…”
Claims all non-data center companies are 'dragged along' by a 'post-consumer' model — broad generalization. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 12:44
Uses 'dragged along' and 'post-consumer' to paint a bleak, unavoidable picture for most companies. — It's a strong narrative choice.
Why this score: The speaker frames the entire industry shift as a negative, almost conspiratorial, move by 'huge companies' and 'government.' While shifts in business models are real, calling it 'dragged along' and 'post-consumer' implies a complete lack of agency or alternative for smaller companies, which might not be entirely accurate. It's an emotionally charged way to describe market dynamics.
Original quote: “All the companies we've come to know over decades, unless they're building data centers, are being dragged along for the ride while the huge companies, their former partners, have converted to a post-consumer business model that sells primarily to each other, transacting millions of GPUs and memory…”
Declares consumers are 'competition' and ownership is 'ending' — a dramatic, definitive statement. — Loaded Language (20/100)
At 13:05
Calling consumers 'competition' and saying ownership is 'ending' is pure hyperbole. — It's designed to provoke a strong reaction.
Why this score: This is a classic 'emotional button' combined with 'loaded language.' The idea that consumers are 'competition' rather than customers is a provocative claim, and stating 'consumer ownership... is ending' is a very strong, definitive statement that lacks nuance. While there are trends towards subscription models and cloud services, 'ending' is a dramatic overstatement that ignores the continued existence and sales of traditional hardware.
Original quote: “Consumers are no longer customers. They're competition, left out of the inner bubble. Consumer ownership of powerful home computing is ending.”
Claims the consumer industry is in 'free fall' and experts are losing jobs due to sales collapse — paints a dire picture. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 13:15
Uses 'free fall' and 'sales collapse' to describe the industry, implying total disaster. — It's a very negative spin.
Why this score: The framing here uses highly negative, absolute terms like 'free fall' and 'sales collapse' to describe the consumer industry. While there might be challenges or shifts in certain segments, these terms suggest a complete and irreversible decline, which might be an exaggeration. A more neutral framing would discuss market adjustments, shifts in demand, or specific company struggles rather than a universal 'free fall.'
Original quote: “As a result, the consumer industry is in free fall as the experts and engineers we've introduced to the audience for nearly two decades now are losing their jobs as their sales collapse.”
Cites specific price increases for PCs, Surface, PlayStation, and Switch 2 — provides concrete examples. — No Frame (75/100)
At 13:23
Lists specific price hikes from major players like Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo. — These are verifiable market actions.
Why this score: The speaker provides concrete examples of price increases from well-known companies (HP, Dell, Lenovo, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo) and even quotes Nintendo's reason. This is straightforward reporting of market events. While the overall narrative is negative, these specific claims about price changes are verifiable and presented without overt rhetorical manipulation.
Original quote: “Prices for everything are going up. While Nvidia, AMD, and the memory makers rake in the money, companies that make consumer products with memory in them are also increasing prices. Major OEMs, which are close partners to Nvidia, like HP, Dell, and Lenovo, raised prices on personal computers due to…”
Mentions Microsoft's Xbox comment and Raspberry Pi's price hike, quoting 'painful' — reinforces the memory cost issue. — No Frame (75/100)
At 13:57
Cites Microsoft's statement on Xbox and Raspberry Pi's price increase, directly quoting their 'painful' comment. — Solid, verifiable points.
Why this score: This segment continues to provide specific, verifiable examples to support the broader point about rising memory costs impacting the industry. Quoting Raspberry Pi's 'painful' description adds a direct, attributed voice to the claim, which strengthens its credibility. This is a good example of using specific evidence to build a case.
Original quote: “Microsoft said memory prices will impact the next Xbox. Even Raspberry Pi increased prices for its little computers, calling the memory crunch quote "painful." End quote.”
Describes non-memory PC component companies 'racing to the bottom' over 'scraps' of market share — uses vivid, negative imagery. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 14:07
Uses 'dire,' 'racing to the bottom,' and 'scraps' to dramatize competition in the desktop PC industry. — It's a highly negative portrayal.
Why this score: The speaker uses emotionally charged language ('dire,' 'racing to the bottom,' 'scraps of market share') to describe the state of companies making non-memory PC components. While competition can be fierce, this framing exaggerates the struggle, painting a picture of desperation rather than simply a challenging market. A more neutral description would discuss competitive pressures or market consolidation without such dramatic phrasing.
Original quote: “The situation is more dire in the desktop PC industry, with companies that don't make products containing memory, like case, motherboard, cooling fan, and power supply companies, racing to the bottom to try and compensate for the drop in sales by fighting each other over scraps of market share.”
Corsair's SEC filing highlights memory cost as a barrier for budget PC builds. — No Frame (75/100)
At 14:30
Citing an SEC filing for a specific quote is a solid move — gives it weight.
Why this score: This is straightforward reporting. They're quoting a public company's official filing, which is a reliable source for their stated concerns. No obvious framing tricks here, just relaying information directly.
Original quote: “Corsair said the global semiconductor shortage is threatening the PC hardware market. In an SEC filing, Corsair said the high cost of memory modules quote "act as a barrier to entry for the budget segment of the self-built PC market" end quote, and may negatively affect the company's finances.”
Fractal Design states memory shortages impact DIY PC, with manufacturers prioritizing AI. — No Frame (75/100)
At 14:43
Another direct quote from a relevant company — solid evidence for market trends.
Why this score: Again, this is presenting a direct statement from a company in the industry. It's a clear, attributable claim about market conditions and priorities, which aligns with the video's overall thesis without manipulative framing.
Original quote: “Fractal Design from Fractal Gaming Group, a public company based in Sweden that makes cases, desktop components, and peripherals, best known for its Torrent and Fractal North cases, said memory shortages are impacting the DIY PC market and consumer products, while noting that manufacturers are…”
Antec's revenue dropped 40% through March 2026, down 65% in March 2026 vs. 2025. — No Frame (75/100)
At 15:05
Specific revenue numbers from public filings are strong evidence — they even name the source.
Why this score: This is excellent. They're citing specific, verifiable data from public filings, even naming the source (Gamers Nexus) that did the legwork. The numbers are precise, and the comparison points are clear. This is clean, evidence-based reporting.
Original quote: “Taiwan requires public companies to submit operating revenue every month. Based on public filings that Gamers Nexus dug up, the PC component company Antec, which declined to speak with us despite a good relationship spanning years now, has seen its revenue to by 40% through March compared to last…”
ASUS expects AI server business to grow 4-5x, component business flat; InWin shifts to server factory. — No Frame (75/100)
At 15:33
Citing specific company reports and strategic shifts — good, verifiable data points.
Why this score: This segment provides concrete examples of companies (ASUS, InWin) shifting their business focus, backed by a specific report (ASUS's 2025 Q4 report). This is direct evidence supporting the broader narrative of a changing market, presented without overt framing.
Original quote: “Many companies have diversified with data center products. ASUS expanded its AI server business while shifting its revenue mix from consumer products to server. In its 2025 fourth quarter report, ASUS said it expects its AI server business to grow four to five times year-over-year while its…”
Gartner predicts 10.4% PC shipment fall in 2026 and sub-$500 PCs gone by 2028. — No Frame (75/100)
At 16:02
Citing a specific analyst firm (Gartner) with precise predictions is a strong, attributable claim.
Why this score: The speaker attributes these predictions directly to Gartner, a well-known and respected analyst firm in the tech industry. The numbers are specific, and the source is named, which makes this a solid, verifiable claim about market expectations. The 'normal actual people' bit is a little loaded, but the core data is clean.
Original quote: “Personal computing is becoming unaffordable for normal actual people, and we're not the only ones with this opinion. Aside from obviously the normal actual people who already know it's too expensive, the analyst firm Gartner expects PC shipments to fall 10.4% in 2026 year-over-year. And Gartner…”
Setting up Roman Hartung as a credible, transparent source — using his fame and access as a hook. — No Frame (75/100)
At 16:30
Introducing the expert with a strong emphasis on his reputation and the 'rare access' they got. It's a classic setup to build trust.
Why this score: The speaker is establishing Roman Hartung's authority and the unique nature of the interview. By highlighting his YouTube fame, overclocking expertise, and CEO role, they're framing him as a highly credible source. The mention of 'exceedingly rare' access further elevates the perceived value and trustworthiness of the information he's about to share. This is a straightforward, effective way to introduce an expert.
Original quote: “2028. At that floor, it's already gone as our audience knows well. Our first meeting is with Roman Hartung, aka der8auer of YouTube and overclocking fame. Roman is also the CEO of Thermal Grizzly, a manufacturer of thermal paste, liquid metal thermal pads, the wire of you 12 high power solution,…”
Framing thermal paste sales as a critical barometer for the PC market's health. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 17:05
Suggesting thermal paste sales are a definitive 'eye-opening' indicator for the entire PC market. It's a bit of a leap.
Why this score: The speaker is using a 'loaded' framing by implying that if a low-cost, essential component like thermal paste is seeing a decline, it's a dire sign for the entire personal computing industry. While a decline in thermal paste sales could indicate a slowdown in PC building/upgrading, it's not necessarily a direct, one-to-one indicator of the 'collapse' of personal computing. There could be other factors at play, like longer upgrade cycles or shifts in consumer behavior that don't signal a total collapse. The phrase 'eye-opening' is designed to evoke a strong, negative reaction without fully…
Original quote: “This makes Thermal Grizzly unique. Most notably though, thermal paste as a category is on the cheaper side of computer products out of all the companies we're talking to today. So, if even thermal paste is down, then that's eye-opening.”
Claiming the current downturn is uniquely severe, negating past resilience factors. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 17:59
Asserting the downturn is 'so much' worse this time without showing the specific data yet. We're just taking his word for it.
Why this score: Roman is making a strong claim about the severity of the current market downturn for thermal paste, stating it's 'down by so much' that even the historical 'refurbishing aspect' (people buying paste for older PCs) isn't helping. While he mentions having slides prepared, at this exact moment, the audience is asked to accept this significant claim based on his assertion alone. This creates a 'confidence mismatch' because the conviction in his statement isn't yet backed by the promised visual evidence. It's a setup for the data, but for now, it's a subjective assessment presented as fact.
Original quote: “But this time it's kind of different because it's I think it's it's down by so much that even this refurbishing aspect does not really help anymore.”
Speaker claims Kryonaut 1g sales were a stable base for 10 years, now changing. — No Frame (75/100)
At 18:30
They're laying out their baseline sales data, seems pretty straightforward with specific product and timeframe. No obvious framing tricks here.
Why this score: The speaker is providing context for their sales data, establishing a historical baseline for their product, Kryonaut 1g. They mention it's been a consistent high-seller for 10 years, with specific unit numbers (50k-100k/month, peaking at 86k in Oct '25). This sets up the 'change' they're about to discuss. It's a clear, factual setup for their argument, giving the viewer a solid reference point before diving into the decline.
Original quote: “So, I already prepared also prepared that, but for us the the stable base we always had as as a company was Kryonaut 1 g. It was always a high seller for us. And that's it's the first time in like 10 years that this changed. Okay, yeah. The first slide I prepared is um Kryonaut 1 g. You're looking…”
Speaker notes a 'steady decline' in sales since November, with March/May 2026 sales being the lowest since 2021. — No Frame (75/100)
At 19:12
They're presenting a clear trend from their internal data and even explaining a temporary spike. Seems like honest reporting.
Why this score: The speaker is transparently presenting a decline in sales, acknowledging a temporary spike in February 2026 and providing a reasonable explanation for it (bulk partner orders shipped via sea freight). They then quantify the current low sales by comparing them to 2021, giving a specific historical reference point. This is a good example of straightforward data presentation, where they're not just showing a dip but also offering context and comparison, which helps the viewer understand the significance of the decline.
Original quote: “And then you can see from November, December, January, you can see a kind of steady decline. Uh we have a small spike in February 26. Um that is because some of our um partners, they sometimes buy larger quantities um let's say two three times per year, and then ship it overseas like with like sea…”
Speaker connects current low sales to 2021, citing GPU shortages and COVID shipping issues as factors. — No Frame (75/100)
At 19:58
They're drawing a parallel to a known past event and even confirming it, showing a willingness to consider external factors.
Why this score: The speaker is making a reasonable connection between current low sales and a previous period of low sales (2021), offering plausible external factors like GPU shortages due to crypto mining and global shipping problems from COVID. This shows an attempt to provide a holistic view rather than just blaming a single cause. The fact that they also pulled Thermalright numbers to corroborate the decline, despite not having an exact 1g equivalent, further strengthens their approach by seeking broader evidence.
Original quote: “So, it's the the worst in 5 years. Tell tell me if you think this affected you at all, but that would have been the same window 2021 where uh there were GPU shortages because of crypto mining? >> Yeah, yeah, I think so as well. At that time it was also like global uh shipping problems due to uh…”
Speaker notes a 'steady decline' in units sold, framing it as concerning. — No Frame (75/100)
At 20:31
Just stating an observed trend from their data — seems straightforward.
Why this score: The speaker is presenting data from their perspective, noting a decline. Without seeing the actual chart or knowing the product's lifecycle, it's hard to dispute the observation of a decline. It's framed as a simple observation rather than a loaded statement.
Original quote: “Right. So, it was always between 7,000 to 10,000 units per month. Most of the time, November 25 was still strong, but then you can see it's a a quite steady decline over the months.”
Speaker claims most buyers of the AM5 frame are new PC builders, implying sales reflect new builds. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 21:10
They're making an assumption about buyer behavior without showing any data to back it up. — 'Our perspective' isn't data.
Why this score: The speaker is using 'our perspective' to assert that most people buying this frame are doing so for a new PC build. This is an assumption about customer behavior that isn't supported by any presented data. While it might be true, it's framed as a fact based on their internal view, not on market research or sales analytics. A more neutral framing would acknowledge this as a hypothesis or an internal belief rather than a general truth about buyer intent.
Original quote: “But um this is kind of interesting in regard that from our perspective, most of the people would buy this type of frame whenever they would get a new PC. So, when they buy a new CPU, they would also buy this type of item. Right.”
Speaker describes the decline as 'pretty insane,' using loaded language to emphasize severity. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 21:41
Calling a decline 'insane' is an emotional appeal, not a neutral description of data. — It's meant to evoke a strong reaction.
Why this score: The word 'insane' is emotionally charged and subjective. While the speaker might genuinely feel the decline is significant, using such a word frames the situation as more dramatic and alarming than a neutral description of the data would. A neutral framing would stick to objective terms like 'steep,' 'significant,' or 'rapid' decline, allowing the audience to draw their own conclusions about its severity.
Original quote: “Um but um like the the decline um it's pretty pretty insane, yeah.”
Speaker sets 40,000 revenue as 'normal' and below 10,000 as 'lowest ever,' framing current numbers as dire. — No Frame (75/100)
At 21:53
They're comparing current performance to historical data and a defined 'normal' baseline. — Seems like a fair comparison.
Why this score: The speaker is providing context for the decline by comparing current revenue numbers (below 10,000) to what they consider a 'normal base level' (40,000) and stating it's the 'lowest we ever had.' This is a direct comparison based on their internal data and historical performance. While the choice of 'normal' is subjective to their business, the comparison itself is straightforward and not overtly manipulative. It's a clear way to illustrate the magnitude of the decline from their perspective.
Original quote: “Yeah, I mean you would you would stay um like the general January numbers you're seeing there, like 40,000 revenue per month. This is where it would be normal at. That's just like the normal base level. Um going down to below 10,000 per month for this item is um the lowest we ever had.”
Speaker shares inventory and sales numbers, painting a picture of slow movement. — No Frame (75/100)
At 22:33
Straightforward numbers from their business — sets the stage for their struggle.
Why this score: The speaker is providing specific, verifiable data about their current inventory and sales rate. This isn't framed to mislead, but rather to illustrate the challenge they're facing, which aligns with the video's overall thesis about the 'collapse' of personal computing. It's a direct statement of fact from their business operations.
Original quote: “The thing is right now I have about 14,000 units in stock and I'm selling 500 per month right now.”
Speaker attributes the market slowdown primarily to a 'price hike'. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 23:25
Blames a 'price hike' as the main cause — a bit vague, could be more specific about what's driving it.
Why this score: While 'price hike' isn't inherently false, it's a broad term that frames the issue as a simple increase without detailing the underlying causes (e.g., supply chain issues, inflation, increased demand, specific component costs). It simplifies a complex economic situation, potentially steering the audience towards a singular, easily digestible reason rather than a nuanced understanding. A more neutral framing might list several contributing factors or specify which prices are hiking and why.
Original quote: “I think it's it's in in general just a price hike.”
Speaker claims memory prices quadrupled, driving their decision to cut costs and personal buying habits. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 23:46
Says memory prices 'quadrupled' — a huge jump that's hard to verify without specific data points and timeframes.
Why this score: The claim that 'memory kits quadruple in price' is a very strong, specific assertion. While memory prices have fluctuated significantly in recent years (especially during the pandemic and crypto boom), 'quadrupling' is a dramatic increase that would require specific data points (start price, end price, timeframe) to verify. Without this context, it feels like an exaggeration, even if prices did rise substantially. It uses a strong, unbacked number to underscore their point about market difficulty, which can sway perception without full evidence.
Original quote: “with the high memory prices. I told everyone here that we have to immediately start cost-saving measures. Otherwise we will start getting in trouble. And because I I saw you know memory kits quadruple in in in price and from my own perspective I would just simply not buy that.”
Framing the PC industry as an 'accessory business' — a specific angle. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 24:58
Calling the industry an 'accessory business' downplays its core function. It's a rhetorical choice to support the 'collapse' narrative.
Why this score: The term 'accessory business' implies a secondary, non-essential role, which is a loaded way to describe an industry that produces core components like motherboards and cases. While these companies don't make the chips, they assemble and innovate around them, which is more than just 'accessories.' This framing supports the video's overall thesis of a declining or 'collapsing' personal computing market by making the non-chip makers seem less significant.
Original quote: “I think most of our industry is an accessory business.”
Defining 'making' too narrowly to exclude assembly and innovation. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 25:09
Focusing only on chip manufacturing ignores the value added by design, assembly, and branding. It's a narrow definition of 'making.'
Why this score: The speaker defines 'making' in a very specific, limited way—only referring to the fabrication of core silicon components (chipsets, GPUs, memory). This framing omits the significant value added by companies like ASUS or MSI in terms of R&D, design, cooling solutions, software integration, branding, and market distribution. By narrowing the definition, they make these companies seem less essential, reinforcing the 'accessory business' framing and supporting the idea that only chip manufacturers truly matter in the industry.
Original quote: “neither of them is making chipsets or GPUs or anything. They don't make memory.”
Future demand will change, some companies might not exist, others might switch chips — a speculative, broad framing. — No Frame (75/100)
At 26:30
Just a general observation about market dynamics and future uncertainty — pretty straightforward, no strong framing here.
Why this score: The speaker is acknowledging the inherent uncertainty of future market trends, especially with AI. It's a general, non-committal statement about potential shifts rather than a specific prediction. It's a fair way to frame an unknown future.
Original quote: “we obviously don't know what the future brings, especially with the entire AI thing, um but at some point demand will not necessarily decrease, but change. Some companies might not exist anymore. Some companies might switch to different chips, and um we will then see what happens. I think right now…”
Speaker claims demand will 'change' not 'decrease' — a subtle framing shift. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 26:30
Calling it 'change' instead of 'decrease' softens the blow, implying adaptation rather than decline.
Why this score: This is a classic use of loaded language. 'Change' is a neutral, almost positive word, while 'decrease' is explicitly negative. By choosing 'change,' the speaker frames a potential decline in a less alarming way, even if the underlying reality might be a reduction in demand. It's about managing perception.
Original quote: “but at some point demand will not necessarily decrease, but change.”
Speaker attributes malicious intent to companies, claiming they 'forget where they're coming from' and 'try not to help us'. — Emotional Button (20/100)
At 26:53
Appealing to a sense of betrayal and 'us vs. them' to stir negative feelings about companies.
Why this score: This uses an 'emotional button' by framing companies as actively malicious and forgetful of their roots, rather than just making business decisions. The phrase 'trying really hard not to help us' implies deliberate antagonism, which is a strong emotional appeal designed to evoke anger or resentment from the audience. It shifts the narrative from market dynamics to a moral failing.
Original quote: “It's just sad. It's just sad that they are they're forgetting where they're coming from. Um if you're talking to them, they're obviously claiming that they're not forgetting it but um they're trying really hard not to help us, right?”
Companies are 'trying really hard not to help us' and would prefer 'none of us exists' to avoid criticism — an emotional, accusatory framing. — Emotional Button (20/100)
At 26:55
This is pure emotional appeal, painting companies as actively malicious and wishing users didn't exist. Strong 'us vs. them' vibe.
Why this score: The speaker is using highly charged language ('trying really hard not to help us,' 'great if none of us exists') to evoke a strong emotional response from the audience. This frames the companies not just as indifferent, but as actively hostile and desiring the elimination of their user base to avoid criticism. A more neutral framing would describe business decisions or market strategies without attributing such extreme, almost villainous, intent.
Original quote: “Um if you're talking to them, they're obviously claiming that they're not forgetting it but um they're trying really hard not to help us, right? It's like um They're not even not trying to help us. I think for them it would be even great if none of us exists so they can just do whatever they want…”
Speaker suggests companies would prefer users didn't exist to avoid criticism — an extreme, unverified claim. — Straw Man (20/100)
At 27:09
Presents an exaggerated, easily refutable version of a company's motive to make them look bad.
Why this score: This is a classic straw man argument. The speaker creates an extreme, almost cartoonish caricature of corporate desire ('it would be even great if none of us exists') that is highly unlikely to be true. This exaggerated claim is easier to attack and serves to demonize companies, diverting from more nuanced discussions about business practices and market forces. It's a rhetorical tactic to make the opponent seem utterly unreasonable.
Original quote: “I think for them it would be even great if none of us exists so they can just do whatever they want without getting criticism.”
Reducing staff by 50% 'doesn't even help' due to high running costs and skilled employees — a 'false dilemma' framing of options. — False Dilemma (45/100)
At 27:27
Presents a drastic 50% staff cut as the only alternative to current costs, ignoring other potential cost-saving measures.
Why this score: The speaker frames the situation as having 'limited options' and then immediately jumps to a hypothetical 50% staff reduction as if it's the only significant cost-cutting measure available, and dismisses it. This creates a false dilemma by implying that either they maintain current high costs or make an unfeasible, damaging cut, without exploring a spectrum of other potential cost-saving strategies (e.g., smaller staff reductions, operational efficiencies, renegotiating contracts, optimizing machine usage, etc.). It makes their current situation seem more dire and unchangeable than it might…
Original quote: “the options are quite limited to be honest. So we also thought about what do we do? What is our emergency exit plan, right? If things um um collapse like what do we do? The the problem is that we have rather high running costs um because of everything that we have, right? We have so many machines…”
Speaker uses a hypothetical 50% staff reduction to illustrate limited options, but it's a specific, dramatic number. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 27:52
Using '50%' as a hypothetical example creates a sense of extreme crisis, even if it's not a real consideration.
Why this score: While presented as hypothetical, the choice of '50%' is loaded language. It's a very large, dramatic number that immediately conjures images of severe crisis and desperation. Even if it's just an example, it frames the company's situation as far more dire than a smaller, more realistic hypothetical reduction might. It's designed to emphasize the severity of their 'limited options' and elicit sympathy or concern.
Original quote: “Um so even if you're thinking about it like uh let's say you would hypothetically think about uh reducing the staff by 50%.”
Canceling Computex booth after paying 90% — a sunk cost fallacy in action. — No Frame (75/100)
At 28:32
They're just stating a fact about their Computex situation — a clear example of a sunk cost.
Why this score: The speaker is transparently sharing their company's predicament with the Computex booth. They acknowledge that in hindsight, it was probably a bad decision, but since 90% of the cost was already paid, they felt compelled to go through with it. This is a straightforward, honest account of a business decision influenced by sunk costs, not a rhetorical trick.
Original quote: “we This This year is the first time we are at Computex. Um we wanted to cancel our booth but we already had paid for our 90%. Um like in retrospective should not have done it probably but here we are. Well, you you normally make those arrangements pretty early, right? So you Yeah, we decided this…”
Company paid 90% for Computex booth, now regrets it — a clear financial misstep. — No Frame (75/100)
At 28:32
They're just stating a fact about their company's situation and a past decision. No spin here.
Why this score: The speaker is transparent about a business decision that, in hindsight, they regret. It's a straightforward admission of a financial commitment made before the current market downturn was fully apparent. This is clean framing because it's a direct, verifiable statement about their own operations, without trying to shift blame or exaggerate the impact. It sets a clear, honest tone about the challenges they're facing.
Original quote: “we This This year is the first time we are at Computex. Um we wanted to cancel our booth but we already had paid for our 90%. Um like in retrospective should not have done it probably but here we are. Well, you you normally make those arrangements pretty early, right? So you Yeah, we decided this…”
Aiming for a 'stable base' rather than previous levels — managing expectations. — No Frame (75/100)
At 29:16
Setting realistic, albeit lower, expectations for future performance. It's a pragmatic outlook.
Why this score: The speaker is being realistic about the company's prospects, acknowledging that returning to previous performance levels isn't feasible in the current market. Instead, they're focusing on achieving a 'stable base.' This is a form of transparent framing, as it manages expectations honestly rather than offering false hope or downplaying the challenges. It shows a pragmatic approach to a difficult situation, which builds trust by not overpromising.
Original quote: “yeah, just compensate the loss. I don't think it's realistic to go on the same level as before, but at least trying to get somewhat of a stable base, yeah.”
Adding more 'paces' won't help — a direct, self-critical assessment. — No Frame (75/100)
At 29:32
A frank admission that a specific action isn't beneficial, showing self-awareness.
Why this score: The speaker is directly stating that a particular strategy (introducing more 'paces') is not effective for their company. This is a straightforward, self-critical assessment, indicating a clear understanding of their business challenges without sugarcoating. It's clean framing because it's a direct statement of opinion based on their internal assessment, without any attempt to mislead or obscure the reality of their situation. It highlights a pragmatic approach to problem-solving.
Original quote: “it won't really help us. Like introducing a fifth or sixth pace is not helping you, right?”
Adding more products won't help if the core strategy is flawed — a dose of realism. — No Frame (75/100)
At 29:32
Acknowledging that simply adding more products isn't a silver bullet — a realistic assessment.
Why this score: The speaker is being quite candid here, admitting that just churning out more of the same type of product (a 'fifth or sixth pace') isn't going to solve their underlying problems. This is a self-aware and realistic assessment of their situation, showing a clear understanding that quantity doesn't always equal quality or success. It's a straightforward statement without any hidden framing.
Original quote: “it won't really help us. Like introducing a fifth or sixth pace is not helping you, right?”
Shifting strategy to diversification and new markets like water cooling to compensate for losses. — No Frame (75/100)
At 29:40
They're clearly outlining their new strategy: diversifying into new product categories and markets.
Why this score: The speaker is explaining their strategic pivot towards diversification ('going wider') and entering new markets like water cooling. They even provide a specific example of a successful product, the 'WireView,' that is currently helping them. This is a clear, direct explanation of their business strategy without any manipulative framing. It's a transparent look at how they're trying to adapt.
Original quote: “what we can do is just going wider, having products we didn't do in the past. Um like luckily the WireView is helping us a lot right now. It's a great running product. Um we're expanding into the water cooling market a lot, right? So, that that's helping us.”
Expanding into new markets and innovating due to necessity — a positive spin on a tough situation. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 29:40
Framing being 'forced to innovate' as a positive, which it can be, but it's still a consequence of hardship.
Why this score: The speaker frames being 'forced to do a lot of innovation' as a positive outcome, which it can be, but the word 'forced' reveals the underlying pressure. While expanding into new markets like water cooling and the success of WireView are genuine positives, the framing subtly shifts from a reactive necessity ('forced') to an active, beneficial strategy. This is loaded language because it puts a positive spin on a situation driven by difficult circumstances, making the necessity sound more like a proactive choice. A more neutral framing might simply state they are 'adapting' or 'diversifying'…
Original quote: “what we can do is just going wider, having products we didn't do in the past. Um like luckily the WireView is helping us a lot right now. It's a great running product. Um we're expanding into the water cooling market a lot, right? So, that that's helping us. Um and we're actually uh forced to do a…”
See the full analysis with timestamps →