The recently announced winners of the Computex 2024 Best Choice Award have sparked some controversy and confusion among tech enthusiasts. Among the winners are products like the Asus ROG Ally handheld gaming PC and MSI’s Claw, which have left many scratching their heads. For instance, the MSI Claw, which has received less than stellar reviews from experts, begs the question of how it managed to secure a spot as a winner. This raises concerns about the credibility and transparency of the selection process for these awards.
One of the major criticisms of the Best Choice Award winners is the apparent lack of true innovation among the selected products. Many of the winning items are simply incremental improvements or variations of existing technology rather than groundbreaking advancements. This has left tech enthusiasts wondering where the real boundary-pushing innovation is and why so many of the products are priced out of reach for the average consumer.
It is evident from the list of winners that a significant number of the awarded products are high-end, luxury items that come with exorbitant price tags. For example, the Asus ROG Matrix Platinum RTX 4090 and the MSI RTX 4090 Suprim Fuzion are both water-cooled graphics cards that cost well over $3,000, making them unaffordable for the majority of consumers. This raises concerns about the accessibility and inclusivity of the awards, as they seem to cater more to the elite market segment.
The selection criteria used by the judges to determine the winners of the Best Choice Award have come under scrutiny. In particular, the criteria of “emphasising environmental protection, energy saving, and carbon reduction” for a water-cooled, power-hungry graphics card has left many perplexed. It calls into question the expertise and understanding of the judges in evaluating the environmental impact and sustainability of the products. This has raised doubts about the credibility and objectivity of the award selection process.
The Computex 2024 Best Choice Award winners have generated mixed reactions from the tech community. While some of the products deserve recognition for their technological prowess, there are valid concerns about the lack of true innovation, the predominance of expensive items, and the transparency of the selection process. Moving forward, it is essential for the organizers of such awards to reevaluate their criteria and ensure that the winners truly represent the best and most innovative products in the tech industry.
Leave a Reply