Engadget review (rant)

[borgey401]

This is where I have to disagree with you. So it was missing a few functions, so what? Even with no 3G, the browser was still better than any other phone. And the App store revolutionized mobile telecommunications. I don't think anyone could argue that smartphones wouldn't be anywhere near where they are today without it. Hell, even Android probably wouldn't.

It may not be the best anymore, but it was at one time, and like it or not, it was a phone that got people excited, and that's all the matters. No one cares about copy and paste and 3G and MMS if the phone it's on isn't fun to use. Quite simply, the iPhone was, and always has been a fun device to use and that's why people love it, write about it, and give it a little leeway. Because even if the reception is a little iffy at times, and even if multitasking sucks, it's still something that is easy and enjoyable to use. That is why the iPhone is brilliant.

Maybe not the best smartphone, but still brilliant.

Btw, I hate Apple, so don't think I'm a defector. I would never buy an iPhone, but I am trying to have an objective view here.

well i think ya should cross out "droid x" in your future and edit it with "Iphone4" since it is so "brilliant"......... just my 2 cents

 

[ceriem]

well i think ya should cross out "droid x" in your future and edit it with "Iphone4" since it is so "brilliant"......... just my 2 cents

You're missing my point here. I said the original concept of the iPhone, which it still has now, it to provide a unique and fun user experience. While I personally don't think it's the best smartphone on the market anymore, for a while it was.I was just trying to assert my point that this original intuitiveness is why the media loves it so much.

Think about it. What does your average consumer know about a smartphone? Usually very little. Apple made a phone that any consumer, or journalist, could pick up and use right away. This was unlike any Blackberry or Windows 7 phone you had during those day. This is why the media loves the iPhone.

Like I also said, if you have a problem with the way the media portrays the iPhone better than other phones, than do what I have already done to Engadget: email their writers and editors and respectfully explain your point. Like I am trying to do now.

Flaming on forums about Engadget's biased reporters isn't going to get them to like Android anymore. It's like if someone prefers McDonald's cheeseburgers and you prefer a $30 burger from a restaurant. Even though you know yours is better quality than theirs is, yelling at them and telling them they don't deserve such a good burger isn't going to make them choose it over the McDonald's burger.

 

[Brett]

Guys please treat each other respect. That's my 2 cents. Or the thread will be closed

 

[rinnr1]

Top 5 reasons NOT to buy the IPhone4 haha

Videos - Free video downloads and streaming video - CNET TV

I liked this good points

 

[Tifoso]

One thing that you need to keep in mind about these review websites is that they are getting paid in one way or another by one or more of the manufacturers. Engadget has come right out and said that Apple pays them. I tend to be skeptical of these so-called unbiased review sites merely because I know they are paid at some level. Look what happened over at BGR the other day with that fake e-mail exchange. It wasn't BGR that was paid this time around, but he never came back around to explain himself after it all blew up in his face, and whatever shred of credibility he had is has just about vanished.

Aside from Consumer Reports, I would gravitate to sites like Android Central and CrackBerry whose #1 reason for existing is to help and educate the end user by way of their articles and mainly their discussion forums.

 

[SilverLight98]

When did Engadget say that Apple pays them?

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

[Tifoso]

When did Engadget say that Apple pays them?

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

Josh said it in his Engadget show with Jimmy Fallon. I'm going to take another look at it and see what part of the show he said it.

 

[Tifoso]

Here is the video. They are in a round table discussion and the iPhone 4 is discussed. At 1:05:10 is when he makes this statement.

Joshua Topolsky: "I think the iPhone 4 is a really good smartphone. I mean I'm not just saying it because I get money from Apple, which I do. But this time I mean it."
Tell me that isn't a conflict of interest.

The Engadget Show - 010: Jimmy Fallon, Kudo Tsunoda, Microsoft Kinect, iPhone 4, Samsung Captivate, Droid X -- Engadget

 

[alan7467]

Here is the video. They are in a round table discussion and the iPhone 4 is discussed. At 1:05:10 is when he makes this statement.

Joshua Topolsky: "I think the iPhone 4 is a really good smartphone. I mean I'm not just saying it because I get money from Apple, which I do. But this time I mean it."
Tell me that isn't a conflict of interest.

The Engadget Show - 010: Jimmy Fallon, Kudo Tsunoda, Microsoft Kinect, iPhone 4, Samsung Captivate, Droid X -- Engadget

If you listened to the Engadget podcasts you'd realize that Josh was joking. The people at Engadget aren't even allowed to own stock in tech companies because of the potential for conflict of interest.



Anyway, the fact of the matter is that Engadget tends to write very opinionated reviews these days. Their iPhone 4 review written by Josh wasn't overly technical, and the conclusion of that phone being the best smartphone was just a strong opinion. In my case that's what bothers me about that review and the Droid X review. Josh is obviously a fan of Apple products, and whether he wants to admit it or not seems to fall victim to Apple hype and marketing. So there's certainly a bias there. The Droid X review was written by Chris Ziegler who once again made a conclusion based on his opinion. Unfortunately Chris isn't an overly technical person, and doesn't even understand all of the things a modern android phone can do. So you've got two guys making strong declarations in their reviews that none of us should really pay that much attention to.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's probably not a bad idea to take many (perhaps even most) of the reviews you read on these products with a grain of salt. Do your own research, try the phones out for yourself and make your own decision. Who cares about the decisions that everyone else makes.

 

[dwaynewilliams#WN]

Didn't the EVO get a 9/10?

 

[Tifoso]

If you listened to the Engadget podcasts you'd realize that Josh was joking. The people at Engadget aren't even allowed to own stock in tech companies because of the potential for conflict of interest.



Anyway, the fact of the matter is that Engadget tends to write very opinionated reviews these days. Their iPhone 4 review written by Josh wasn't overly technical, and the conclusion of that phone being the best smartphone was just a strong opinion. In my case that's what bothers me about that review and the Droid X review. Josh is obviously a fan of Apple products, and whether he wants to admit it or not seems to fall victim to Apple hype and marketing. So there's certainly a bias there. The Droid X review was written by Chris Ziegler who once again made a conclusion based on his opinion. Unfortunately Chris isn't an overly technical person, and doesn't even understand all of the things a modern android phone can do. So you've got two guys making strong declarations in their reviews that none of us should really pay that much attention to.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's probably not a bad idea to take many (perhaps even most) of the reviews you read on these products with a grain of salt. Do your own research, try the phones out for yourself and make your own decision. Who cares about the decisions that everyone else makes.

To me it wasn't an obvious joke, but it's all subjective. Maybe it's the sceptical nature of my persona or the line of work that I'm in, I still don't trust him.

 

[Brett]

It had to be a joke. Engadget can't take money or gifts from companies that are subject of their reviews. It's illegal and I know that the subject of what may be legal or illegal might not be a big deal for some companies (our blog sites in this case) but they are owned by aol. That alone makes it impossible fort them to take bribes and/or compensation for their reviews. They are too big to not be checked up on to ensure that there is no funny business going on.

 

[MowDownJoe]

And this is why I thought it was a bad idea to put number scores on Engadget's reviews.

 

[Beezzy]

Engadget is in love with iPhone anything. They will always make terrible reviews.