Not to mention the picture that was used is wrong as well. But, being that they are not true gadgeteers what should one expect from their (low) level of reporting?
Provide coverage of new tech that is wide, not deep;
Serve it up with a bit of cliched "attitude" with inaccurate details and arbitrary views (eg aesthetics and relevance).
Unfortunately, I haven't found anything better, though I haven't really looked. It's easy to imagine a better site, though it would require some resources. Just having the Engadget editors be quiet when they don't know what they're talking about would help a lot though.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Not to mention the picture that was used is wrong as well. But, being that they are not true gadgeteers what should one expect from their (low) level of reporting?
Very little: in fact, Engadget is gaining the reputation of generally inaccurate reporting more and more. But I guess they are comfortable with that.
Engadget does two things:
Provide coverage of new tech that is wide, not deep;
Serve it up with a bit of cliched "attitude" with inaccurate details and arbitrary views (eg aesthetics and relevance).
Unfortunately, I haven't found anything better, though I haven't really looked. It's easy to imagine a better site, though it would require some resources. Just having the Engadget editors be quiet when they don't know what they're talking about would help a lot though.