Non-blowout coverage does not necessarily equal zero coverage. I don't know about rhogan, but I want coverage. I just don't want coverage out of proportion to the way the real world sees Leopard and how much of an upgrade Leopard is over Tiger (i.e. not a big deal and not a big upgrade). I can't help it that the distribution of engadget readers is weighted far more in favor of Apple than the rest of the world.
Hey, I heard Samsung has 5% of the mp3 player market also. Lets have blow-out coverage of the latest Yepp too. We all so love to hear about a product being used by an insignificant portion of the market.
I agree completely, not surprisingly Engadget editors don't know how to do stats and read their audience.
The real question is, does increased OS X coverage detract from other coverage, besides it being buried? Hype can lead to bad manifest destiny effects.
The other question is, why doesn't Engadget simply implement a preferences setting for interests. But make it half decent, I'd want to know important Apple news, just not all of it. The Facebook slider selector is a good example. And using a cookie as an alternative to creating an account would be nice.
I basically agree with Justin's (number two) comments. I'm fine with covering it, but don't think blowout coverage is needed. I don't think vista should get a blowout either.
I want to read about lots of different gadgets, not every little nuance of just one gadget. If i want that i'll buy it and read the manual, or goto the gadgets website.
Votes are resoundingly in favor of it? I think not.
My vote is most definitely NOT in favor of several days of dragged-out apple-fanboy applegasm overjoyness at ALL the new features, each and every one touted and re-hyped and re-touted and discussed and picked apart and then re-compared to Vista and XP and 9x and 2000 and argued over and...
I believe that some people are acting under the impression that the internet (or rather, the space in it to store information) is finite, and there can only be a certain amount of news before the site runs out of space, and then "BOOM!" no more Engadget.
Or maybe they will run out of space in their heads.....
Frankly, i think this whole argument is stupid. You really should have your computer checked out if it is forcing you to click into these different articles. Maybe you should take my approach to reading Engadget: quickly look at the picture and title of the article and then if you don't like it MOVE ON! It takes about 2 seconds, you should try it.
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.
Resounding huh? Or you could say that 56.1% of engadget readers do NOT want blowout coverage.
thats kinda how I saw it too
If you want non Apple coverage I suggest you get Engadget via RSS, as they do a special feed for people like you (NO Apple through yahoo´s pipes)
@ryan10ad
Non-blowout coverage does not necessarily equal zero coverage. I don't know about rhogan, but I want coverage. I just don't want coverage out of proportion to the way the real world sees Leopard and how much of an upgrade Leopard is over Tiger (i.e. not a big deal and not a big upgrade). I can't help it that the distribution of engadget readers is weighted far more in favor of Apple than the rest of the world.
I mean, it's a site about gadgetry. Here is a big new gadget. It should be covered in a big way. Why else would this site exist?
Go outside and play with your dog or something - and then when you want to learn about 10.5 - come back here.
Hey, I heard Samsung has 5% of the mp3 player market also. Lets have blow-out coverage of the latest Yepp too. We all so love to hear about a product being used by an insignificant portion of the market.
I agree completely, not surprisingly Engadget editors don't know how to do stats and read their audience.
The real question is, does increased OS X coverage detract from other coverage, besides it being buried? Hype can lead to bad manifest destiny effects.
The other question is, why doesn't Engadget simply implement a preferences setting for interests. But make it half decent, I'd want to know important Apple news, just not all of it. The Facebook slider selector is a good example. And using a cookie as an alternative to creating an account would be nice.
I basically agree with Justin's (number two) comments. I'm fine with covering it, but don't think blowout coverage is needed. I don't think vista should get a blowout either.
I want to read about lots of different gadgets, not every little nuance of just one gadget. If i want that i'll buy it and read the manual, or goto the gadgets website.
Well, like it says....they did it for VISTA...now they'll do it for OS X 10.5. Don't like it? Fuck off.
Votes are resoundingly in favor of it? I think not.
My vote is most definitely NOT in favor of several days of dragged-out apple-fanboy applegasm overjoyness at ALL the new features, each and every one touted and re-hyped and re-touted and discussed and picked apart and then re-compared to Vista and XP and 9x and 2000 and argued over and...
I think I've made my point.
I believe that some people are acting under the impression that the internet (or rather, the space in it to store information) is finite, and there can only be a certain amount of news before the site runs out of space, and then "BOOM!" no more Engadget.
Or maybe they will run out of space in their heads.....
Frankly, i think this whole argument is stupid. You really should have your computer checked out if it is forcing you to click into these different articles. Maybe you should take my approach to reading Engadget: quickly look at the picture and title of the article and then if you don't like it MOVE ON! It takes about 2 seconds, you should try it.