Thanks for your response, Dan. I gather that you believe the MotionPlus is "crap." That's fine. Like I said, I don't mind that Engadget had a negative take on the accessory. I don't have much invested in the MotionPlus one way or the other. What surprised me is that Engadget's reporting was so hasty and underwhelming compared to other sites' coverage. It's not about "excepting" [sic] facts, it's about getting the facts from a usually reliable site.

But this is an aberration from some usually fine work by the Engadget crew, so it's probably not worth hammering the point home any further.

I don't mind that Engadget didn't like the new add-on, but I do agree that their coverage of such a major peripheral is remarkably shoddy. If you're going to get a hands-on look at one of the biggest stories to come out of E3, you ought to do better than an incoherent two-paragraph rant. In one sentence, Ryan seems to have noticed a difference; in the next sentence, he didn't. And I have a hard time believing that the Nintendo rep was as ignorant and incomprehensible as the post made him/her out to be.

That "other" tech site published a thoughtful article that took the time to offer a thorough evaluation of the MotionPlus mechanics and to place the MotionPlus in historical context.

It's very unusual for Engadget to be outdone by its peer sites on such a fundamental piece of gadget news. Given the dearth of big news coming out of this year's E3, I think it's an obvious call to dedicate a little more care to the MotionPlus report, whether the verdict is positive or negative.

Maybe it's a small point, but why does Engadget round 99 cents down to $299 rather than rounding one cent up to $300? Doesn't this do Microsoft's marketing work for them? (Not that this is a pro-Microsoft thing -- Engadget does this for pretty much everything.) It would be more accurate and less deceptive to bill the new Xbox 360 price as $300, which it is, for all intents and purposes aside from slippery consumer psychology.

The entire update to the post seems unnecessarily harsh. "Way to sell out, Erik"? Whether you think the concept is clever or not -- the question of being "real" is somewhat beside the point as it's the concept that's garnering publicity -- don't trash a guy for making some scratch with his idea. Besides, he's right, this art-ad hybrid _is_ more interesting than your typical advertisement, or why would Engadget give it such prominent play?

As far as the notion of "selling out" is concerned, as far as I can tell, Engadget happily takes money from a wide array of advertisers. It's not selling out; it's making a living. Give the guy a break.

That's a perceptive comment, Steve, and I'm glad you posted it because I'd been wondering if I was the only one who felt that way. I think I'm more dissatisfied with DF than you, actually; I recently removed Daring Fireball from my RSS list since it seemed like an increasing proportion of the content was either stuff I'd seen elsewhere (DF drinking game: down a shot every time an item end with "via Kottke") or related to Gruber's side obsessions -- the Kubrick stuff, his childish sports taunting, some inane Twitter chat he just had to share with the world, etc.

Maybe this is what you meant when you said that Gruber is "falling for his own hype," and maybe not, but I think what irks me the most about DF is the creeping feeling that John Gruber's favorite topic of conversation is, increasingly, John Gruber. (One manifestation of this is that, as you mentioned, a great deal of the links he posts are only there because the linked blogger happened to mention his name.)

This interview reinforces that feeling, although at first I thought that might just be due to Shawn Blanc's sycophantic line of questioning. But I clicked over to DF to see if Gruber had put a link up to the interview, and indeed he had, with this note:

"Thoughtful interview with yours truly, mostly about the thinking behind Daring Fireball and writing in general. I enjoyed the interview, and I enjoyed re-reading it just now."

Oof. The self-love is all a bit much. I don't begrudge Gruber any of his success, and I wish him much more, because he has been a talented, much-needed voice of reason in the Mac world. I just don't enjoy the persona that comes through on DF as much as I used to. The site seems more self-satisfied and less relevant than it was just a short time ago.

I don't think the issue is whether people might have seen it already on Consumerist. I think what nxtiak is getting at is that credit should be given to the writer/site that originally reported the news. Evan seems to have gone out of his way to avoid doing so, given that Consumerist is prominently mentioned multiple times in the Orbitcast post. I wouldn't blame Evan, though -- there seems to be a general hush order re: Gawker blogs on Engadget.

Not the end of the world -- it's a funny post, and the linked Orbitcast piece leaves little doubt as to the originator of the story -- but a valid issue as far as journalistic practice is concerned.

Thanks for the replies, all. Not sure why I remembered the price as $40, but Sergio is correct. It is $30. It appears Archos is phasing out the browser as a built-in feature on its latest models, but indeed was the trailblazer on that particular front.

"'We're very, very excited about this. First time EVER on a music player to have a browser built in.' Uh, totally not true: look at Archos."

Does Archos offer a player on which the browser is built in? I.e., not just available as a separate $40 plug-in? (I'm not trying to troll; I'm genuinely asking.)

Me too -- I've been using an IceKey for years. For those that don't know it, it's basically a laptop keyboard (with scissor-action mechanism) in a desktop housing, much like the new Apple keyboards. It has a crisp, responsive feel, and it's the best keyboard I've ever used. If the new Apple models had a full-size wireless version, I'd consider trying one out, but it looks like I'll stick with the (wired) IceKey for now.

Spec-related flamewars aside, I'm taken aback by what an ugly box that is. Not the PS3 -- the actual cardboard box. Look at all the disparate logos, ads, screenshots, etc. It reeks of desperation. You'd think Sony would have enough confidence in the PlayStation name to let the product speak for itself.

I'd like a PS3, but if I were walking past that box in the store, it would turn me off. It looks like the box for some cheap plastic G. I. Joe toy. If I'm going to part with $600, I'd like to feel like I'm getting a unique, groundbreaking piece of kit. Compare this eyesore to the elegance of the Wii box, which treats the console as something special unto itself.

I'm reminded of the old "Microsoft redesigns the iPod box" video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeXAcwriid0