I have a G1, I have a Windows Mobile handheld, I have a BlackBerry, and I have a plane jane phone. I use them all depending on what I am doing any given day, and they all have their strengths and weaknesses. It isn't about the G1, or even Android as a platform. It is about how Engadget summarily dismisses any product that competes with Apple, and goes out of their way to try and find every bad story, while consistently ignoring anything positive. It isn't that I have any special love for Android, though it does seem like a platform with a lot of potential. It is that I get sick of seeing, day in and day out, shameless boosterism for one company, masquerading as journalism.

I know, I know, the traditional web response is "if you don't like the biased and shoddy shilling pretending to be journalism, then go somewhere else, because we don't want your kind around here." Fine, I will, because there are plenty of tech sites out there that have more to say than "we love Apple, and everything else SUX." It is still pathetic to see a site, and bunch of readers, so in need of reinforcement for their chosen platform that they have to spend their day shitting on every other product, just to try to make their favorite team look better.

So let me get this straight. I am a Nokia, RIM, Windows Mobile, Android Fanboy, because it is impossible that someone might possibly just get tired of Engadget just bashing every single competing product that isn't made by Apple?

Or, maybe I am just sick of watching all news of the entire tech sector being skewed to make one company look far better than it actually is.

Really Engadget? You go a week without being able to come up with another bad story about the G1, so you just don't cover any good news about any of the many apps that have come out for the platform. Then, out of desperation for something bad to say about the platform, run an article that says "well, here's a problem that might not have anything at all to do with the G1 or Android, but we can at least use it to spread FUD about the quality of the G1 browser," and then give it the headline "G1 browser hijacked?"

I mean, why would someone hijack the G1 browser to go to a site that downloads malware for Microsoft systems? It doesn't even make any sense that this would be a hijacking of the G1 browser. Clearly there is some problem at some level other than the G1, since the problem cant be reproduced on all G1s, nor is there any indication that anything about this page is targeting the G1. But hey, why let common sense, technical knowledge or just plain honesty get in the way of another bad headline about that evil Android platform, right?

Is that really the best you've got? I mean, if you are going to continue this odd smear campaign you seem so set on against all things Android, couldn't you at least come up with some crazy lady claiming Android killed her cat, or a vague claim about how Android really monitors your thoughts and sends them to the Bush administration? Oh wait, or how about you write another story about how you aren't sure why the G1 doesn't have multi-touch, even though at the launch of the G1, the guy demoing the unit for your reporters told you on video that the feature was disabled not because of software or hardware limitations, but because of IP limitations. Do you guys even read your own articles?

I'm not going to try and pretend to understand why you guys have made it your mission to try and give Android and the G1 a bad name, but I can only assume it has something to do with the fawning praise you give to even rumored features the iPhone might have at some future date, and the fact that you have up to the hour coverage of every iPod dock planned over the next 5 years. Oh well, yet another reason to just stop coming to this site, like I stopped going to Gizmodo. It amazes me how you steadfastly refuse to positively cover anything but Apple products. I understood your consistently snide attitude about Windows Mobile, because you clearly have such a big problem with Microsoft, that it is to be expected. I wrote off how you seemingly ignore 90% of Nokia's and RIM's phones, assuming it was just because you are American, and so focus on American companies over everyone else. Now, however, with you immediately taking the same attitude with Android, it is clear that your editorial position is just to not allow anything but scorn and FUD of any product that competes with Apple, in any market. That, pretty much makes your site useless for those of us who find it unlikely that there is only one company on Earth capable of making a good product.

It is very rare that anyone on this site actually says anything funny, despite all the attempts at humor. However, that thought is going to have me chuckling for weeks! I actually think the universe would probably implode into an ego singularity if you just got those three together in too small a room, but the idea of them all working together is hilarious.

Ah yes, and hearsay from a guy at a company named Propaganda Global Entertainment Marketing, who is paid to make Apple look good couldn't possibly contain any inaccurate information, could it?

I bet you believe everything a politician says too, as long as they agree with you. Sorry, all of these shows get a rather substantial portion of their production budget from product placement. They don't give away screen time because they think something is "cool." They are in it to make a buck, just like Apple.

utahnkid

You want examples. Ok, the show 24, Apple and Dell got in a huge bidding war, resulting in the highest product placement revenue of any non-sporting show ever made. On the other side of it, the Mythbusters use nothing but Apple computers, but you will notice that this season they have gaffer's tape over all the Apple logos, because Apple didn't feel the show fit their target demographic, so would not pay for promotional consideration. On the other side of it, you hardly ever see Apple computers in Project Runway, but Apple pays them for promotional consideration just to make sure that when they show the website, it is being shown in an Apple browser. There are just a few. Want some more? Just watch the credits of literally any of the shows you think are using Apple products just because they want to, and you will see right at the end of the credits that paid promotional consideration was paid for by Apple. They even do it for Disney shows, even though Steve Jobs is on the Board at Disney.

So Zak, is it your contention that the iPhone is the best designed phone since the RAZR? Are you saying that every model of BlackBerry was better designed than the original iPhone since they all sold better? Because that is where your line of thought leads. This is the cornerstone of hipocracy all you crazy Macheads can't see. When Apple has pathetic market share, like in the desktop market, then you have all sorts of crap to spew about how stupid people are, and how most people wouldn't know a good product if it bit them in the ass, and all sorts of tired analogies about luxury cars, and then when Apple has one good quarter, suddenly their good market share is undeniable proof that their product must be flawless, because so many people bought it, so it must be good.

Problem with that is, by that argument, Windows is obviously far superior to OSX, because look how much better it sells. Next quarter, when RIM has 3 new products out, and Apple is still selling the same iPhone, the BlackBerry will again clearly be better, just like it has been every quarter before this, because look how many people are buying it. Clearly half the phones Nokia makes are better than the iPhone, because they sell many times what the iPhone does. You are a rabid fan of a company that has had 1 blockbuster hit in 30 years of operation, trust me market share arguments are not your friend. Stick to your elitist arguments about how stupid the average consumer is, and forget about gloating about the quarters your team does well, it will suit you better in the long run. Trying to use market share on the one hand when it suits you, and then say it is meaningless when it doesn't, only shows you up as the irrational zealot we all know you are. BlackBerry, Windows Mobile, and even Palm all have a larger total market share than the iPhone. Once you open up the argument to being about market share as proof of how good a device is, your team loses, no matter how good sales were for one quarter. You should just stay out of those waters.

To utahnkid

This whole idea that Apple doesn't pay to put their product in shows is one of the biggest Internet lies in the world. As someone who was raised in an advertising family, and who has done advertising for a living, and has worked in production environments my entire life, let me set you straight. Any time you see ANY company's trademarked logo in ANY non-news show, it is because a contract was signed, and money changed hands. You can be sued for using another company's trademarked logo if you do not have their permission. In fact, their legal department HAS to sue you for using their trademark, to prove they are protecting their brand value. Despite all the people like you who claim on the Internet that people just use Apple products in their shows because they think they are cool, you will notice that in the credit of every one of those shows, there is language to the effect of "paid promotional consideration was provided by the following companies," and Apple is in that list right along with everyone else.

Apple has the largest marketing budget of any tech company outside of Japan, and spends far more every year on advertising than they do R&D. A large chink of that money goes to making sure their product in in every show, and always in a prime spot. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying, or doesn't know what they are talking about. Despite all the fanatical fanyboys who would like you to believe Apple is some sort of church, it is just another company, and it has to pay for its product placements just like everyone else.

So let me see if I've got this straight. There was this huge bug in Android, that not a single user noticed, not even the hackers trying to find a way to get root access really figured out the scope of, and not even detractors, like this site, who have been looking for a reason to criticize the phone since it came out noticed, until AFTER Google had already released a fix in their second OS update in three weeks? And this is supposed to be some indication of a huge failure on Google's part? This is supposed to be an "epic fail" by Google? How long did it take Apple to release a fix for the bugs in the 3G iPhone when it came out? How long does RIM take to release their bug fixes? How long did Microsoft go between WM 6 and WM 6.1?

I would say if there is anything epic here, it is the smear campaign you guys would seem to be brewing up against Android. This is the second story you guys have now posted about the same fixed bug, yet I don't see story after story about how often the iPhone crashes, or drops calls. No, of course not, it is from Apple, which means bugs are forgivable, because it is cool. Google made the huge mistake of releasing Android without an Apple logo on it, which means you guys are mercilessly going to go after it on any issue you can find, even if that means just reporting the same already corrected issue multiple times. First you damn Google for fixing this bug, trying to imply that they are somehow locking users out of a "jailbreak" that could add functionality to their phone, and then you run a second story criticizing them for having the bug in the first place, and trying to imply that it is indicative of some systemic problem with Open Source software. Meanwhile, you run breathless stories about how incredible it is that at some point in the future, Apple is saying it will release a version of the iPhone OS that will give it features that it competitors have had for a while, and call that innovation. You guys really are transparent.

Oh well, you guys have spent years constantly claiming that no one uses Vista, and that OSX is killing Windows, and Windows still has 90% of the market, with OSX still having under 9%, so I guess at least your raging bias is completely harmless, and utterly irrelevant. At least there is that.

Not at all Valicore. When I am out on a bike in LA traffic, my first priority is getting home alive, not worrying about whether or not people stuck in their road rage inducing tin cans are happy with how I am driving. The less motorists themselves ignore the laws and put my life in danger, the more I can focus on obeying the laws myself. That isn't a matter of my saying "you do it too" that is a simple statement of fact. If my choices are getting a ticket, or getting killed, the choice is pretty clear, and you would have to be insane to risk your life to avoid a ticket.

Maybe you don't get it, but if you are yacking on your phone, not paying attention at the wheel of your SUV, and you rear-end another SUV, all that happens is both of you have some repair bills, and your insurance premium goes up. You rear-end a cyclist, and he dies, and you go on trial for vehicular manslaughter. As such, it behooves the both you and the cyclist to not give you the opportunity to rear-end him, whether it is legal to get out of the way or not. You motorists can afford to be stupid, unobservant and brash, because you have a couple tons of armor wrapped around you. I haven't been in a city yet where motorists don't make illegal left turns, illegal U-Turns, roll through stop signs, go faster than the speed limit, squeeze an extra couple cars through the light after it turns red, go the wrong way down one-way streets as a shortcut, use the left-hand turn lane as a passing lane, and a million other maneuvers that could be potentially fatal to a cyclist. You can afford to do that stupid crap, because the worst that happens, you get a ticket, or you bang up your car and get a new one. Us cyclists, on the other hand, are just a pedestrian on a few sticks between a couple of wheels. We can't rely on your goodwill, or hoping you will obey the law and not kill us. We have to look out for ourselves.

That is just the facts of life. If we obey the law and sit like we are supposed to in the middle of the lane waiting for our turn to go through an intersection, then at best you will blow your horn and yell at us, because we are "blocking traffic" and at the worst one of you will eventually kill us. It happens in every American city every year. In fact, about 800 cyclists are killed on the road in America every year, and the vast majority of those deaths happen at intersections. Yet when we get out of your way as quickly as possible, by crossing the street as soon as there is an opening, instead of sitting there "blocking traffic," then you get just as upset, because we aren't obeying the traffic laws. So, we have no choice but to proceed as we best see fit, regardless of the law, since you think you have the only right to the road, and will just as soon run us over as yield to us. Hell, if we rode like you want us to, scrunched up against the parked cars, taking up as little as possible of your precious lane, then you could kill us just by not paying attention as you open your damned door in your parked car!

I don't know why American motorists are always so hostile to cyclists. Maybe it just pisses you off that you spend $40,000 for your rolling living room, and are sitting stuck in traffic while bikes whiz past you, or maybe you just never progressed mentally past High School, and still think that having a car makes you a better person than those losers on bikes, but whatever the case, it is the behavior of American motorists that causes the behavior of American cyclists, not the other way around. I didn't see any of these problems in London or Tokyo, but I see them in every day in every city in America, because drivers here get positively insane over the sight of someone on a bike, as though they are a crime against nature itself.