They're not referring to Gizmodo, but rather Gizmondo, the gaming handheld that failed miserably a year or two ago. (You might recall the stories about the executive smashing the Ferrari Enzo in California.)
I think its safe to say that the majority of engadget readers visit gizmodo, too. They aren't really competition or anything. Both sites are great, but gizmodo doesnt pretend engadget doesnt exist (hell, they link to them regularly).
Ryan, as a fellow technology writer, I am a huge fan of the site. Let's take the editorial high road here.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
tom @ Jul 9th 2007 11:39PM
is the gizmodo slam really necessary?
Mike Klein @ Jul 9th 2007 11:49PM
A cheap shot I agree. Engadget shouldn't be throwing stones. I read both regularly (my daily dose of geekness) and each has pros/cons.
Salsa Shark @ Jul 9th 2007 11:56PM
Gizmodo != Gizmondo.
Jeezus.
prosthetichead @ Jul 9th 2007 11:56PM
The Gizmondo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gizmondo) is a Very different thing from Gizmodo (http://www.gizmodo.com.au/)
Simon @ Jul 9th 2007 11:57PM
They're not referring to Gizmodo, but rather Gizmondo, the gaming handheld that failed miserably a year or two ago. (You might recall the stories about the executive smashing the Ferrari Enzo in California.)
tom @ Jul 9th 2007 11:58PM
I think its safe to say that the majority of engadget readers visit gizmodo, too. They aren't really competition or anything. Both sites are great, but gizmodo doesnt pretend engadget doesnt exist (hell, they link to them regularly).
Ryan, as a fellow technology writer, I am a huge fan of the site. Let's take the editorial high road here.
Jean-Michel Decombe @ Jul 10th 2007 12:12AM
Have you been living under a rock? He's making fun of Gizmondo, not Gizmodo. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gizmondo
reticulate @ Jul 10th 2007 4:55AM
Too eager to see some e-drama, people?
GizMONDo.
As in, the last thing Tiger did before they bit the big one.
Not the bloody gadget blog. Jesus.