Why do you CONSTANTLY post things that have been posted on BGR, and only having a link that says "read" and never thanking or acknowledging the hard working people at BGR as your source?
I, as well as many people Ive talked to who read both blogs have wondered the same thing...
Some of these things get E-Mailed via Press Releases and whatnot, so everyone has them but there isn't a "source" per se. I'm guessing this is one of those cases especially since the BGR article says "we are allowed to publish"....
To me that sounds like they have known... and the embargo was just lifted... Regardless of this particular case, I like seeing credit where credit is due. I haven't noticed the Engadge/BGR issue you mention but maybe I should be more aware of sources and such.
Notwithstanding that BGR is a world-class douchebag...
Maybe because Verizon broke this story? You know, by press release?
Do a google news search for "verizon storm" and sort by date. Every news source from CNN and the SF Chronicle to ZDNet and Popular Science had the full story and details at midnight last night.
They didn't all get it from BGR... Or should you flog them for not crediting poor BGR, too?
BGR just likes to act cool with statements like "we are allowed to publish," as if they had any idea when the phone would be released. They didn't. Check out HoFo -- insiders at RIM and Verizon didn't know, because *VERIZON* didn't know, because they've had to push the launch date back repeatedly due to software issues.
Do me a quick favor, Roger. Go to Google and type site:engadgetmobile.com "via boy genius report".
We work really, really hard to give credit where credit is due, and it's really upsetting when we're called cheats for publishing news that we've rightfully received ourselves. Please do your research before leveling these kinds of baseless claims.
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.
Chris...
Why do you CONSTANTLY post things that have been posted on BGR, and only having a link that says "read" and never thanking or acknowledging the hard working people at BGR as your source?
I, as well as many people Ive talked to who read both blogs have wondered the same thing...
Explain this...
Some of these things get E-Mailed via Press Releases and whatnot, so everyone has them but there isn't a "source" per se. I'm guessing this is one of those cases especially since the BGR article says "we are allowed to publish"....
To me that sounds like they have known... and the embargo was just lifted... Regardless of this particular case, I like seeing credit where credit is due. I haven't noticed the Engadge/BGR issue you mention but maybe I should be more aware of sources and such.
Notwithstanding that BGR is a world-class douchebag...
Maybe because Verizon broke this story? You know, by press release?
Do a google news search for "verizon storm" and sort by date. Every news source from CNN and the SF Chronicle to ZDNet and Popular Science had the full story and details at midnight last night.
They didn't all get it from BGR... Or should you flog them for not crediting poor BGR, too?
BGR just likes to act cool with statements like "we are allowed to publish," as if they had any idea when the phone would be released. They didn't. Check out HoFo -- insiders at RIM and Verizon didn't know, because *VERIZON* didn't know, because they've had to push the launch date back repeatedly due to software issues.
Do me a quick favor, Roger. Go to Google and type site:engadgetmobile.com "via boy genius report".
We work really, really hard to give credit where credit is due, and it's really upsetting when we're called cheats for publishing news that we've rightfully received ourselves. Please do your research before leveling these kinds of baseless claims.