The Failed Promise of ‘The Verge’

I don't think it's accurate to label the The Verge a "failure", however the article does bring up a larger, more interesting question - namely, the idea of "vanilla" reporting on tech/gadget sites, especially concerning reviews.

I'm not sure how I come down on the issue, but I do get the strong sense that reviewers at major tech sites are extremely reticent to take even a mild stance on a piece of technology, because they're afraid of the massive number of mail/comments their going to get from fans of said technology.

For example, look at what resulted from Josh's comment on a previous podcast about Windows being "poison". He said it in a joking/light hearted way, but anyone who follows him regularly knows he's clearly not a fan of the Windows OS. Consequently, he spent the next few weeks apologizing and backpedaling, even going so far as to devote a segmen of the Verge talk show to "prettifying" Windows.

One of the few sites that takes the opposite stance is Tested.com. If those guys think a piece of hardware/tech is shit, they will say plainly that they think it's shit, and give you their reasons why. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not offended or regard them as "biased" when they state a clear opinion with reasons attached. Sometimes I agree with them. But it's perfectly ok with me when I don't.

The Verge got an excellent crew of reporters and a great product team behind it. They worked very hard on this project and I don't think it's fair to call The Verge a "failed promise".

So far the product reviews were excellent. The site created a unique experience with their layouts, engaging videos and editorials. The Verge is the only source of any creditable news on all mobile lawsuits. They also did an excellent job of covering the Carrier IQ fiasco and were the first who actually managed to talk to the Carrier IQ employees (ahead of WSJ).

Seems like the author of the post is really hurt by the Sphero review. If you read the whole review and watch the video you can clearly see that the conclusion is that the product is overpriced and boring. I'm not sure what else is to look for here.

Regarding the Galaxy Nexus review "Lack of opinion": From the review: "As I said when I reviewed the GSM version of the Galaxy Nexus — this is one of the best smartphones ever made." There are multiple examples of their 'opinion' and the quote is one of them.

I think The Verge is ahead of other tech sites by a mile and can only compare with WSJ and AnandTech. I think "brooksreview" is really wrong about all this.

I'm actually quite frustrated with this trend in consumer tech reporting. If I want tech specs and pictures, I'll go to the product's website. What I can't do is play with the object, use it, and decide (subjectively!) whether or not it's a good product.

This same problem neutered mainstream political reporting years ago: journalists became afraid that taking a stance would alienate a portion of their readership, so they started just reporting "the facts." Well, two problems: (1) sometimes the facts favor one side, and (2) facts without analysis are worthless.

To The Verge: I promise that I will not turn away if you take a stance I disagree with; in fact, it will make me want to read more.

The Verge hasn't failed at all - it's surpassed all expectations. The site is excellent and delivers exactly what was always promised, a next-level tech site with an amazing design and some handy tools. The product comparison is great. And the MG Siegler comment is nonsense (at least with regards to the Verge) - Topolsky isn't pussyfooting, he's telling it like it is. Some products ARE good at one thing while others ARE great at other things - That's a fact. Josh presents these facts in a way that anyone can consume and doesn't take the "fanboy" approach with everything like some others do...which can get pretty obnoxious.