They drooled over the resolution and everything in the iMac review, as an example, but completely neglected to mention anything about the color gamut on the display. Many of the fan sites focused way more on a seemingly great, but incomplete innovation, but ignore to ding points on important usability problems like upgradeability. I've also seen them ding android phones, however lame some of them are, more for the same things that Apple does. I'll admit that they've gotten better, but their stories are plenty biased. I realize a lot of android phones fall short in contrast to Apple's excellent integration, but they have no interest in covering things objectively. I guess reviews are about some degree of subjectivity, but they take it a step further.

Another reason I dislike them is that they try to be like VICE-lite, but don't go through with it fully, and don't seem to have the direction they used to have initially (a more focused and quickly-updated version of engadget that was easy to digest, friendly to access, and not in a blog format). Then, it turned quickly into a bloated site where anything and everything was on the table and there was no direction with how they wanted to approach something. Bias became very evident in the written pieces and even their "hard hitting" topics of interest were half-baked and did not exactly contain any real depth of understanding, and any depth that was provided was to satisfy some slant on the news item. Important talking points are left out (maybe not to offend any advertisers/sponsors) real issues are watered down to a skeleton of what the problem is, and writing quality has dropped. Not in the sense of grammar, spelling, etc., but more on the quality of content. Before I stopped, some stories had superfluous text without any attempt to stay on topic to prove a central thesis or to get an idea across. It's neither a journalistic product nor an academic paper. It transformed into something without any structure, not because the writers were some industry veterans that knew what "right" looked like to deviate from it, but because they were adults that had the luxury of limited scrutiny (not real journalists), but had a platform to share ideas/hold some influence.

I will say that where their content is not quite up to par the work their video and web design teams put out consistently is well above the quality of written content they output. I love the design of the site, except for a few places where the font size is too big for what would be considered reasonable (some titles). Otherwise, I find myself visiting it more because of the video and site layout/design and end up leaving quickly because the verbal diarrhea in their reviews and coverage is too much sometimes.