Talk:Engadget

DAPReview
Looks like we have a revert war starting. Can someone please lock the page or block that anon IP who keeps removing criticism from the article? Rm999 23:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This whole DPA review thing is absurd. It was a small mistake and it was corrected. Not worth mentioning in the entry Resiny 8:24 PM (GMT), 20 March, 2006


 * Engadget apologized as well. http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/nainworks-ubiquitous-multimedia-informator-pmp/ I also don't think this is really something that will be notable in the long run. --Interiot 03:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * We'll see I guess, but according to the DPAreview people and others, this is a recurring problem on engadget. I don't have anything against engadget, but I also don't see why the criticism should be taken down. Rm999


 * *shrug* If an issue isn't particularly notable, then I don't have a problem with removing it.  It's not the goal of the encyclopedia article to list every single public mistake and retraction Engadget has ever made.  If there are sources that can demonstrate a recurring problem, then I might personally think it was notable enough.  --Interiot 08:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you read the history here http://www.dapreview.net/news.php?extend.3106 it seems to be an ongoing situation between Engadget & DAPreview for over a year, which I've noticed before with a DAPreview article being linked from Engadget to a site that mirrored DAPreview's article, (causing a 1-2 day delay in the Engadget report.) They've done it before except this time they were caught red-handed (thanks to Google's cache.) WiZZLa 16:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "Notable" is a subjective and relative term. In the context of this article, I think it is notable as it is currently one of the major criticisms of engadget. If the controversy dies down I would have no problem with you taking it down, but right now I think it is relevant information Rm999


 * Though the URL posted above notes that Engadget fixed mistakes and apologized on at least three separate occasions. Unless there are other citable  sources, it seems like Engadget is trying to do the right thing, but makes mistakes.  I don't know about the wider range of criticisms about Engadget, and don't have time to research it beyond the URLs posted so far, but it seems like a more neutral statement might be along the lines that Engadget has made repeated mistakes, possibly more than a typical journalism organization, but it's not clear that Engadget is trying to be malicious, as Engadget corrects the mistakes and appologizes when called on it.  --Interiot 23:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, it's sorta subjective. One side claims they are maliciously being blacklisted and plagarized, and the other side claims they have made a series of mistakes. You are choosing to listen to the latter side when the point of the criticism section is the present the viewpoint of the former. I think it would be great if you included a defense for engadget (most articles i have seen do this), but just saying "the critics are wrong because engadget said so, lets delete the criticism" is not neutral. Rm999 00:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As mentioned in the comments section of the Engadget story, http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/nainworks-ubiquitous-multimedia-informator-pmp/, how can you mistakenly crop an image and then miscredit the image source you just cropped? this is willful behavior and should remain as a valid criticism.


 * Well, you can always read engadget's perspective on this issue here: http://www.ryanablock.com/archive/2006/03/controversy/ Dario 03:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, the section still seems pretty POV and based on personal opinion to me. Wikipedia's goal isn't to take sides, or even to try to advocate for responsible journalism, admirable goal though it may be. Has the issue been covered by press beyond these two blogs? (no, forum posts in digg or fark don't count). --Interiot 09:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you advocating that we remove it? Should we take a vote? Dario 06:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Should Wikipedia be a venue for the airing of petty grievances? These criticisms aren't notable in the slightest and have been completely ignored by the mainstream media. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.213.76 (talk • contribs)


 * "been completely ignored by the mainstream media."
 * That's a terrible reason to not include something in wikipedia. Many things that get little coverage in the mainstream media are encyclopedia worthy. I've never seen engadget covered in the mainstream media, let's just delete the whole article. To be serious, the criticisms are, in the context of engadget, fairly serious. Many criticisms in other articles may seem trivial to the average person (see EBaum's World), but to the people making the criticisms it is anything but trivial. I have no personal stake in this all, I just like to fight for the little guy and I hate to see past scandals like this forgotten because some editors think they are "petty grievances." Rm999 07:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I like to fight for the little guy too, but wikipedia is not the place for that. Here, we document things from a neutral detached position.  Yes, the EBaum's article may have problems with WP:WEASEL, but here we're just discussing the issues with this article.
 * Okay, the facts: Engadget originally obscured the source of the image. DAPreview noted the image had been copied and cropped.  Engadget apologized and corrected the situation.  That's easy to say, we don't even need other references (fark, digg, etc); DAPreview documents it well, and Engadget admits to it.
 * In terms of ascribing malicious intent to Engadget's actions, that's... pretty difficult to do, especially in an encyclopedic way.  As I said, feel free to briefly mention (with references) multiple past mistakes.  In general, I think the current criticisms section is too long, unless it's going to cover more material.
 * For the section about "homophobic in their choices of content providers", are there any reliable sources for that? If not, it should be removed per WP:WEASEL.  --Interiot 19:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * IMO, you are misunderstanding the point of a "Criticisms" section. Criticism does not have to be factual, it is the opinion of someone who is criticising it. I know this can get NPOV, but in this case the "Misattribution" section is not NPOV, from what I can tell. Please indicate what exactly about it is NPOV. It does not say "engadget maliciously did anything," it says something along the lines of "so-and-so criticized engadget for blah, and they also note it has happened several times in the past." It is 100% factual, and I see no point in removing it. BTW, it is not a weasel statement from what i can tell because it cites a specific critic, it is not saying "some people have claimed" or anything like that. As far as the "Politics" section - I think it is poorly written tripe and would not mind seeing it deleted. I will fight to keep the "Misattribution" section though. Rm999 04:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Apple bias
Should Engadget's pro-Apple position be mentioned? The comments regularly point out how Engadget praises Apple products while bashing a virtually identical product from any other company. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.76.30.78 (talk • contribs)


 * How is that different than any other tech publication. I don't think they are Biased. They like to talk about Apple but Apple is a major gadget maker. --8bitJake 16:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say they're a less biased than TWiT or Diggnation. I don't know, it seems like, from their comments on the podcast, they have an accurate grasp of, say, the iPod market (eg. that the iPod clearly dominates, even though similar products that are somewhat more featureful and/or somewhat less expensive, don't sell nearly as well).  I think they've explicitely said part or all of that, haven't they?  --Interiot 17:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how that is different than any other tech publication. I mean PC world magazine does not really cover an iMac or Linux distro than a specilized publication. Engadget is a specialized publication on tech products that the editors are interested about. --8bitJake 17:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think in the interest of completedness, the bias should be mentioned under criticisms, as it is a criticism that many readers of the blog have encountered. I even mentioned the bias in a post on Engadget, and was banned for doing so by Ryan Block. Seeing as Ryan would rather kick people out than accept any criticisms, I think it is necessary to put these viewpoints in the article. --Kev50027 23 June 2008

Ryan from Engadget here. Kev 50027 is a long time troll who was banned on Engadget for unreasonable behavior. We do NOT ban users for criticizing us, and a cursory look at nearly any post's comments on the site should be evidence of that, as we are constantly criticized and consider that feedback a tool to better our editorial. One user's negative experience -- which that user brought upon himself -- does not reflect that of our vast community. -Ryan July 19, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanblock (talk • contribs) 01:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As of 2009 and the departure of the original editorial head, it could be said that Engadget has been cultivating an anti-Apple bias. 98.232.58.2 (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comparing the recent reviews of iPad (by the current editorial head Joshua Topolsky) and JooJoo (co-authored by Joshua Topolsky) is enough to see the bias. In the iPad review, there's not a single mention of JooJoo or Fusion Garage; in the JooJoo review, the very first sentence after the fold implies that all good things come from Apple: "even if the iPad wasn't out there for comparisons, its minimalistic design would remind us of an aesthetically pleasing Apple product". The iPad review makes no mention of the widely reported overheating problem, but the JooJoo review say that it "gets quite warm" without actually saying whether or not this makes JooJoo lock up like it is reported to happen with iPad. The iPad says "The battery ... (non-removable of course)" as if removable battery is not a desirable option available in competing products. The JooJoo review even says that it's because of Linux that "type isn't rendered as cleanly as on a Mac or Windows machine". Even if JooJoo's really uses a lousy default font (can't really tell that from the Engadget's photos), that would certainly be no fault of Linux. For example, the Gnome default Bitstream Vera font family, when rendered by FreeType library, looks a lot cleaner than anything I ever seen on Windows or MacOS. Angdraug (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed the section again. It requires external (non-Engadget) citations: is Engadget's supposed bias notable enough to have been covered in some other medium? The section as currently written smells entirely of original research and uses weasel words to assert claims that are probably not as widespread nor as clear as you seem to think. Until you can find external references for this criticism (and no, your personal blog does not count), and the section can be written in an encyclopedic style, it must stay off the page. nneonneo talk 15:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Here are some links: Does the Media Love Apple Too Much? ("Any time the Apple store goes down, Engadget will let you know just in case Apple finally releases its long awaited iJobs personal cancer-curing robot."); Engadget editor: Why I turned off comments ("a common insult hurled in the comments is that Engadget is being paid by Apple to write lots of positive coverage." -- this also confirms that the amount of criticism Engadget was getting over its alleged Apple bias was enough to force them to turn off comments); Techies: I am done with Engadget; Gizmodo is a bad alternative. What tech blog do you use/read? ("They report tech news, but I don't see the seriousness in it, and they are also very Apple-biased."); Engadget Pimps Apple site maintenance as an actual news story. Are any of these high-profile enough to qualify for "other medium"? Angdraug (talk) 11:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Old discussion. Maybe Engaged got less biased after Topolsky left. Looking at the stats, the whole site is becoming less popular, so maybe everyone just stopped caring. I don't know what it's like atm, but the site was very obviously biased. Scoring anything not apple 1-2 points out of ten lower. Even if it recovered in the past years, it was like that for several years and therefor it's worth mentioning. Does anyone feel the links Angdraug provided are insufficient? PizzaMan (talk) 08:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Goine once... going twice... everyone agrees that we now have enough sources? PizzaMan (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say half a year is quite enough for anyone disagreeing to let us know. Added a sobre singe sentence, with four references. PizzaMan (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the "Apple bias" section. These allegations are tenuous at best, and a self-published WordPress.com blog is not a reliable source. —  Newslinger  talk   11:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Advertising
Per the advertising criticism section... Blogs are almost never a reliable source. Period, end of story.

Regarding the criticism specifically...  regular readers quickly realize that all of the content is in the upper-left-hand part of the single-post page, and once you focus on that rectangle, there's http://paperlined.org/tmp/engadget/engadget.png (only perhaps 10-20% of ads) that get in between the top of the page and the content that you want to read. If Engadget put 100km of advertisements below the comments, it wouldn't really matter, as everyone would ignore them. --Interiot 15:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you have to argue that this is an *unreliable* source, meaning that it is *possibly* untrue. They give evidence for their claim - I don't know how much more reliable one can get. I think when the guidelines say a blog is an unreliable source they mean more like when a blog is reporting something (eg. I heard this guy say something) not when they do some research. If they took the word "blog" out of the url would the source automatically be more reliable? Of course not, that's ridiclous. There are plenty of articles on wikipedia that use webpages as sources.


 * I would argue a page with 100km of advertisements would be hard to navigate and take forever to load. I know you are exaggerating, but this criticism exists for those same reasons IMO. Rm999 06:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is becoming increasingly obvious that RM999 has some sort of unexplained bias against Engadget and/or Weblogs Inc. It's people like him that are ruining Wikipedia. Wikipedia is intended to be a comprehensive source on matters of note, not a laundry list of petty grievances. Have ANY of his contributions to this page been on matters of note or true importance? Not in the slightest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.181.6 (talk • contribs)


 * I'm not going to respond to that because it is a personal attack on me and does not further your own point. You have to argue the issue, not attack the people who support the other side. Based on the fact that you removed my additions without being able to argue your own side leads me to believe you are the one with the unexplained bias. Oh - and please don't vandalize my user page again. Rm999 03:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, the layout of the page is clear enough to anyone, but the conclusion (that the page features an abnormally high number of ads relative to competing blogs or media, that readers are likely to be annoyed at the difficulty of finding the desired content among the ads, or that page loads or renders abnormally slowly) is not especially well-supported. If conclusions such as this were published by the New York Times, for instance, the section would be unassailable. Since Engadget's layout isn't particularly academic or noteworthy, it's difficult to pin down what counts as a reputable source for commentary on it. However, since http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&compare_sites=&y=p&q=&size=medium&range=&url=photoshopblog.net (photoshopblog.net has a relatively small number of readers), I don't think it has much more credibility than any editor on wikipedia would have, and therefore, I think the conclusions are best classified as original research. --Interiot 20:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So I think your arguments are twofold: the criticisms aren't well supported, and that the source isn't reputable. As far as the claim not being supported - someone made the criticism, IMO that means it is supported by someone. Beyond that, it is a bunch of opinions, as the claims are subjective. Maybe 30% of the population agrees and 70% disagrees - I don't think it's wikipedia's job to do this second step unless it is exceedingly and obviously one-sided.


 * You use the number of visitors to the site to claim it isn't popular and therefore not reputable (this reasoning sort of escapes me, but whatever). Look at your link again... There were 15 MILLION visitors the day they made this claim. According to your reasoning does this mean it was reputable that one day? You also claim that the layout of Engadget isn't noteworthy, but I would disagree simply because this is an article ABOUT engadget! If only 10% (or whatever) of the layout of a website is devoted to its main function (in this case articles) I would call that interesting and worth noting. Rm999 03:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand. Since the claim is supported by one person, that makes the conclusion not original research?  Two, it's not 15 million visitors, it's 15 / 1,000,000 visitors.  Three, http://digg.com/design/Engadget.com_-_A_Visual_Breakdown. (one dugg story) on one day does not a reliable source make.  Maybe the blog has a lot of standing among the web layout community or something, but from what I saw, the blog didn't seem to be much more reliable than a blog I'd start tommorow, for instance.  --Interiot 06:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, you are right, it is 15/1000000. I'm not sure if that's a lot or not, but I don't see how many people read the page should matter anyway. I think the validity of the criticism should be what is at stake here, not how many people read the blog by the guy who came up with the criticism. The blog was a medium for a person to make a criticism just as much as the editoral page of the new york times would have been.


 * To answer your question directly, I do not think what I added was original research. As I understand it, the only way you could make that point is by arguing that my source is not reputable (because I cite a source). I think that is impossible to argue because they are simply stating a fact. If a blog with 1 reader states that 37294923 + 2458293 = 39753216, I would not call it original research for me to add that to wikipedia even though it is not listed anywhere else. This is because it is a fact that cannot be countered.


 * It seems to me like you're other argument is that this is not that big of a deal, in which case I entirely agree. At the same time, I see no reason why a sentence in the article should matter so much as it can only add to the reader's general understanding of the subject matter. I'm getting kind of tired arguing about petty things like this, but at the same time when I see people fighting so hard to remove my edits (which, by their nature, regardless of the article, tend to be criticisms because I think wikipedia needs more of them), I question why. I have nothing against engadget, I am just trying to present more opinions about it. Why have both criticisms I have added met with so much resistance? I feel like there is a constant push on wikipedia to offend no one by removing anything that criticizes anything. Anything as big as engadget will have its critics. Rm999 10:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Coming up with the fact that "30% of Engadget's single-post view pages are advertising" or "5% of Wall Street Journal webpages are advertising" is NOT AN ISSUE in the slightest. What's original research is the opinion that the percentage of advertising is too much, or that it's a widely held opinion.


 * It IS relatively unimportant, thank you for acknowledging that. One issue is neutrality...  for Wikipedia's articles on spyware programs, it's probably appropriate to dedicate 80% of those articles to criticisms, because that most accurately/objectively represents society's response to those topics.  For Engadget, it's not appropriate to dedicate a large percentage to criticism, because I think the most neutral/objective/accurate way to portray Engadget is that society's response has been largely positive.


 * Another issue is notability... The non-criticism sections of this article don't delve into every possible little fact about Engadget (where an editor lives, where they grew up, what they ate for breakfast this morning), so it's also not appropriate to detail every little criticism either.  In fact, as far as notability goes, the standard is currently fairly strict...  I removed the list of Engadget writers, not for censorship reasons, but because other articles on major newspapers don't list their full staff, and it's probably not good to portray Engadget as being significantly more important than the largest newspapers out there.  If the full staff list of Engadget isn't important enough to be included, then many of the criticisms aren't remotely important enough to be included.


 * Another issue is OR/Verifiability, or whatever you call it... it would not be appropriate to ask a random person on the street "what do you think about this front page of Engadget?"  "Oh, I really don't like that shade of blue", and then add that statement here.  People say crazy random things sometimes, and it's not the goal of wikipedia to document every crazy random thing someone says, even if you can find a few people from Digg who would agree to a given statement.  --Interiot 19:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So, I think I am going to give up on this, you do make some good points, and frankly I think I'm wasting my time. About the criticism section, IMO this is what we should do: remove the Politics thing (it's a pointless criticism), keep Misattribution, remove the layout thing (which I see has already been done) but link to the cited article. I'll add the link, and I probably won't check to see if it gets removed, so use your best judgement if you do (ie. don't remove it because you are biased and think engadget is beyond *any* sort of criticism, ahem 70.193.136.218). Rm999 20:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Rm999 is clearly biased, just because a criticism has been made does not make it noteworthy. Please note that his view of what should be in Wikipedia differs significantly from established standards for inclusion. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.193.136.218 (talk • contribs)

Merge?
I have suggested that Ryan Block be merged into this article. Please discuss, but do not remove the merge tag unless the issue has been resolved. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The Ryan Block page of Wikipedia is a biography and is a separate page from engadget. While the two articles are related, they are not the same and need to be kept separated. The same goes for Benjamnin Heckendorn, Peter Rojas, Daran Murph, etc, Keep their biographies separate from the main engadget article.

An example of this might be President Ronald Reagan and Vice President George Bush. Those are two separate articles that are closely related but both men get their own article and are connected via internal links. --68.207.206.69 18:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I also agree, should be merged**Mr.Bombo** 09:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Person != Job. Telepheedian 18:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Engadget-logo.svg
File:Engadget-logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Alleged Trademark infringement
by Engadget : http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2008/04/01/painting-the-town-magenta/ --Wikibert (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Masthead updates
Hey everybody, Ryan Block from Engadget here. I don't want to edit our page, but I would like people to take notice that our masthead has changed significantly, and our roster of editors as listed on Wikipedia is very out of date. Please see the latest masthead at engadget.com/about. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanblock (talk • contribs) 01:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, the link for Joshua Topolsky led to Joshua Topolsky which is not the same person. A new page needs to be created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roubitch (talk • contribs) 18:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Engadget. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120511054156/http://corp.aol.com/products-services/local to http://corp.aol.com/products-services/local

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Engadget. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606091539/http://technorati.com/blogs/top100/ to http://technorati.com/blogs/top100

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Uncited material in need of citations
I am moving the following uncited and poorly-cited material here until it can be properly supported with inline citations of reliable, secondary sources, per WP:V, WP:CS, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, WP:BLP, WP:NOR, et al. The material includes information that is both uncited, and which is accompanied by forty-two citations of the article subject itself, a degree of reliance on primary sources that is inappropriate. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

History
Engadget's editor-in-chief, Ryan Block, announced on July 22, 2008, that he would be stepping down as editor-in-chief in late August, leaving the role to Joshua Topolsky. On March 12, 2011, Topolsky announced that he was leaving Engadget to start The Verge. Editorial director Joshua Fruhlinger appointed Tim Stevens as the editor-in-chief.

On February 13, 2013, AOL acquired gdgt, a device review website that was created by Rojas and Block.

...with Perton leaving AOL to pursue other opportunities.

In April 2017, Christopher Trout became editor-in-chief. alongside Dana Wollman as executive editor, Olivia Kristiansen as director of video and Jose del Corral as head of product.

In September 2018, Wollman was promoted to editor-in-chief of Engadget. The site's general manager is Adam Morath, who also oversees sister site Autoblog.

In May 2021, Verizon sold its media businesses, including Engadget, to Apollo Global Management for $5 billion.

Blogs
Engadget operates a number of blogs spanning seven different languages including English, Chinese (traditional and simplified), Japanese, Spanish, Polish (until April 1, 2010), Korean and German. The English edition of Engadget operates four blogs which, like the international editions, have been assimilated into a single site with a sub-domain prefix. These include Engadget Classic (the original Engadget blog), Engadget Mobile, Engadget HD and Engadget Alt. As of late 2013, these editions exist but have been wrapped into Engadget Classic. In March 2014, a UK edition of Engadget also launched to target the developing European tech market.

Industry analyst Ross Rubin contributed a weekly column called Switched On from October 2004 to March 2014.

Engadget uses proprietary AOL CMS to publish its content.

Since its founding, writers who have contributed to Engadget, Engadget Alt, Engadget Mobile and Engadget HD, include Jason Calacanis, Paul Boutin, Phillip Torrone, Joshua Fruhlinger and Susan Mernit. Darren Murph, has worked on the site as managing editor and editor-at-large. He has written over 17,212 posts as of October 5, 2010.

Podcast
The Engadget Podcast was launched in October 2004 and was originally hosted by Phillip Torrone and Len Pryor. Torrone was the host for the first 22 episodes of the podcast at which point Eric Rice took over. Eric Rice is known for his own podcast, called The Eric Rice Show and has also produced podcasts for Weblogs, Inc.. Eric hosted and produced four episodes of the podcast for Engadget until the show was taken over by Peter Rojas and Ryan Block. The podcast was hosted by Editor-in-chief Joshua Topolsky along with editors Paul Miller and Nilay Patel with occasional special guests until their 2011 departure. The podcast was produced by Trent Wolbe under Topolsky's editorship and continued to be under Tim Stevens until December 2012.

The topic of discussion for the podcast is technology-related and closely linked to events that have happened during the week in the world of technology. The show generally lasts an hour or more. The show is normally weekly, however, the frequency can change, especially during special events. When events such as the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) and the Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) occur, the podcast has been known to be broadcast daily.

The Engadget Podcast is available as a subscription through iTunes and as an RSS feed. Alternatively, it can be downloaded directly from the site in either MP3, Ogg, AAC or m4b format. The m4b version features images related to the current topic of discussion and can be displayed in iTunes or on a compatible player.

Engadget started doing live podcasts, usually broadcasting Thursday or Friday afternoons hosted by Ben Gilbert and Terrence O'Brien. The recorded podcast is usually available the day after. Engadget also hosts weekly Mobile and HD-focused podcasts, with the former typically featuring Brad Molen, and the latter is generally hosted by Ben Drawbaugh and Richard Lawler.

As of June 27, 2014, all Engadget podcasts are on hiatus according to a tweet sent out from Engadget's Twitter account.

App
Engadget then released its app for the Palm Pre and Palm Pixi phones on January 1, 2010 claiming it was the "1000th application in the "webOS" Catalog". A week later, on January 8, 2010, they launched the app on the BlackBerry platform. An app for Android devices was released on March 25, 2010 and the app for Windows Phone was released on July 1, 2011, making the app available on all major mobile smartphone platforms. On December 15, 2010, Engadget debuted its official iPad app, while Engadget updated its Android app to support Honeycomb (and in turn, Android tablets) on July 28, 2011. The app's features included sharing articles through Twitter, Facebook or email, the ability to tip Engadget on breaking news, and the ability to bookmark and view articles offline. Engadget also debuted "Engadget Mini," an app that seemed to replicate Tumblr ahead of CES 2014, during which the site shared other tweets and media content out of the event. Since CES, the app just duplicates all published articles on the site and its fate or future use is unclear.

On February 2017, Engadget launched a completely redesigned version of the app after three years without any update.

In 2019, Engadget stopped publishing new content to their app, which was removed from the Apple Store and the Google Play store.

Distro
Engadget Distro was a tablet magazine from the editors at Engadget that has been published on a weekly basis since its inception, although Special Issues have appeared at times and multiple issues per week are published during the annual Consumer Electronics Show (CES). The magazine was born from Tim Stevens' desire to provide a different, distilled look at a week's worth of Engadget news, and to enable readers to enjoy that coverage without the frantic nature of the online experience being necessarily attached. The magazine was announced on September 20, 2011 and teased on that night's episode of The Engadget Show in New York City. It became available to the public on October 12, 2011, with the initial issues being available for Apple's iPad. On December 21, 2011, Distro officially moved into the Newsstand app within Apple's iOS ecosystem while also becoming available for the first time on Android tablets. Each issue is also made available in PDF form.

While Distro began as a way to see a week's worth of Engadget news distilled down into a single magazine, it evolved into a platform where high-profile features and long-form content are launched. Brian Heater's profile of Apple's third founder, Ron Wayne, was the cover story for Issue 18, while Issue 69 featured an in-depth look at PayPal coupled with an interview with its president, David Marcus. In October 2013, Distro was folded into parent Engadget and is no longer producing a weekly edition.

Engadget Expand
On December 11, 2012, Engadget announced Expand, a "live event and expo for gadget fans." This marks Engadget's first major foray into the conference world, following several years of sporadic meetups at smaller venues in New York City and San Francisco. Engadget alum Barb Dybwad was brought on to help launch the event. The inaugural event will be held March 16–17, 2013 at the Fort Mason Center in San Francisco, and it will feature "live panel and one-on-one sessions" as well as an Insert Coin: New Challengers competition where hardware startups can compete for exposure and other prizes. Nearly 2,000 people attended the first Expand, and exhibitors / panelists included Google, Microsoft, Toyota, Kickstarter, Indiegogo, Lenovo, Microsoft, Oculus Rift, Razer, Boston Dynamics, NASA, Samsung, DJ Spooky, Esko Bionics, ZBoard and Ouya.

Tickets at the door are "$60 for a full pass, $40 for Saturday (includes the after-party) and $30 for just Sunday."

As the inaugural Expand closed, editor-in-chief Tim Stevens announced that a second Expand conference would occur in Q4 2013 in New York City. At Expand New York 2013, the site welcomed big names including LeVar Burton, Ben Heck, Reggie Watts, Spike Lee, Ben Huh and speakers from companies like Google, Sony, Facebook and Pebble.

While the attempt to make the event biannual did not pan out, the now annual Expand event is free of charge. and will return to New York City in November 2014.

Engadget also hosts a myriad of smaller meetup style events called Engadget Live, a merger of then gdgt and Engadget events prior to the site's merger.

The Engadget Show
File:Engadget-Show-Ident-Logo-01-June-2011.jpg File:Engadget Show Original Ident.jpg On September 8, 2009, Joshua Topolsky announced that Engadget would be taping a new video show once a month in New York City. Admission to the show was free, and video of it was posted on the website. It featured one-on-one interviews, roundtable discussions, short video segments, and live music. At first it was taped at the Tishman Auditorium at Parsons The New School for Design, but after the fifth show it began taping at The Times Center, part of The New York Times Building.

The show was originally hosted by Joshua Topolsky along with editors Paul Miller and Nilay Patel. After their departure from Engadget and AOL in early 2011 newly appointed editor in chief Tim Stevens became the show's host. It is directed by Michelle Stahl and is executive produced by Joshua Fruhlinger and Michael Rubens. As of 2014, the show is cancelled.

Trademarks
In early 2006, Engadget reported that they were victims of their likeness being stolen and used as a store name at a mall in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. However, they stated they would not be taking any action. The store has since changed its name (or possibly shut down and a new store opened with a new name). In July 2007, another store had opened, also in Malaysia, with a logo bearing the same resemblance to that of Engadget.

On March 31, 2008, Engadget reported that Deutsche Telekom (the parent company of T-Mobile and T-Mobile USA) had sent a letter requesting that Engadget cease using the color magenta in its Engadget Mobile site, claiming that T-Mobile had trademarked the color. Engadget issued a response on April 1, mainly by repainting the Engadget sites and changing the Mobile logo for the day to a logo that looks as though it is saying "Engadge t-mobile". The site has since returned to normal format, with the exception of the highlighting color.

The Verge
It appears the departure of the team from AOL which includes not only Topolsky but editors Nilay Patel, Paul Miller, Joanna Stern, Ross Miller, Chris Ziegler, Chad Mumm, Justin Glow, Dan Chilton, Thomas Ricker and Vladislav Savov was primarily the cause of an internal memo distributed by AOL detailing "The AOL Way", a 58-page long company plan to grow AOL into a media empire. Some employees suggested that AOL was sacrificing journalism for page views and that it would be difficult for the organization to apply a 'one size fits all' business model to reporting. The group set up a "placeholder site", This Is My Next, while they developed a new technology news site in partnership with Vox Media. The new site, called The Verge, was launched on November 1, 2011.

Awards
Engadget has been nominated for numerous awards, including 2004 Bloggie for Best Technology Weblog, and 2005 Bloggies for Best Computers or Technology Weblog and Best Group Weblog; Engadget won Best Tech Blog in the 2004 and 2005 Weblog Awards.

The Engadget Show won the 2011 People's Voice Webby Award in Consumer Electronics, while also winning the official Webby in Consumer Electronics (voted on by the International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences).