Comments on: Profiled in Fortune, where’s the fight?

By: Brian Lam

Brian Lam — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 02:09:00 +0000

Yeah, I thought the piece had a little bit of a slant, but this is the danger of writing a piece on two nit picky editors. I wrote up a story at Giz that showed a more tame facet of the interactions we generally have. Um, not to solicit giz traffic on your personal blog or anything.

By: Ross Rubin

Ross Rubin — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 02:07:18 +0000

In the competition between Engadget and Gizmodo, the publication more prone to blow things out of proportion has been revealed to be Fortune.

By: Anjuan

Anjuan — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 23:34:23 +0000

This shows a complete lack of understanding around how people consume online media. It is not an “either or” arena. The broad scope of the internet allows niches to be served that would otherwise be ignored by Old Media. There is room for Engadget, Gizmodo, CNET’s Crave, et al, and I would venture that core consumers want MORE gadget sites instead of one take over and kill the rest.

By: Jeremy Toeman

Jeremy Toeman — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 21:44:01 +0000

I actually think it’s a fascinating story. Then again, I’m writing this comment back in 2005…

By: John B.

John B. — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 19:08:15 +0000

The whole idea of “competition” in the traditional old-media sense seems ridiculous as applied to your two publications. In the past, it was different – Time competed against Newsweek more fervently because people had to pay for subscriptions; in today’s new media world, the distinctions are different. Gadget geeks find time to read more than just two or three sites, and time is really what you’re competing for, at least on our side of things. (Advertising dollars notwithstanding on *your* side.) While it’s obvious you compete with many other web publications, Fortune is, as you said, writing a non-story.

Once they take off the old-media blinders and get with the times, then they’ll be more qualified to write on new media stories.

By: Todd

Todd — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 18:57:39 +0000

1 – A Wii boxing match between you and Brian Lamb is now required.

2 – ( From Fortune article )”…but that started to change in 2004 when its founding editor, Peter Rojas, wanted a share of the equity. Gizmodo’s owner Nick Denton refused. So Rojas left and launched Engadget, partnering with Weblogs Inc.”

Whoa. I did not know that. Man Ryan there is a whole book in that story alone. You should write it ala Kent;

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117963023.html

By: Ryan Block

Ryan Block — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 18:44:55 +0000

I guess, but my point is that Engadget is one of many, many publications covering this stuff. It’s not like we’re only competing with one other site, you know? Fortune played up this whole rivalry thing because that was about the best angle they had — and it didn’t really get them very far.

By: Blake

Blake — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 17:58:41 +0000

“…It has all the makings of a non-story: two very different publications with two different angles and audiences.”

Reaching drama aside, I don’t think it was a “non-story.” Let’s not forget the similar and overlapped subject matter of both Engadget and Giz. :)