# Mike--Why Is There A Porsche Post on Engadget?



## vexed (Dec 22, 2001)

I know at times there is cross posting with Autoblog but this looks more like an Autoblog piece

http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/23/the-technology-of-the-porsche-911-video/


----------



## AlexK (Jul 25, 2009)

Mike has nothing to do with this, the article was written by some retard called "Tim Stevens" (whose "experience" with cars comes from racing games, judging by his own blog page)  But I agree, it doesn't belong in any logical way on Engadget. Hopefully the Engadget won't turn out the way of "PC Magazine" (those who don't know - PC Magazine was "reviewing" all kind of crap in its last years of existence, including cars )


----------



## TimStevens (Feb 23, 2011)

Hi Alex, actually my "experience" comes from karting and wheel-to-wheel ice racing, and if you'd taken 30 seconds to google me you'd probably have found the many articles I wrote for Autoblog about those very topics.

And I'm no Mensa member, but I am smart enough to know it's not the smartest thing to call strangers retards -- especially in a public forum.


----------



## AlexK (Jul 25, 2009)

TimStevens said:


> And I'm no Mensa member, but *I am smart enough* to know it's not the smartest thing to call strangers retards -- especially in a public forum.


If you actually were, you'd notice and understand the reason of the existence of "smiley" emoticons in my previous post 

P.S: The last 2 sentences WERE actually serious. I see 0 (aside from being required to "write something Porsche-related because we got $$$ from them for it" by your editor) reason for the existence of such clearly car-related info on Engadget, considering AOL hasn't closed "AutoBlog" yet


----------



## AlexK (Jul 25, 2009)

TimStevens said:


> and if you'd taken 30 seconds to google me you'd probably have found the many articles I wrote for Autoblog about *those very topics*


Would you kindly define the exact definition of "those very topics" phrase? I just did a search on AutoBlog, and the last time you wrote anything car-related was about a year ago (March 12th 2010, to be more exact). All of your latest articles at AutoBlog were about "Test Drive Unlimited 2", "Real Racing 2", "Gran Turismo 5" and a "Kinect-capable version of Forza Motorsport". Last time I've looked, those are a software games, not the brands of the cars  
http://www.autoblog.com/bloggers/tim-stevens/
B.t.w, those were the ONLY articles by "Tim Stevens" on AutoBlog which actually had (at the moment this post was made) the "*review*" tag on them :rofl:


----------



## TimStevens (Feb 23, 2011)

You're absolutely right, I haven't been writing much for Autoblog lately. I've been focused on Engadget content, stuff like this:

http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/18/prius-phev-preview-three-days-in-plug-in-paradise/

And this:

http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/05/chevy-volt-preview-escape-from-dc-in-todays-car-of-tomorrow/

And yes, I do enjoy covering racing games, but my point is I do know cars, and I do race real cars (and karts).

Anyway, as you can see, this is far from the first automotive content on the site and it surely won't be the last. If you don't think cars are techy and gadgety you must not have looked under the hood of a car in the last 10 years  Autoblog is a great site and I'm there frequently every day, but they're not coming at this from the same angle as we are. That is, I think, pretty clear with this piece.

So, I gotta ask, why is more car coverage a bad thing?

p.s. Who's Mike?


----------



## vexed (Dec 22, 2001)

TimStevens said:


> You're absolutely right, I haven't been writing much for Autoblog lately. I've been focused on Engadget content, stuff like this:
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/18/prius-phev-preview-three-days-in-plug-in-paradise/
> 
> ...


More coverage is better. http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforums/997-forum/618318-the-technology-of-the-911-cool-article.html

I posted this out of curiosity, I read both sites daily if I can. And I would love to flog a Turbo S someday but that's in my dreams. I did notice the car you tested had the "old" ipod interface cable, at some point Porsche changed it so it charged the device in the car, the newer cable is known as the "Y" cable since it plugs in to both the ipod and usb ports. I don't think it affects the functionality. I will say the newer PCM on the 997.2s is much much better than the 997.1s

Mike= Michael Harley, long time member here and Autoblog contributor.

It's all good.:thumbup:


----------



## swajames (Jan 16, 2005)

For what it's worth, Tim, I thought it was a great article :thumbup:


----------



## TimStevens (Feb 23, 2011)

The Turbo S is a helluva car, vexed. Not exactly what I'm looking for at this point in my life, but down the road a bit I could see it moving higher up my wish list.

Thanks all for reading, regardless, and glad you liked it, James. Hope you all enjoy what's coming next.


----------



## swajames (Jan 16, 2005)

AlexK said:


> Would you kindly define the exact definition of "those very topics" phrase? I just did a search on AutoBlog, and the last time you wrote anything car-related was about a year ago (March 12th 2010, to be more exact). All of your latest articles at AutoBlog were about "Test Drive Unlimited 2", "Real Racing 2", "Gran Turismo 5" and a "Kinect-capable version of Forza Motorsport". Last time I've looked, those are a software games, not the brands of the cars
> http://www.autoblog.com/bloggers/tim-stevens/
> B.t.w, those were the ONLY articles by "Tim Stevens" on AutoBlog which actually had (at the moment this post was made) the "*review*" tag on them :rofl:


If you can point us in the direction of anything better that you've written I'm sure we'd love to see it.


----------



## AlexK (Jul 25, 2009)

TimStevens said:


> So, I gotta ask, why is more car coverage a bad thing?
> 
> p.s. Who's Mike?


It's not a "bad" thing in itself, it's just very weird to read stuff about car's "traction control" or a variant of DCT transmission (both of which are really nothing new since they existed in "mass-market" cars in one form or another for many years already) on a site mostly dedicated to writing about *latest* electronic gadgets/devices/technologies. I perfectly understand if the article would be about something like this:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/10/mercedes-benz-intros-splitview-command-system/
because it's a purely electronic sub-system and is somewhat unique (at least for Euro cars... I've been reading about same exact feature on Japanese versions of Toyota many, many years before Mercedes implemented it), or something like Nissan Leaf and its subsystems, which is a purely electronic car and (most importantly) has a relatively *new* technology under its hood/trunk, as well as *new* telematics system with some unique features... Writing about that Porsche to me is similar to writing about an old model of Dewalt cordless drill with Ni-Cd batteries. Sure that drill might be durable/reliable, with an excellent build quality and an excellent performance, but... it doesn't use any "novelty" (and, therefore, exciting) technologies (probably not even a high-power built-in LED light, with a light element made by Cree or Seoul Semiconductor, or a built-in laser guide, or an electric brake) and its power source is really outdated and is not the most efficient in terms of energy density or self-discharge rate. It doesn't mean that such drill is "bad", there's just nothing interesting to write about it, especially from "novelty technology" point of view.


----------



## AlexK (Jul 25, 2009)

swajames said:


> If you can point us in the direction of anything better that you've written I'm sure we'd love to see it.


Is this one of those "in order to have a right to critique the movie's flaws, you must first create your own blockbuster movie" BS things?


----------



## TimStevens (Feb 23, 2011)

AlexK said:


> It's not a "bad" thing in itself, it's just very weird to read stuff about car's "traction control" or a variant of DCT transmission (both of which are really nothing new since they existed in "mass-market" cars in one form or another for many years already) on a site mostly dedicated to writing about *latest* electronic gadgets/devices/technologies. I perfectly understand if the article would be about something like this:
> http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/10/mercedes-benz-intros-splitview-command-system/
> because it's a purely electronic sub-system and is somewhat unique (at least for Euro cars... I've been reading about same exact feature on Japanese versions of Toyota many, many years before Mercedes implemented it), or something like Nissan Leaf and its subsystems, which is a purely electronic car and (most importantly) has a relatively *new* technology under its hood/trunk, as well as *new* telematics system with some unique features... Writing about that Porsche to me is similar to writing about an old model of Dewalt cordless drill with Ni-Cd batteries. Sure that drill might be durable/reliable, with an excellent build quality and an excellent performance, but... it doesn't use any "novelty" (and, therefore, exciting) technologies (probably not even a high-power built-in LED light, with a light element made by Cree or Seoul Semiconductor, or a built-in laser guide, or an electric brake) and its power source is really outdated and is not the most efficient in terms of energy density or self-discharge rate. It doesn't mean that such drill is "bad", there's just nothing interesting to write about it, especially from "novelty technology" point of view.


What's old to you is new to others. You're complaining that I didn't write an article for you, yet you're also complaining that I wrote an article about cars on a site that doesn't cater exclusively to car people. I'm not sure how I can win in this situation...

Anyhow, we don't exclusively cater to cutting edge stuff. We quite often take time to do a feature and look at the evolution of a given product and see where it sits now. See our iRobot Engadget Show segment, for example, when we did a tour of their facilities and talked about many of the company's earlier works leading up to the Roomba and current military offerings. The Roomba is hardly new and hasn't changed much in the last 8 years, but that was still IMHO a great segment.


----------



## ProRail (May 31, 2006)

vexed said:


> I know at times there is cross posting with Autoblog but this looks more like an Autoblog piece
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/23/the-technology-of-the-porsche-911-video/


Thanks for the link. Great article.


----------



## Cy3 (Apr 27, 2007)

FWIW, I too thought it was a great piece. Entertaining and well put together, enough to keep my attention. Probably wasn't informative to those of us here, but then again we spend a 80% of our internet time looking/lusting after cars. Lets face it, we don't watch Top Gear because we really can't make a decision on whether we should go with the RR Ghost or the S55 - but we still watch - and at no time do we bash the producers when they point out things we already know or if they cross markets and start talking about the news.


----------



## swajames (Jan 16, 2005)

AlexK said:


> Is this one of those "in order to have a right to critique the movie's flaws, you must first create your own blockbuster movie" BS things?


No, it's asking why you felt the need to behave like a classless, graceless, charmless oaf in doing so. Criticizing someone's work is perfectly reasonable when the points made have some validity and intellectual merit - your staggeringly lightweight arguments did not, and the extreme ignorance you've displayed in calling someone you've never met a "retard" is unfounded and unnecessary.


----------



## Michael Schott (Dec 7, 2007)

AlexK said:


> Would you kindly define the exact definition of "those very topics" phrase? I just did a search on AutoBlog, and the last time you wrote anything car-related was about a year ago (March 12th 2010, to be more exact). All of your latest articles at AutoBlog were about "Test Drive Unlimited 2", "Real Racing 2", "Gran Turismo 5" and a "Kinect-capable version of Forza Motorsport". Last time I've looked, those are a software games, not the brands of the cars
> http://www.autoblog.com/bloggers/tim-stevens/
> B.t.w, those were the ONLY articles by "Tim Stevens" on AutoBlog which actually had (at the moment this post was made) the "*review*" tag on them :rofl:


What compels you to feel the need to be confrontational towards Tim in this thread? He wrote a nice article and was kind enough to reply to your childish rant above. Why do you need to be so difficult?


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

You guys need to send me a PM... not just put my name in the title of a post! :thumbup: I don't read every forum on a regular basis. I swear.

Interestingly enough, I was invited to that event for Autoblog (I think it was Feb 10th, or so), but I was out of town so I couldn't attend. Kinda bummed I missed it.

In any case, Engadget and Autoblog are related. As we are both part of the same AOL family, some of our content will appear on each other's sites from time to time (check the links at the bottom). Nevertheless, I don't know any of the team over there. :dunno:

True, Engadget doesn't normally cover cars... but nothing prevents them from doing so. I am sure they have car guys, just like I am a technology nut. The only concern is if the readers will enjoy the story... that is up to the editors to decide.

Anyway... I need to go back and read this thread. 

- Mike


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

Oh man... I should have read this thread first. 

Welcome Tim. Hopefully, we'll cross paths soon. You going to the New York Auto Show by chance? I should be there... I'll buy you a beer. :thumbup:

If my guess is correct, Tim has a "Google Alert" tell him when his name shows up on the Internet (I do, as it helps me find out when my content is stolen). I can't tell you how many times I "drop into" forums to defend my honor. Quite entertaining. Seriously.

I'm still laughing at this thread. 

- Mike


----------



## vexed (Dec 22, 2001)

Emission said:


> Oh man... I should have read this thread first.
> 
> Welcome Tim. Hopefully, we'll cross paths soon. You going to the New York Auto Show by chance? I should be there... I'll buy you a beer. :thumbup:
> 
> ...


Did you read the thread on RL? That one also got a little heated. 
I read almost every Pcar blog post I see, the more perspectives the better.

Next time I will PM you, or I will keep my fingers away from the keyboard:eeps:


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

vexed said:


> Did you read the thread on RL? That one also got a little heated.
> I read almost every Pcar blog post I see, the more perspectives the better.
> 
> Next time I will PM you, or I will keep my fingers away from the keyboard:eeps:


I don't have time to read RL.

The RL guys are a bit rough. I think they hate journalists. They went after me about my '10 C2S review in Germany last October (with my wife). Things changed when I explained my credibility. 

Shoot me a PM - I'd appreciate it.

- Mike


----------

