# How wrong can The Gadget show be?



## Muttley1900 (Dec 23, 2008)

Whilst on the hunt for info S1 TiVo replacement reviews etc - I came across this from The Gadget show.






5 mins into the show, they review 3 pvrs "that you can buy" and after watching it, I'd say that The Gadget Show must be funded by sky...

J.


----------



## okonski_uk (Dec 28, 2000)

Nevertheless, it remains accurate. You cannot 'buy' a TiVo....


----------



## jonphil (Aug 7, 2002)

Gadget show is fun to watch, but I never pay much attention to reviews.


----------



## Muttley1900 (Dec 23, 2008)

okonski_uk said:


> Nevertheless, it remains accurate.


So, Sky+ was the first PVR, as is asserted in the review?

J.


----------



## Muttley1900 (Dec 23, 2008)

jonphil said:


> Gadget show is fun to watch, but I never pay much attention to reviews.


Yea, looking at other comments about it, elsewhere, it seems to have more of a following who prefer to have the sound turned down whilst watching it.

J.


----------



## nbaker (Sep 28, 2002)

The Gadget Show seems to less about the tech these days and more about them jetting off on fancy challenges :down:


----------



## VirginMediaPhil (Nov 27, 2009)

Sky+ was the first PVR that most people knew about and used. No use in going "Sky+ was the first PVR apart from TiVo which was this other PVR that you've never heard of that didn't sell very well and is only used by enthusiasts" etc. The Gadget Show is there to get normal, non-geeky people interested and in the know about technology, and it serves its purpose.


----------



## Tony Hoyle (Apr 1, 2002)

Yeah it's less and less about gadgets - and it seems they review cameras nearly every week!


----------



## Muttley1900 (Dec 23, 2008)

VirginMediaPhil said:


> Sky+ was the first PVR that most people knew about and used. No use in going "Sky+ was the first PVR apart from TiVo which was this other PVR that you've never heard of that didn't sell very well and is only used by enthusiasts" etc..


True, and the answer to that would be to say (if you have to even mention it), "it was one of the first..."

Unfortunately, this show is an example of the dulling down of journalists and their reports. Very little research is done and what is done has been spoon fed to them via the "manufacturer".

J.


----------



## Brangdon (Feb 9, 2001)

Muttley1900 said:


> So, Sky+ was the first PVR, as is asserted in the review?


Well, no, but they've simplified it. I gather that review was published August 2010. Obviously they couldn't recommend TiVo then - it would mean an s1 box, no HD, and the EPG feed about to be cut off.

I expect they'll do another review in due course. Hopefully _after_ VM TiVo gets the 3rd tuner and some of the other issues are sorted out, and they have actually become available to the general public. August 2011 might be about right.


----------



## VirginMediaPhil (Nov 27, 2009)

Oh and remember that this video is Gadget Show Web TV, so it wasn't shown on the actual programme.


----------



## Muttley1900 (Dec 23, 2008)

Brangdon said:


> Well, no, but they've simplified it.


Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that Sky simplified the PVR offering or that the report is "simplified"? The report is far from simplified, as it measures "apples" with 'pears" and then offers misleading and biased information (e.g. "Sky+ HD is a bit of a commitment, but one that is worth while").



> I gather that review was published August 2010. Obviously they couldn't recommend TiVo then.


I agree, and nor was I suggesting that they should. I ask, that if someone is reviewing products that they do so accurately. To say that Sky + was the first PVR is inaccurate and even unnecessary within this review. Again, I know it is only a small silly point, but if the reviewer can not get that right, what else is wrong with the review?

The whole "sky +" review has a different "feel" to it from the other 2 reviews, more talk about the additional services and content quality.

J.


----------



## Muttley1900 (Dec 23, 2008)

VirginMediaPhil said:


> Oh and remember that this video is Gadget Show Web TV, so it wasn't shown on the actual programme.


Thanks for the information. With it being on the "web TV" does that make a difference to the quality and accuracy of the reviews?

J.


----------



## Tony Hoyle (Apr 1, 2002)

Gadget show give the best reviews to companies that have given them free stuff - they've free Sky HD for a year in their weekly competition for ages. They're not remotely unbiased.. after all they're on a commercial channel and have to keep the advertisers happy.

It's entertainment, not a buyers guide... nobody would use it as a base to make real decisions on.


----------



## VirginMediaPhil (Nov 27, 2009)

Muttley1900 said:


> Thanks for the information. With it being on the "web TV" does that make a difference to the quality and accuracy of the reviews?
> 
> J.


No I don't think so, the presenters are the same ones as on the show itself, so I would think it would be the same, but I don't watch the webisodes so I wouldn't know.


----------



## Muttley1900 (Dec 23, 2008)

Tony Hoyle said:


> Gadget show give the best reviews to companies that have given them free stuff - they've free Sky HD for a year in their weekly competition for ages.


Thanks, I didn't know that, it answers a lot. So my tongue in cheek comment about being funded by sky is probably right.



> It's entertainment, not a buyers guide.


I'll keep that in mind, if I ever watch anything from this bunch again.

J.


----------



## steford (Oct 9, 2002)

Stopped watching it when it turned into Top Gear. Stopped watching Top Gear when it stopped reviewing sensible cars (back in the 80s).


----------



## Automan (Oct 29, 2000)

steford said:


> Stopped watching it when it turned into Top Gear. Stopped watching Top Gear when it stopped reviewing sensible cars (back in the 80s).


I was going to say much the same.

Bring back Raymond Baxter and Tomorrow's World.

Automan.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Tony Hoyle said:


> Gadget show give the best reviews to companies that have given them free stuff - they've free Sky HD for a year in their weekly competition for ages. .


I happen to know that all the stuff in that competition is paid for, not freebies.

The gadget show is using Top Gear as its model; and you wouldn't watch Top Gear for car buying advice!


----------



## Sneals2000 (Aug 25, 2002)

TCM2007 said:


> I happen to know that all the stuff in that competition is paid for, not freebies.
> 
> The gadget show is using Top Gear as its model; and you wouldn't watch Top Gear for car buying advice!


Yep - though the prizes are no doubt paid for by SOME of the revenue from the compeition phone and text entries...


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

And, given that fact, there is no reason to assume any such bias as mentioned earlier


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Yes, I know exactly how much money they make from those. I was shocked.


----------



## ukcobra (Jun 2, 2004)

Tony Hoyle said:


> Gadget show give the best reviews to companies that have given them free stuff - they've free Sky HD for a year in their weekly competition for ages. They're not remotely unbiased.. after all they're on a commercial channel and have to keep the advertisers happy.
> 
> It's entertainment, not a buyers guide... nobody would use it as a base to make real decisions on.


Typically the kit provided is on loan, and not given away as freebies. Often it has to go back after a short while.


----------



## Faz (May 2, 2004)

Automan said:


> Bring back Raymond Baxter and Tomorrow's World.


I second that.
Quality show!


----------



## AMc (Mar 22, 2002)

Their toaster group test was very helpful!


----------



## steford (Oct 9, 2002)

Automan said:


> I was going to say much the same.
> 
> Bring back Raymond Baxter and Tomorrow's World.
> 
> Automan.


William Woollard - a good presenter on both shows.



TCM2007 said:


> The gadget show is using Top Gear as its model; and you wouldn't watch Top Gear for car buying advice!


Indeed. They don't really review stuff anymore - just see how fast it can go or what happens if they blow it up or put it to some extreme test. Nonsense.


----------



## Nimbus (May 29, 2004)

I was just reflecting how Tivo actually makes the gadget show, and top gear 'watchable'...

In that, I always record them, and then fast forward thro the rubbish parts, you know, in the gadget show... the 'update on what coming next', the 'competition', the 'update on what coming next', etc etc...

Lucky if there is more than 10 minutes content in the gadget show these days.. in fact, I still havent got round to watching the last two weeks, as my expectations of it are so low 

I really am going to miss my tivo


----------



## katman (Jun 4, 2002)

I dont even bother to record it now LOL


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Yes, I used to just 30 second skip the adverts on any commercial channel programme, now I skip the adverts and press it once more to cut out the recap/coming soon they have after every break.

Even the BBC have started doing it, and they don't ave any effing breaks!


----------



## xmaspast (Mar 12, 2002)

jonphil said:


> Gadget show is fun to watch, but I never pay much attention to reviews.


 It's why I like Tivo so much, I fast forward through most of the gadget show most weeks as it is usually full of irrelevant ****e.:down:


----------

