Tomsguide Reviews

Heavily biased towards Apple Products

This site is extremely bias towards apple products I was reading a guide for waterproof phones which suggested a 500 Samsung S20 FE was both an affordable price AND very expensive whereas their No 1 recommendation was a 1200 iPhone 12 Pro no suggestion that was expensive or anything Will not be using their reviews again since they can t provide unbiased facts about the devices so consumers can decide for themselves

lol this site is an ABSOLUTE joke

lol this site is an ABSOLUTE joke What a waste of time and effort Doesn t tell you ANYTHING you cant find on company websites instructions If it wasn t free I wouldn t even give it half a star It says to think of this as your geeky friend who is always on call Um no that description is misleading and totally wrong This site is more like your idiot buddy who doesn t know a thing but tries to tell you what you already know And does it a convoluted and extremely stupid way

Biased towards Apple

Don t use this website to compare a device with an Apple product because the Apple product will always win I have read six comparison articles and in four of them the Apple product was the winner even though Android was clearly better and they announced it at the end But on the other two articles when the non-Apple product had a clear advantage they didn t include it Read the comparison between the Apple AirPods Pro Vs Sony WF-1000XM3 and the Apple AirPods 2 Vs Sony WF-1000XM3 to see where I am coming from Update They have now added a Winner section to the AirPods 2 vs Sony WF-1000XM3 comparison

Ignore the Snarky Apple Attitude Headline Grabs and Ignore These Guys

I m a technology guy and have many brands ASUS Samsung Apple Sony and more Use them all each for their own reason and benefits I m neither a Fan Boy or a Hater Tom s Guide is just always snarky and biased about Apple All their headlines suggest This just killed Apple Apple is doomed now Don t buy Apple now Sure they point out benefits of Apple But overall I just ignore why fight actual implied or accidental bias and snakiness There are better places to look

Copyright thieves

A few years ago the Irish version of the Tom s Guide website stole one of my stock images I tried to get payment entered into discussions via Twitter tried emailing several times - And all they did was avoid me On Twitter I located the editor who did respond but as soon as he knew I was chasing payment for IP theft he stopped responding It would have cost them a small amount and would have been the right thing to do It s history now but every time their website appears in Google searches which unfortunately it often does I feel anger inside This is one of a multitude of companies who have done similar it s a common problem for honest photographers and videographers How would they like it if I stole their articles and passed them off as my own then ignored any correspondence on the matter

Biased against certain companies

Tom s Guide is very biased against Avast and they are spreading misinformation I feel bad for companies like Avast who have been discredited due to this expert site I wish they could be flagged by fact-checkers Also I am sure they are being operated by some companies and a portion of the anti-Avast community

Sold out to Ads if you re prepared to

Sold out to Ads if you re prepared to wait 5 minutes for the page to load amongst all the affiliate spam you might find an ounce of useful info Shame since this used to be quite a good source of information

Just another clickbait site

Tom s guide has stooped to lowly practices frequently used by clickbait sites For instance the site WILL CLAIM that an article was published recently even if it s an old article and outdated to the point of being outright wrong Case in point a recent article I read on his best universal remotes of 2022 claiming it was published 3 days ago as of this review recommends Logitech products despite ALL logitech remote products are now discontinued Clearly it s misleading readers into thinking this is a new or updated article and giving a false sense of confidence Many more examples appear if you scratch under the surface of any article 0 5 do not trust