Portable Bluetooth Speakers

will be wild meaning

Embark on a Quest with will be wild meaning

Step into a world where the focus is keenly set on will be wild meaning. Within the confines of this article, a tapestry of references to will be wild meaning awaits your exploration. If your pursuit involves unraveling the depths of will be wild meaning, you've arrived at the perfect destination.

Our narrative unfolds with a wealth of insights surrounding will be wild meaning. This is not just a standard article; it's a curated journey into the facets and intricacies of will be wild meaning. Whether you're thirsting for comprehensive knowledge or just a glimpse into the universe of will be wild meaning, this promises to be an enriching experience.

The spotlight is firmly on will be wild meaning, and as you navigate through the text on these digital pages, you'll discover an extensive array of information centered around will be wild meaning. This is more than mere information; it's an invitation to immerse yourself in the enthralling world of will be wild meaning.

So, if you're eager to satisfy your curiosity about will be wild meaning, your journey commences here. Let's embark together on a captivating odyssey through the myriad dimensions of will be wild meaning.

Showing posts sorted by date for query will be wild meaning. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query will be wild meaning. Sort by relevance Show all posts

TikTok Parents Are Taking Advantage Of Their Kids. It Needs To Stop


TikTok Parents Are Taking Advantage of Their Kids. It Needs to Stop


TikTok Parents Are Taking Advantage of Their Kids. It Needs to Stop

Rachel Barkman's son started accurately identifying different species of mushroom at the age of 2. Together they'd go out into the mossy woods near her home in Vancouver and forage. When it came to occasionally sharing in her TikTok videos her son's enthusiasm and skill for picking mushrooms, she didn't think twice about it -- they captured a few cute moments, and many of her 350,000-plus followers seemed to like it.

That was until last winter, when a female stranger approached them in the forest, bent down and addressed her son, then 3, by name and asked if he could show her some mushrooms. 

"I immediately went cold at the realization that I had equipped complete strangers with knowledge of my son that puts him at risk," Barkman said in an interview this past June. 

This incident, combined with research into the dangers of sharing too much, made her reevaluate her son's presence online. Starting at the beginning of this year, she vowed not to feature his face in future content. 

"My decision was fueled by a desire to protect my son, but also to protect and respect his identity and privacy, because he has a right to choose the way he is shown to the world," she said.

These kinds of dangers have cropped up alongside the rise in child influencers, such as 10-year-old Ryan Kaji of Ryan's World, who has almost 33 million subscribers, with various estimates putting his net worth in the multiple tens of millions of dollars. Increasingly, brands are looking to use smaller, more niche, micro- and nano-influencers, developing popular accounts on Instagram, TikTok and YouTube to reach their audiences. And amid this influencer gold rush there's a strong incentive for parents, many of whom are sharing photos and videos of their kids online anyway, to get in on the action. 

The increase in the number of parents who manage accounts for their kids -- child influencers' parents are often referred to as "sharents" -- opens the door to exploitation or other dangers. With almost no industry guardrails in place, these parents find themselves in an unregulated wild west. They're the only arbiters of how much exposure their children get, how much work their kids do, and what happens to money earned through any content they feature in.

Instagram didn't respond to multiple requests for comment about whether it takes any steps to safeguard child influencers. A representative for TikTok said the company has a zero-tolerance approach to sexual exploitation and pointed to policies to protect accounts of users under the age of 16. But these policies don't apply to parents posting with or on behalf of their children. YouTube didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

"When parents share about their children online, they act as both the gatekeeper -- the one tasked with protecting a child's personal information -- and as the gate opener," said Stacey Steinberg, a professor of law at the University of Florida and author of the book Growing Up Shared. As the gate opener, "they benefit, gaining both social and possibly financial capital by their online disclosures."

The reality is that some parents neglect the gatekeeping and leave the gate wide open for any internet stranger to walk through unchecked. And walk through they do.

Meet the sharents

Mollie is an aspiring dancer and model with an Instagram following of 122,000 people. Her age is ambiguous but she could be anywhere from 11-13, meaning it's unlikely she's old enough to meet the social media platform's minimum age requirement. Her account is managed by her father, Chris, whose own account is linked in her bio, bringing things in line with Instagram's policy. (Chris didn't respond to a request for comment.)

You don't have to travel far on Instagram to discover accounts such as Mollie's, where grown men openly leer at preteen girls. Public-facing, parent-run accounts dedicated to dancers and gymnasts -- who are under the age of 13 and too young to have accounts of their own -- number in the thousands. (To protect privacy, we've chosen not to identify Mollie, which isn't her real name, or any other minors who haven't already appeared in the media.)

Parents use these accounts, which can have tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of followers, to raise their daughters' profiles by posting photos of them posing and demonstrating their flexibility in bikinis and leotards. The comment sections are often flooded with sexualized remarks. A single, ugly word appeared under one group shot of several young girls in bikinis: "orgy."

Some parents try to contain the damage by limiting comments on posts that attract too much attention. The parent running one dancer account took a break from regular scheduling to post a pastel-hued graphic reminding other parents to review their followers regularly. "After seeing multiple stories and posts from dance photographers we admire about cleaning up followers, I decided to spend time cleaning," read the caption. "I was shocked at how many creeps got through as followers."

But "cleaning up" means engaging in a never-ending game of whack-a-mole to keep unwanted followers at bay, and it ignores the fact that you don't need to be following a public account to view the posts. Photos of children are regularly reposted on fan or aggregator accounts, over which parents have no control, and they can also be served up through hashtags or through Instagram's discovery algorithms.

The simple truth is that publicly posted content is anyone's for the taking. "Once public engagement happens, it is very hard, if not impossible, to really put meaningful boundaries around it," said Leah Plunkett, author of the book Sharenthood and a member of the faculty at Harvard Law School.

This concern is at the heart of the current drama concerning the TikTok account @wren.eleanor. Wren is an adorable blonde 3-year-old girl, and the account, which has 17.3 million followers, is managed by her mother, Jacquelyn, who posts videos almost exclusively of her child. 

Concerned onlookers have pointed Jacquelyn toward comments that appear to be predatory, and have warned her that videos in which Wren is in a bathing suit, pretending to insert a tampon, or eating various foodstuffs have more watches, likes and saves than other content. They claim her reluctance to stop posting in spite of their warnings demonstrates she's prioritizing the income from her account over Wren's safety. Jacquelyn didn't respond to several requests for comment.

Last year, the FBI ran a campaign in which it estimated that there were 500,000 predators online every day -- and that's just in the US. Right now, across social platforms, we're seeing the growth of digital marketplaces that hinge on child exploitation, said Plunkett. She doesn't want to tell other parents what to do, she added, but she wants them to be aware that there's "a very real, very pressing threat that even innocent content that they put up about their children is very likely to be repurposed and find its way into those marketplaces."

Naivete vs. exploitation

When parent influencers started out in the world of blogging over a decade ago, the industry wasn't exploitative in the same way it is today, said Crystal Abidin, an academic from Curtin University who specializes in internet cultures. When you trace the child influencer industry back to its roots, what you find is parents, usually mothers, reaching out to one another to connect. "It first came from a place of care among these parent influencers," she said.

Over time, the industry shifted, centering on children more and more as advertising dollars flowed in and new marketplaces formed. 

Education about the risks hasn't caught up, which is why people like Sarah Adams, a Vancouver mom who runs the TikTok account @mom.uncharted, have taken it upon themselves to raise the flag on those risks. "My ultimate goal is just have parents pause and reflect on the state of sharenting right now," she said. 

But as Mom Uncharted, Adams is also part of a wider unofficial and informal watchdog group of internet moms and child safety experts shedding light on the often disturbing way in which some parents are, sometimes knowingly, exploiting their children online.

The troubling behavior uncovered by Adams and others suggests there's more than naivete at play -- specifically when parents sign up for and advertise services that let people buy "exclusive" or "VIP" access to content featuring their children.

Some parent-run social media accounts that Adams has found linked out to a site called SelectSets, which lets the parents sell photo sets of their children. One account offered sets with titles such as "2 little princesses." SelectSets has described the service as "a classy and professional" option for influencers to monetize content, allowing them to "avoid the stigma often associated with other platforms."

Over the last few weeks, SelectSets has gone offline and no owner could be traced for comment.

In addition to selling photos, many parent-run dancer accounts, Mollie's included, allow strangers to send the dancers swimwear and underwear from the dancers' Amazon wish lists, or money to "sponsor" them to "realize their dream" or support them on their "journeys."

While there's nothing technically illegal about anything these parents are doing, they're placing their children in a gray area that's not explicitly sexual but that many people would consider to be sexualized. The business model of using an Amazon wish list is one commonly embraced by online sugar babies who accept money and gifts from older men.

"Our Conditions of Use and Sale make clear that users of Amazon Services must be 18 or older or accompanied by a parent or guardian," said an Amazon spokesperson in a statement. "In rare cases where we are made aware that an account has been opened by a minor without permission, we close the account."

Adams says it's unlikely to be other 11-year-olds sending their pocket money to these girls so they attend their next bikini modeling shoot. "Who the fuck do you think is tipping these kids?" she said. "It's predators who are liking the way you exploit your child and giving them all the content they need."

Turning points

Plunkett distinguishes between parents who are casually sharing content that features their kids and parents who are sharing for profit, an activity she describes as "commercial sharenting." 

"You are taking your child, or in some cases, your broader family's private or intimate moments, and sharing them digitally, in the hope of having some kind of current or future financial benefit," she said.

No matter the parent's hopes or intentions, any time children appear in public-facing social media content, that content has the potential to go viral, and when it does, parents have a choice to either lean in and monetize it or try to rein it in.

During Abidin's research -- in which she follows the changing activities of the same influencers over time -- she's found that many influencer parents reach a turning point. It can be triggered by something as simple as other children at school being aware of their child's celebrity or their child not enjoying it anymore, or as serious as being involved in a car chase while trying to escape fans (an occurrence recounted to Abidin by one of her research subjects). 

One influencer, Katy Rose Pritchard, who has almost 92,000 Instagram followers, decided to stop showing her children's faces on social media this year after she discovered they were being used to create role-playing accounts. People had taken photos of her children that she'd posted and used them to create fictional profiles of children for personal gratification, which she said in a post made her feel "violated."

All these examples highlight the different kinds of threats sharents are exposing their children to. Plunkett describes three "buckets" of risk tied to publicly sharing content online. The first and perhaps most obvious are risks involving criminal and/or dangerous behavior, posing a direct threat to the child. 

The second are indirect risks, where content posted featuring children can be taken, reused, analyzed or repurposed by people with nefarious motives. Consequences include anything from bullying to harming future job prospects to millions of people having access to children's medical information -- a common trope on YouTube is a video with a melodramatic title and thumbnail involving a child's trip to the hospital, in which influencer parents with sick kids will document their health journeys in blow-by-blow detail.

The third set of risks are probably the least talked about, but they involve potential harm to a child's sense of self. If you're a child influencer, how you see yourself as a person and your ability to develop into an adult is "going to be shaped and in some instances impeded by the fact that your parents are creating this public performance persona for you," said Plunkett.

Often children won't be aware of what this public persona looks like to the audience and how it's being interpreted. They may not even be aware it exists. But at some point, as happened with Barkman, the private world in which content is created and the public world in which it's consumed will inevitably collide. At that point, the child will be thrust into the position of confronting the persona that's been created for them.

"As kids get older, they naturally want to define themselves on their own terms, and if parents have overshared about them in public spaces, that can be difficult, as many will already have notions about who that child is or what that child may like," said Steinberg. "These notions, of course, may be incorrect. And some children may value privacy and wish their life stories were theirs -- not their parents -- to tell."

Savannah and Cole LaBrant with daughter Everleigh

Savannah and Cole LaBrant have documented nearly everything about their children's lives.

Jim Spellman/WireImage

This aspect of having their real-life stories made public is a key factor distinguishing children working in social media from children working in the professional entertainment industry, who usually play fictional roles. Many children who will become teens and adults in the next couple of decades will have to reckon with the fact that their parents put their most vulnerable moments on the internet for the world to see -- their meltdowns, their humiliation, their most personal moments. 

One influencer family, the LaBrants, were forced to issue a public apology in 2019 after they played an April Fools' Day Joke on their 6-year-old daughter Everleigh. The family pretended they were giving her dog away, eliciting tears throughout the video. As a result, many viewers felt that her parents, Sav and Cole, had inflicted unnecessary distress on her.

In the past few months, parents who film their children during meltdowns to demonstrate how to calm them down have found themselves the subject of ire on parenting Subreddits. Their critics argue that it's unfair to post content of children when they're at their most vulnerable, as it shows a lack of respect for a child's right to privacy.

Privacy-centric parenting

Even the staunchest advocates of child privacy know and understand the parental instinct of wanting to share their children's cuteness and talent with the world. "Our kids are the things usually we're the most proud of, the most excited about," said Adams. "It is normal to want to show them off and be proud of them."

When Adams started her account two years ago, she said her views were seen as more polarizing. But increasingly people seem to relate and share her concerns. Most of these are "average parents," naive to the risks they're exposing their kids to, but some are "commercial sharents" too.

Even though they don't always see eye to eye, the private conversations she's had with parents of children (she doesn't publicly call out anyone) with massive social media presences have been civil and productive. "I hope it opens more parents' eyes to the reality of the situation, because frankly this is all just a large social experiment," she said. "And it's being done on our kids. And that just doesn't seem like a good idea."

For Barkman, it's been "surprisingly easy, and hugely beneficial" to stop sharing content about her son. She's more present, and focuses only on capturing memories she wants to keep for herself.

"When motherhood is all consuming, it sometimes feels like that's all you have to offer, so I completely understand how we have slid into oversharing our children," she said. "It's a huge chunk of our identity and our hearts."

But Barkman recognizes the reality of the situation, which is that she doesn't know who's viewing her content and that she can't rely on tech platforms to protect her son. "We are raising a generation of children who have their entire lives broadcast online, and the newness of social media means we don't have much data on the impacts of that reality on children," she said. "I feel better acting with caution and letting my son have his privacy so that he can decide how he wants to be perceived by the world when he's ready and able."


Source

Tags:

Apple Watch: It's Been 5 Years Since My Original Review, And It Holds Up


Apple Watch: It's been 5 years since my original review, and it holds up


Apple Watch: It's been 5 years since my original review, and it holds up

I'd love to say that when I first put on the Apple Watch, I'd never seen anything like it before. But of course, that's not true. By late 2014 I'd been surrounded by smartwatches for a few years. So when Apple announced it was making its own watch, my thought (as so often with Apple) was: finally.

The first smartwatch I reviewed at CNET was the Martian Passport, an analog watch that could make phone calls. It sounds so primitive now, but it was cool in early 2013. The Pebble Watch followed, and the Steel version became my favorite: It was like a Casio watch turned into a useful little pager-assistant. It was simple and had long battery life, and it was great.

There were others, too: Samsung's first smartwatches were ambitious (a camera?). Google's first Android Wear watches arrived in 2014. Meanwhile, there were Fitbits and Jawbone trackers galore.

I say this to lay the groundwork for the Apple Watch and what its impact was. Like the iPhone wasn't the first smartphone, the Apple Watch wasn't the first smartwatch... but it made the biggest footprint. It was another step validating that a world of wearables was here to stay. 

I was able to wear the Apple Watch a month before it went on sale. I spent a ton of time with it, getting used to both how it handled phone calls, and the activity tracking rings. I looked at my heart rate measurements. I accidentally ordered an Xbox One with an early Amazon app.

The Watch was, much like the first iPhone, sometimes feature-limited. But it also had some features that already stood out.

My original review was updated a year later, which you can read here. Some parts have changed, clearly, and Apple has updated the OS. But I'll comment on what I wrote then, and how I felt, and how that's evolved. Quotes from the original review are in italics.

apple-event-apple-watch-edition-5597.jpg

The gold Apple Watch, way back when.

James Martin/CNET

An excellent design, with luxury overtones

Apple wants you to think of the Apple Watch as fine jewelry. Maybe that's a stretch, but in terms of craftsmanship, there isn't a more elegantly made piece of wearable tech. Look at the Apple Watch from a distance, and it might appear unremarkable in its rectangular simplicity compared with bolder, circular Android Wear watches. It's clearly a revamped sort of iPod Nano. But get closer, and you can see the seamless, excellent construction.

The first Apple Watch came in aluminum, steel and ramped all the way up to a gold model costing more than $10,000. Compared to other smartwatches, it screamed luxury.

Certain touches felt luxurious, too: the fine-feeling Digital Crown, which spun ever so smoothly like a real watch part, for instance. The OLED display, which was a first for an Apple product, looked crisp and bright.

The most amazing part, maybe, were the watch bands. Apple created a really nice series of specially designed straps, from a steel link to a clever magnetic Milanese mesh that were extremely expensive and impressively engineered. 

Its watch face designs were great, too, and they integrated some information from the iPhone that aimed to add at-a-glance ease of use. There was a Mickey Mouse watch face that danced! The Solar face showing sunrise and sunset, and the astronomy face that showed planetary alignments and moon phases, felt like magic. I wanted more, but Apple's assortment of watch faces was limited, and it didn't allow for third-party watch face design. That's still the case now.

A lot of the Apple Watch reminded me of the strides Apple began with the iPod Nano, which also had watch mode... and a Mickey Mouse watch face.

chronometer-92.jpg
Sarah Tew

New technologies at first: fantastic haptics, a force-sensitive display

All Apple Watches have a new S1 processor made by Apple, that "taptic" haptic engine and a force-sensitive and very bright OLED display, which is differently sized on the 38mm and 42mm models. The watch has its own accelerometer, gyrometer and heart-rate monitor, but no onboard GPS. It uses Bluetooth 4.0 and 802.11b/g/n 2.4GHz Wi-Fi to connect to your phone or your home network. There's a built-in speaker and microphone, but no headphone jack.

As I wore the watch on the first day, I felt a rippling buzz and a metallic ping: one of my credit card payments showed up as a message. Apple's "Taptic Engine" and a built-in speaker convey both a range of advanced taps and vibrations, plus sounds. Unlike the buzz in a phone or most wearables, these haptics feel sharper: a single tap, or a ripple of them, or thumps.

Sometimes the feelings are too subtle: I don't know if I felt them or imagined them. My wrists might be numbed from too many smart devices. I set my alerts to "prominent" and got sharper nudges on my wrist.

The first watch introduced some ideas that eventually made their way to other iPhones. A "taptic engine" delivered on some amazingly refined vibration effects, ranging from a purr to a ping to a gentle tap. These were way ahead of what anybody else was doing -- and they weren't just a gimmick. The notification types associated with unique vibrations felt distinct. Sometimes, the vibrating taps on the first Watch weren't as powerful as I wanted. But with later updates, the haptics made parts of the interface seem real: virtual wheels, clicking as if moving with invisible gears.

The more advanced haptics made their way to the iPhone next, making us used to them now. Other phones, game consoles like the Nintendo Switch, and VR accessories, have evolved haptics since, but the Apple Watch was the first mainstream device that upped the haptics game.

Force Touch was another wild idea: Apple made its watch display force-sensitive, meaning a deeper press could work like pushing a button. Though this idea was refined further into 3D Touch on the iPhone 6S, 3D Touch was a technology that never became as necessary as expected, and current iPhone models have dropped the pressure-sensitive display tech completely.

The Apple Watch still has Force Touch, though, and I think it always will.

chronometer-55.jpg

Digital Touch: I never used it much after that.

Sarah Tew

Lots of features. Too many features?

As you can see, this is a lot of stuff. Did I have fun using the watch? Yes, mostly, but there are so many features that I felt a little lost at times. There are so many ways to interact: swiping, touching, pressing harder into the display, a button and a clickable digital crown-wheel. Plus, there's Siri. Do I swipe, or click, or force touch or speak? Sometimes I didn't know where an app menu was. Or, I'd find getting back to an app I just had open would require an annoying series of crown clicks, swiping through apps, then opening the app again.

There's a reason I used the word "complicated" to describe my feelings using that first Apple Watch. Setting up bits of information, called complications, was slow and not always intuitive. Apps took a while to load, and were sometimes so slow that it was easier to check my phone instead. Quick glances and notifications, and phone calls, were fine. Apple Pay on the watch was clever, but would I use it? I wished the watch had more battery life.

I didn't like the overcomplicated feel. The design of the OS, and the card-like swappable mini-view apps that used to be on the Watch like a dock, changed over time. It's gotten better since.

Storing music on the watch, while it took a while to sync, was easier than attempts on Samsung Gear or Android Wear. Of course, I had to hunt for a good pair of Bluetooth headphones to connect with the watch.

Today I still forget to dive into and make the most of the apps on the watch. I just dusted off Walkie Talkie: it's cool. There's noise monitoring. One app lets me remote control my iPhone camera, which has been a huge help for my stay-at-home self-shot videos. The Remote app helps me when I lose the Apple TV remote every other day. 

Third-party apps, and the grid of options? It turns out I don't use them much at all. I don't dig down deep into the layers of functions. I prefer what's on the surface: watch faces, and their readouts. But I've come to appreciate the watch's surprising number of options and settings. It's better than not having them at all.

river-chronometer-42.jpg

The rings were the beginning.

Sarah Tew/CNET

Fitness: The ring idea was just the beginning

The Apple Watch doesn't work any fitness miracles that the rest of the wearable world hasn't already invented, and it doesn't ship with any new magical sensors that change the game. But the Apple-made integrated fitness apps, Activity and Workout, are far and away the best fitness apps on any existing smartwatch that isn't a dedicated "fitness watch" (Samsung Gear, Android Wear, Pebble and the like). A clever three-ring method of tracking daily activity, which simultaneously measures and rewards daily calorie burn, active exercise and standing up, feels like a fusion of rewards and metrics seen on the Nike FuelBand, Jawbone Up, Fitbit and others. 

I appreciated Apple's complete-the-ring motivational activity tracker, which felt inspired by wearables like the Nike FuelBand (not surprising, since Apple's head of fitness, Jay Blahnik, arrived from Nike). For the red ring's daily goals, it's great. It felt too easy to complete the blue Stand ring, and it still does.

There are tons of fitness advancements Apple has made on the Watch in the last five years: GPS, resting heart rate, workout controls, social sharing, third-party app integration, swimming, modes for accessibility, activity trends -- and I haven't even discussed Apple's massive health aspirations like adding ECG, checking for falls, monitoring elevated or irregular heart rate or women's health tracking. There is some form of coaching and motivation, too. But I'd still love to see more of that. I hit a wall when trying to be fit, and there's only so much watches seem to help.

The first Apple Watch was more of a Fitbit. Now, it's more of a health companion. Those two worlds still feel like they need to dovetail and grow. There are missing features, too, like sleep tracking, which feels like the inevitable next step.

chronometer-85.jpg

You still need an iPhone, just like in 2015.

Sarah Tew

It was, and still is, an iPhone accessory

Much like most other smartwatches, the Apple Watch isn't a standalone device -- it's a phone accessory. Android Wear, Samsung Gear, Pebble and others work the same way. But here, you must own an iPhone 5 or later to use the Watch. A few Apple Watch functions work away from the phone, but the watch primarily works alongside the phone as an extension, a second screen and basically another part of your iOS experience. It's a symbiote.

One thing I noted back then was that you needed an iPhone to use the Apple Watch. Unlike other wearables that can pair with Android or iOS, or even sync with a computer, the Apple Watch was always designed to live symbiotically with the iPhone.

That's still the case now. Even with independent cellular options, and an on-watch App Store, you can't use the Watch without pairing to an iPhone. And it still won't work with Android. It's a shame, because a fully standalone watch could be a really helpful tool for many people who don't have iPhones, and it could even be a phone alternative (for kids, maybe).

Apple's AirPods created a gadget trinity where the Watch, the iPhone and AirPods can all work seamlessly together. But that trinity is an expensive one. The entry price of the Apple Watch has dropped, at least. But it feels like an extension of the iPhone more than its own device, even now.

41-apple-watch-series-5

The Apple Watch Series 5: much better, with a few similarities.

Sarah Tew/CNET

Today: the best watch in a war of attrition

You don't need an Apple Watch. In many ways, it's a toy: an amazing little do-it-all, a clever invention, a possibly time-saving companion, a wrist-worn assistant. It's also mostly a phone accessory for now. In the months and years to come, that may change: with Apple's assortment of iPads, Macs, Apple TV and who knows what else to come, the watch could end up being a remote and accessory to many things. Maybe it'll be the key to unlock a world of smart appliances, cars and connected places. In that type of world, a smartwatch could end up feeling utterly essential.

I think back to what the Apple Watch was competing against back then: Jawbone, Pebble, Fitbit, Google's Android Wear, Samsung's watches, the Microsoft Band. A lot of competitors are gone now. Fitbit was acquired by Google. Samsung still has watches. Garmin makes lots of dedicated fitness watches. There are still plenty of more affordable relative newcomers, too.

chronometer-113.jpg

The original Apple Watch, with the Pebble Steel, Moto 360 and the original iPod Nano with wristband (clockwise from top left).

Sarah Tew

In a field of fewer alternatives, the Apple Watch's consistent addition of new features and ongoing performance improvements has made it the best option. It's Apple's commitment to gradual improvements that has made it a stand-out watch now, especially compared to the struggles of Google's Wear OS.

The Apple Watch is still an iPhone accessory. And it's still not an essential product. But it's become a really fluid and useful device, one with lots of key upgrades that work, and one that's a lot easier to use.

What's the best smartwatch now? The Apple Watch. That doesn't mean I don't want to see improvements: battery life, sleep tracking, a watch face store and most importantly, Android support and true standalone function. If the last five years are any indication, Apple will tackle these problems on its own... time.


Source

Tags:

Best Crypto Exchanges For August 2022: Buy And Sell Bitcoin, Ether And More


Best crypto exchanges for august 2022 buy and sell bitcoin on cash best crypto exchanges for august 2022 buy and bill best crypto exchanges for august 2022 buyers best crypto exchanges for august 2022 buyer s guide best crypto exchanges for august 2022 holidays best crypto exchanges for august 2022 full best crypto exchanges for august 2022 blank best crypto exchanges international best crypto to buy best crypto exchange
Best Crypto Exchanges for August 2022: Buy and Sell Bitcoin, Ether and More


Best Crypto Exchanges for August 2022: Buy and Sell Bitcoin, Ether and More

Despite price crashes in the first half of 2022, buying and selling cryptocurrency continues to steam forward as the "crypto winter" shows signs of thawing. While governments have increased their efforts to regulate crypto markets, scans continue to plague crypto investors, and it's more important than ever to find a trusted platform for buying and selling crypto. 

Crypto exchanges are where most crypto traders buy and sell bitcoin, ether, dogecoin and other types of cryptocurrency. In its rawest and most decentralized form, cryptocurrency is relatively unfriendly to obtain and use. Crypto exchanges make it fairly simple to trade all sorts of crypto tokens and coins.

The best crypto exchanges will hold your crypto securely, provide you with unfettered control over your assets and make buying, selling, sending, receiving and trading crypto simple and affordable.

Some investors may desire more advanced features from crypto exchanges, including the ability to earn interest, access more esoteric forms of crypto or buy, store and display NFTs. (It's worth noting that the safest place to hold your crypto is in a cold storage wallet that you control exclusively.)

Here, we'll focus on the basics, highlighting the exchanges that make it easy to sign up, get started and carry out transactions without getting fleeced on fees. As with any investment, high fees can erode returns over time, and some exchanges offer more competitive fees than others.

Whether you're a beginner looking for an easy on-ramp to crypto, or you're a high-volume trader looking for the lowest "maker" and "taker" fees, we've got the info you need to choose the best crypto exchange for you.

Note: Crypto exchanges add and delist crypto tokens on a regular basis. Our "number of supported tokens" data is based on data from each exchange's website as of July 25, 2022.

Best crypto exchanges

James Martin/CNET
  • US availability: All states except Hawaii
  • Number of supported tokens: 207
  • Spot trading fees: $0.99 to $2.99, or 1.49% for trades over $200
  • Credit/debit card fee: 3.99%

Straightforward and simple, Coinbase provides an intuitive and streamlined experience that makes it easy to buy, sell, trade and send bitcoin, ether and a variety of other cryptocurrencies. As a public company, it's among the most established, well-capitalized and popular players -- but you'll pay for the privilege, with trading fees that are higher and somewhat more complicated than other exchanges. We think the platform's ease of use and simplicity are worth the higher fees, only if you plan to make infrequent and relatively modest transactions.

Coinbase says it keeps 98% of its crypto assets in cold storage -- a method for holding crypto tokens offline -- and says that it has never lost any user funds. Balances of US dollars held in Coinbase accounts are insured by the FDIC, and Coinbase maintains a private insurance policy worth $320 million overall for crypto assets it holds. Coinbase's first-quarter earnings report raised eyebrows with a new disclaimer stating that custodially held crypto could be used to pay creditors in the case of the company going bankrupt.

Unlike most crypto exchanges, Coinbase offers live phone support in addition to email support -- which may bring new crypto investors an additional modicum of comfort – and there's a well-written and helpful library of content for novices. Coinbase is available to residents of all US states except Hawaii.

For real-time crypto transactions (referred to as "spot trades"), Coinbase charges between $0.99 and $2.99 for trades up to $200; for transactions above $200, it's a flat 1.49% fee. Coinbase also adds a 0.5% "spread" fee on top of that. 

And purchasing crypto with a debit card adds a significant 3.99% fee. Funding your Coinbase account with an electronic ACH transfer is free, however. A wire transfer deposit costs $10.

The platform's advancedPro version, which runs on a separate app and website, charges lower fees but features a less user-friendly interface that's not suited for beginners.

Sarah Tew/CNET
  • US availability: All states except Hawaii, New York or Washington
  • Number of supported tokens: 191
  • Trading fees: 0.0 to 0.2% maker; 0.0 to 0.5% taker; 1.5% instant buy
  • Credit/debit card fee: No credit/debit card purchases in US

One of the oldest cryptocurrency exchanges, and in business since 2013, Kraken's low fees make it particularly attractive to high-volume traders. Kraken also offers riskier and more advanced trading features -- such as margin trading and on-chain staking, with biweekly payouts.

The exchange supports transactions for about 130 crypto assets for purchase or trade in the US. It also supports more than 100 crypto pairs -- two crypto tokens that can be exchanged for each other.

Kraken does not include any insurance on crypto deposits held in hot wallets, but it does claim to keep 95% of digital assets offline with enough liquidity to allow users to withdraw at any time. No hacks of the Kraken crypto exchange have ever been reported.

While Kraken is available to most US crypto investors, it's not licensed for crypto services in New York, Washington state or Hawaii.

Sarah Tew/CNET
  • US availability: All 50 states
  • Number of supported tokens: 101
  • Trading fees: Spot trading fees: $0.99 to $2.99, or 1.49% for trades over $200
  • Credit/debit card fee: 3.49%

Gemini features competitive trading fees and support for almost 100 currencies and 20 crypto pairs, but the exchange's educational resources are what may be most appealing to novices. It's also one of the few exchanges operating in all 50 US states -- and the only exchange on this list that does.

This crypto exchange offers strong security features, including FDIC insurance for US dollar deposits, private insurance for hot wallets -- on the blockchain -- crypto assets and support for U2F hardware keys. Its ActiveTrader platform for high-volume traders offers charting, multiple order types, auctions and block trading. Having acquired the NFT marketplace Nifty Gateway in 2019, Gemini also lets users buy and sell crypto collectibles and digital art. 

Gemini's educational resources are the best we found on any crypto exchange. Its Cryptopedia section provides deep knowledge about cryptocurrencies and the technology behind them. Cryptopedia contains a bounty of articles on a wide range of crypto subjects, from basic explainers on bitcoin and blockchain to more advanced topics like real-world uses for smart contracts, the NFT marketplace model for music and decentralized cloud storage.

James Martin/CNET
  • US availability: All states except New York
  • Number of supported tokens: 333
  • Trading fees: 0.04% to 0.4% maker; 0.1% to 0.4% taker
  • Credit/debit card fee: 2.99%

Featuring transactional support for more than 300 cryptocurrencies, Crypto.com offers the widest range of cryptocurrencies of any exchange on this list. It also lists support for more than 80 trading pairs.

Crypto.com claims that 100% of all user cryptocurrencies are held offline in cold storage and that it has secured $750 million in crypto insurance. The exchange also says that all online funds in its custodial wallets are generated by the company itself to fund user withdrawals, meaning customer crypto assets are safe offline. US dollar balances in Crypto.com accounts are held by the Metropolitan Commercial Bank and insured by the FDIC.

Crypto.com uses multifactor authentication -- including password, biometric, email, phone and authenticator verification -- for all crypto transactions. Crypto.com also requires whitelisting of all external addresses via email verification. That means you'll need to explicitly authorize any crypto wallets or bank accounts for withdrawal, which helps protect your crypto assets from accidental or manipulated withdrawals.

Along with Gemini and bitFlyer, Crypto.com is one of only 15 exchanges allowed to operate in Hawaii. Residents of every US state except for New York can use Crypto.com.

Sarah Tew/CNET
  • US availability: All states except West Virginia and Nevada
  • Number of supported tokens: 15
  • Trading fees: 0.03% to 0.1% maker/taker fee
  • Credit/debit card fee: 1.95%

BitFlyer is a private company that launched its crypto exchange first in Japan in 2014 and later expanded into the US in 2017. Though bitFlyer has much lower trading volume than the big exchanges, it ranks in the top 20 for average liquidity, per CoinMarketCap, and it supports 11 different cryptocurrencies, including bitcoin, ether, litecoin and Stellar Lumens (XLM).

BitFlyer offers the lowest trading fees of any exchange on this list. There are two ways to buy and sell crypto on bitFlyer -- through the instant buy/sell platform and transactions on bitFlyer's Lightning Network.

Once you've verified your identity and funded your account, maker and taker fees on the bitFlyer Lightning Network max out at 0.1% for transactions less than $50,000. That's even lower than Kraken's baseline 0.2% fee for makers and 0.5% for takers -- and far more affordable than Coinbase Pro's 0.4% for makers and 0.6% for takers.

BitFlyer's instant buy and sell platform doesn't charge any transaction fees at all, which makes it a tempting proposition, but watch out for the wild range of spread fees, from 0.1% to 6%. BitFlyer will show you the spread fee for any transaction before you make it. Its 1.95% fee for credit card and debit card purchases is also the lowest on this list.

Its interface is more primitive than other exchanges, and we encountered a few minor hiccups -- unexplained error messages and missing 2FA codes -- during the sign-up process. It's worth noting that the lower volume of transactions on the bitFlyer exchange may impact your ability to complete trades at the prices you want.

BitFlyer is available to all US residents except for those living in the states of West Virginia and Nevada.

Best crypto exchanges, compared


 Coinbase Kraken Gemini Crypto.com bitFlyer
Best for Beginners Advanced trading Educational resources Altcoins Low fees
Currencies 207 191 101 333 15
Fees $0.99-2.99, or 1.49% for trades over $200 0.0-0.2% maker; 0.0-0.5% taker; 1.5% instant buy $0.99-2.99, or 1.49% for trades over $200 0.04-0.4% maker; 0.1-0.4% taker 0.03%-0.1% maker/taker
Excluded states Hawaii Hawaii, New York, Washington None New York Nevada, West Virginia
Year founded 2012 2013 2014 2016 2014

What about Binance and Binance.US?

Binance is the largest cryptocurrency exchange in the world, per CoinMarketCap. The exchange launched in China in 2017 and moved its servers and operations to Japan a few months later, in advance of the Chinese ban on cryptocurrency. 

In 2019, due to increased enforcement of regulations, Binance was banned in the US. The existing crypto exchange eventually spun off Binance.US as a separate company that now operates in 45 states. Binance and Binance.US are sister companies with distinct ownership structures.

Binance.US features a very similar interface and experience to Binance and also boasts some of the lowest fees of the major crypto exchanges. However, the company has a rocky past and uncertain future. 

In May 2021, Bloomberg reported that the Justice Department and IRS were investigating Binance's operation for possible links to money laundering and tax evasion. Bloomberg followed up in September with news that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission was probing Binance's connections to insider trading and market manipulation.

In April, Reuters reported evidence that Binance had turned over data to the Russian Federal Security Service, or FSB, about crypto donations to Alexei Navalny, a political opponent of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Most recently, Binance has come under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission for possibly violating US law when it began selling its native token BNB in 2017 to fund its global exchange, per Bloomberg. And a special report from Reuters indicates that, between 2017 and 2021, Binance processed $2.35 billion in crypto that originated from "hacks, investment frauds and illegal drug sales."

Binance itself was hacked in 2019, with thieves getting away with 7,000 bitcoin worth about $40 million, though the exchange refunded users who lost money using its Secure Asset Fund for Users. Several investors who were locked out of trading in 2021 and suffered major losses are planning a class-action lawsuit against Binance.

Although Binance.US provides a quality experience on mobile and desktop and features low trading fees, we would not recommend using the crypto exchange until the legal investigations have been completed and Binance.US provides more transparency on its practices to regulators and users.

FAQs

What is a crypto exchange?

A crypto exchange is a platform that allows users to buy and sell digital assets and cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin and ether. Some may also support the buying, selling and trading of NFTs.

Crypto exchanges generally let users deposit and withdraw funds in either fiat (such as US dollars) or cryptocurrencies, buy crypto with US dollars or another currency, trade one crypto for another, send crypto to another individual (or business) and sell crypto for US dollars.

What's the difference between a crypto exchange and a crypto brokerage?

A crypto exchange provides a platform for individual buyers and sellers to trade crypto -- or exchange tokens and fiat currency, like US dollars. Exchange rates are ostensibly based on market prices.

Similarly, a crypto brokerage serves as an intermediary for buyers and sellers, but the broker sets the prices. Brokerages often support fewer cryptocurrencies yet charge lower fees than exchanges. Robinhood, for example, supports only seven cryptocurrencies -- bitcoin, ethereum, dogecoin, litecoin, ethereum classic, bitcoin cash and bitcoin SV -- but charges no transaction fees.

How much does it cost to trade cryptocurrency?

As with any investment, it's important to consider the cost of buying, selling and trading cryptocurrency -- high fees can erode returns over time. Exchange fees are typically based on how you buy, sell or trade. 

"Spot" trades, also known as "instant" transactions, involve buying from or selling to an exchange in real-time for a set price. These trades are simple to make, and most exchanges charge a relatively high fee to make them, often approximately 1.5% of the transaction value.

A more sophisticated type of trade -- using "buy" and "sell" orders -- is more convoluted and less user-friendly, especially for beginners. But these trades are also considerably less expensive, with "maker" and "taker" fees costing between 0.1% to 0.5% of the transaction value. With this approach, you choose the price you wish to buy or sell at, and a transaction clears only when the market finds a buyer or seller willing to buy or sell at that target price. 

Where else can I purchase Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies?

Along with crypto exchanges and brokerages like Robinhood, some payment services allow users to buy and sell cryptocurrency, although your options for tokens will be more limited, and you usually won't be able to move crypto out of your account and into a private wallet.

Cash App, Venmo and PayPal all let users buy bitcoin via their payment apps. Cash App only buys and sells bitcoin, but it's the only payment service that lets users withdraw crypto to their own private wallets. Crypto fees aren't advertised on Cash App and will vary from trade to trade. Generally, Cash App will charge lower fees than most crypto exchanges for smaller trades, yet higher percentage fees for larger trades.

Venmo and PayPal support bitcoin, bitcoin cash, ethereum and litecoin. Both use a tiered fee structure for crypto that's similar to Coinbase's -- $0.49 to $2.49 on transactions up to $200, a 1.8% fee on transactions between $200 and $1,000 and a 1.5% fee on transactions more than $1,000. Both sites also charge unspecified spread fees that are estimated at 0.5%. You can send crypto to other Venmo or PayPal users with each service, but you can't move your crypto into your own wallet. 

Why are so many crypto exchanges unavailable in the US?

Regulations on cryptocurrency in the US are more stringent than other countries, and also vary from state to state. 

The SEC and crypto exchanges have clashed several times in recent years, with some exchanges facing investigations by the financial agency. The main sticking point is the SEC's classification of virtual currencies. In 2017, the SEC announced that many crypto tokens represented investment securities, which must be registered with the SEC. The agency also argued that crypto exchanges should register with the SEC as securities trading platforms.

The additional regulatory burdens and threat of lawsuits from the SEC have prompted several crypto exchanges to pull out of US markets.

Methodology

CNET reviews crypto exchanges and brokerages by comparing them using an established set of criteria, including maker, taker, transaction and withdrawal fees, security features, number and type of supported crypto assets, geographical availability, number and type of supported crypto pairs, software interface and functionality, trade limits or restrictions, educational resources and customer support.

More crypto advice

The editorial content on this page is based solely on objective, independent assessments by our writers and is not influenced by advertising or partnerships. It has not been provided or commissioned by any third party. However, we may receive compensation when you click on links to products or services offered by our partners.


Source

WWE Clash Of Champions: Results, New Champions, Match Rankings And Full Recap


Wwe clash of champions results new champions match rankings fantasy wwe clash of champions results new champions bundle wwe clash of champions results new champions raid wwe clash of champions results new england wwe clash of champions new york state lottery results wwe clash of champions results newburyport wwe clash of champions results wwe clash of champions predictions wwe clash of champions full show wwe clash of champions highlights wwe clash at the castle results wwe clash at the castle time
WWE Clash of Champions: Results, new champions, match rankings and full recap


WWE Clash of Champions: Results, new champions, match rankings and full recap

Emanating out of Charlotte, North Carolina, WWE's Clash of Champions pay-per-view was OK. It wasn't bad, per se, but there was nothing on the show that was truly exceptional, with most of the event being average to good. Seth Rollins was the MVP of the night, being a key part of the strong open and closing matches. Becky Lynch vs. Sasha Banks was on its way to being a standout match but was stymied by a poor finish.

Here's a quick rundown of highlights:

  • Seth Rollins is still Universal Champion, but he and Braun Strowman lost the Raw Tag Team Championships to Robert Roode and Dolph Ziggler. Not that it'll end up meaning anything, but Rollins was pinned fairly cleanly by Roode.
  • AJ Styles vs. Cedric Alexander was on the preshow, for some reason.
  • Becky Lynch retained her Raw Women's Championship via DQ, lengthening her feud with Sasha Banks.
  • Roman Reigns vs. Erick Rowan was a waste of time -- until Luke Harper returned.

Below you'll find all the results of the night, as well as match recaps and ratings. See you next month for WWE's Hell in a Cell event, which will be headlined by Seth Rollins vs. Bray Wyatt. 

Seth Rollins retains his Universal Championship

Hot start, with Strowman bulldozing Rollins and going for his powerslam finish. Rollins escapes, works over Strowman's legs and hits three superkicks followed by a frogsplash. Rollins is so good. Two count. 

Good action, with Rollins springboarding all over the place and Strowman showing great intensity. The crowd is quiet, tired from a long and only OK show. Strowman hits his running shoulder tackle on the outside twice, but Rollins sidesteps him on the third one. Strowman crashes through an announce table, and Rollins hits dual suicide dives. The two end up fighting on the turnbuckle, and Strowman eventually hits a frogsplash from the top. Props.

We get a light, polite "this is awesome" chant. Rollins locks in a sleeper hold but Strowman rolls out. Rollins hits a curbstomp for a one count. He hits another for a two count. A third stomp for another two count. Rollins goes for a fourth but Strowman counters, hoisting him up for a powerslam. Strowman's leg gives out, Rollins nails a pedigree and then a final curbstomp for the pin.

After the match Rollins is attacked by Bray Wyatt, aka The Fiend. They'll wrestle next month at Hell in a Cell.

Rating: 3.5 stars. Very similar to SummerSlam's main event between Rollins and Brock Lesnar, but not as good. Suffered from a flat crowd, but still a solid main event. 

Erick Rowan beats Roman Reigns (!) 

Not much to this match. It's no DQ, so it's just a bunch of brawling outside the ring. Rowan has improved his intensity a great deal, but the crowd doesn't buy him as a threat to Reigns. Which is a shame, because the match was just Rowan beating down Reigns, trying to convince the audience he's a threat to Reigns.

One moment did impress the crowd. On the outside, Reigns jumps from the steel stairs for an elevated Superman Punch, but Rowan counters by grabbing him by the throat and pulling him up for a huge powerbomb through an announcer's table. This gets Rowan a 2 count. 

Match ends when a returning Luke Harper blocks a spear attempt from Reigns. Harper and Rowan double team Reigns. Rowan gets the win.

Rating: 1.5 star. Cool powerbomb spot and it's awesome that Luke Harper, who is awesome, is back. Other than that, this was not good. 

Kofi Kingston retains his WWE Championship

Orton and Kingston start slow. This is likely because they're following a hot match and want to restart the crowd, but it's also vintage Orton. 

The wrestling here is actually very tight. The two exchange snug shots, and Orton ends up bumping Kingston out of the ring. He then follows up with suplexes all around the outside area, including two on the announce table.

The pace slows down though as Orton picks apart Kingston. Eventually Kingston mounts a comeback, but it's not a particularly vigorous one. He goes for a Trouble in Paradise, but Orton counters with a nice neckbreaker. Kingston gets some of that missing fire, though, with a huge over-the-top-rope dive.

Orton regains control and there's more slow-paced dissection. He sets up an RKO but Kingston counters into a rollup. Kingston starts a comeback but is cut off with an RKO outta' nowhere. Kingston gets a foot on the rope at 2. Orton goes for his infamous punt but Kingston dodges and nails a Trouble in Paradise to retain.

Rating: 3 stars. A lot of nice wrestling here, but nothing remarkable. 

Sasha Banks beats Becky Lynch via DQ

Crowd reacts big to Lynch, and is more into this match than the last few. Lynch starts out on top, but once Banks gets control the crowd breaks out into loud "Let's go Sasha!/Let's go Becky!" dueling chants.

After Banks worked over Lynch for some heat, Lynch mounts a comeback. She gets cut off in spectacular fashion though, with Banks countering a flying clothesline with a Banks Statement submission. Lynch powers out and hits an exploder suplex. Crowd has been more quiet, but wakes up with more dueling chants.

The two women trade submissions in the center of the ring, Banks going for the Banks Statement and Lynch the Disarmer armbar. Lynch ends up on top, getting her submission, but Banks gets her foot on the rope. Good stuff here. Banks nails double backstabbers and rolls Lynch into a Banks Statement for an intense false finish, but Lynch gets the rope break.

Banks villains it up, tossing in a chair to distract the ref and then, while the ref isn't looking, hitting Banks in the torso with another chair. She follows up with a shining wizard for a two count. The ref accosts Banks for using a chair and then Lynch takes a chair herself and swings for Banks, but Banks ducks and Lynch hits the ref. 

The two then brawl into the crowd. Lynch uses the stair rails to put Banks in a Disarmer armbar, which was gnarly. Banks and Lynch brawl into the backstage area, where Lynch smears Banks with mustard, and eventually come back to the ring. We're told by Michael Cole that Lynch has been disqualified for hitting the ref. Cool. Inside the ring Lynch destroys Banks with a chair.

Rating: 3.5 stars. A very good match with a weak finish. In fairness, Lynch looked like a badass babyface tearing apart Banks and leaving as a defiant champion, but that's in spite of an uninspired ending.

screen-shot-2019-09-16-at-11-03-51-am

Still the champ.

WWE

Shinsuke Nakamura retains the Intercontinental Championship

After The Miz' entrance, Sami Zayn comes out to berate the audience, talk smack about The Undertaker and to introduce Shinsuke Nakamura. It sucks that Zayn is a manager, because he's such a terrific wrestler, but he is a fantastic manager. 

Nakamura and The Miz open with some chain wrestling. Zayn immediately takes the mic and starts commentating from the side. After about 30 seconds of amazing commentating, Zayn's mic gets cut off. 

Miz works over Nakamura's leg throughout the match, leading up to a Figure Four submission that gets a nice pop thanks to this being Charlotte, North Carolina, aka Flair Country. Nakamura grabs the ropes to break up the pin. Zayn distracts Miz, allowing Nakamura to his a modified Kinshasa to the back of Miz' head for a 2 count. Miz regains control and nails a Skill Crushing Finale, but Zayn distracts the ref.

Ending comes as Miz chases Zayn around the ring. Nakamura cuts him off, then hits a Kinsasha in the ring for the win.

Rating: 3.25 stars. This match had a slow start, got very good towards the end but had a finish that made The Miz look dumb. Miz's offense also looked weak at points. 

Nikki Cross and Alexa Bliss retain Women's Tag Titles

Alexa Bliss comes out with a Harley Quinn-inspired look tonight.

Nikki Cross starts the match with Mandy Rose, who after some taunting from Cross tags in Sonya Deville. Eventually Rose is back in the ring against Bliss. Some sloppy stuff here, some of Bliss' forearms and slaps look great but there was some conspicuous mishaps too. The two were at some points a second or two out of sync. 

R-Truth runs into the ring and is chased by the 24/7 Championship crowd for a quick distraction. Bliss tries to rollup Truth, but he kicks out and runs into the crowd. This sentence must be completely incomprehensible to someone who doesn't regularly watch Raw.

Deville and Rose hit a double-team move on Bliss, but the pin was broken up by Cross. Bliss tags in Cross, Cross scores the pin on Rose after a top-rope neckbreaker. 

Rating: 2 stars. Not bad, a well laid out match (except for the 24/7 distraction), but there was a lot of sloppy wrestling here and the crowd wasn't particularly interested.

The Revival defeats The New Day

The Revival are awesome and The New Day very good, but these teams are struggling to get the crowd alive. The New Day dominate until The Revival out Xavier Woods and double team Big E. The crowd did wake up when Big E, after around 5 minutes of being beaten down, tagged in Woods. 

Woods runs wild on The Revival, but is cut off when he gets kicked in his injured leg. Big E comes in for a nice sequence that ends up with The Revival hitting a Shatter Machine on the outside. Scott Dawson and Dash Wilder then pick apart Woods in the ring and nail him with a Shatter Machine. They could go for a pin but decide to work over Woods' leg more.

Dawson puts Woods in a submission lock and Woods taps out.

Rating: 2.75 stars. Some nice wrestling here, but the middle section of the match felt plodding and the crowd, though sporadically invested, on the whole wasn't super into it. 

Bayley retains her SmackDown Women's Championship

Flair opens hot with a big boot to Bayley, who then retreats out of the ring. Flair chases Bayley around and, back in the ring, hits her with some chops and some snug-looking strikes. Outside the ring Flair throws Bayley into the ringside barricades. Pretty gnarly looking. Here the crowd pipes up with a "Let's go Charlotte!" chant. 

Flair starts working over Bayley's leg. The story of the match so far is that Flair is murdering Bayley. Bayley reteats to the corner and the ref stops Flair from keeping the offense up. Bayley takes the bottom turnbuckle padding off, pulls Charlotte into it in an illegal move and, surprisingly, gets the 1-2-3. 

After the match Bayley legs it to the back.

Rating: 2.5 stars. This match actually told a coherent story. Flair was killing Bayley, who blatantly cheated to retain her title. The hero looks strong, the villain looks evil. It was too short to be a great or even good match, but was solid for what it was.

Robert Roode and Dolph Ziggler are Raw Tag Champions

Good opening match here. It opens with Strowman dominating both Roode and Ziggler, then tagging in Rollins. Ziggler turns the tide with a wicked DDT on Rollins outside the ring. The crowd was a little quiet at the beginning, but really got into the match as the bad guys kept cutting off Rollins from tagging in Strowman. 

Big pop when Strowman gets tagged in. He runs wild -- literally running Ziggler and Roode down on the outside -- but Ziggler rakes his eyes and double teams him with Roode. Eventually Strowman tags in Rollins. Amazing hot tag. This guy was flying all over the place, springboards inside the ring, suicide dives outside, more springboards inside. 

Match ends when Roode sets up a Glorious DDT and Strowman bumps Roode into Rollins. Strowman and Ziggler take a tumble outside, and Roode hits a DDT on Rollins for the win. 

Robert Roode, bottom of the card a month ago, pins the Universal Champion.

Rating: 3.5 stars. Slow start, but ultimately a solid match with a very good final few minutes. 

screen-shot-2019-09-16-at-9-22-05-am

Your new tag champs. 

WWE

Preshow results

AJ Styles defeats Cedric Alexander in a United States Championship match: The first surprise of the night is that this match was on the preshow. Styles beats Alexander in a 5-minute match.

Drew Gulak retains the Cruiserweight Championship: Gulak beats Humberto Carrillo and Lince Dorado in a triple-threat match.


Source

Search This Blog

Menu Halaman Statis

close