i6 reviews
This score is based on 6 genuine reviews submitted via US-Reviews since 2026.
Featured Reviews
Reviews (6)
No reviews yet!
Find companies you have experience with and write reviews about them! Your reviews contribute to a more transparent market and improve the reliability of companies.Charged fast, then silence
I signed up after seeing an ad and paid with Apple Pay — the charge hit my account immediately, which was a little surprising. After that, nothing. I’ve emailed support eight times with screenshots of the Apple receipt, bank proof, my name, email and address. They keep saying they have no record. I tried calling but the line just tells me to email and ends, so that’s useless. Weirdly, the Apple payment note included the company name clearly — small surprise. I’ve had quicker replies from much smaller companies, so this slow/no-response is disappointing. Payment went, service didn’t.
Late trickle, mixed results
I almost didn't sign up because it felt like a flaky deal, but I needed vouchers for my daily commute coffee and quick lunches so I went for it. My doubts stuck around — nothing arrived, the voicemail said leave a message, and I kept calling. When I finally spoke to someone they claimed my postcode wasn't on file (even though the confirmation email existed). In the end a handful of vouchers showed up a week late and they gave me a small refund (that was surprisingly decent). Admin still seems messy and the service uneven, but at least I can use a few vouchers now.
Locked out but still reading
great content, terrible renewal flow — I’m fed up but not ready to cancel yet.
Quietly tilted
positioned as independent, but borrowing content that often carries a clear conservative slant. There’s no follow-up. No fact-check or context that balances the angle. So if you’re casual about your news, you might walk away thinking those views were mainstream — when actually they're just being slipped in.
That said, I was surprised by one thing. Every so often they run a piece that is genuinely balanced. Not often, but it happens. That kept me from writing them off completely. The layout is decent and the app works without fuss, which I appreciate — small wins. But technical polish doesn’t fix editorial choices. If you care about a real mix of perspectives, this won't satisfy you. If you want a light, fast read and don’t mind bias creeping in, you might like it. I’ve had worse experiences with aggregator sites that openly peddle opinions, and to be fair this one isn’t as aggressive. Still, for anyone trying to avoid hidden angles, be cautious. Ownership, sourcing and the absence of rebuttal matter more than slick design.Morning scroll that turned into a decision
wartime conditions, the environment people lived in, trauma. That omission felt careless, like they were chasing clicks instead of explaining anything. I’ve stopped buying certain papers years ago for exactly this tone — I used to read the Daily Mail and then stopped because of the thin, judgmental pieces hidden behind anonymous bylines. So when I saw the iNews piece and then noticed ownership ties on Wikipedia, I felt annoyed, like the same sloppy habits were creeping in. I did something a bit petty and emailed the newsroom asking for sources and context; I expected no reply or a form letter. Instead, within a day there was an editor’s note added saying they’d expand sources and improve context, and the reporter updated the paragraph to reference contemporary scholarship rather than just sensational quotes. That was the moment I felt satisfied — not blissful, but relieved, and a little surprised. It didn’t fix everything, and I’m still wary, and I’ll keep an eye on them, but the prompt, factual response and the visible correction made me feel like my concern mattered and like the outlet can still act responsibly. Small win, but a needed one.
The one good thing that made me stick around
one-sided takes, numbers plucked out of context, and an overall tone that kind of assumed readers wouldn’t look too closely. A piece in the pensions section (you can guess which one) leaned on a university dataset and a retirement-standard report to imply retirees are fine on very little. That might be fine if the study actually included routine costs, but it didn’t, or at least the article didn’t make that clear. So for someone skimming headlines it paints a misleading picture, and that rubbed me the wrong way.
I use this site mainly to keep up with money and retirement news for planning weekend volunteer sessions and helping an older neighbor figure out benefits. When you’re relying on balanced info to make decisions, sloppy or selective reporting matters. I get that not every article is a major policy paper, but a few pieces felt irresponsibly trimmed — important costs left out, qualifiers buried, and follow-up context missing. That’s disappointing.
Still, credit where it’s due: the puzzles kept me coming back. Sounds minor, but after a string of frustrating reads I found myself genuinely entertained by their daily puzzle section. It was the small relief I didn’t expect — a real moment of "okay, this was worth the trial" because it actually hit the mark: quick, well-made, and distraction-friendly while I waited for better journalism. So yeah, I canceled the subscription to the news, but kept a lean, paid puzzle package for my morning coffee routine. That’s where I felt satisfied — simple, practical value that fit into my day.
Overall, I’d warn anyone using this for serious financial guidance to double-check sources and watch for selective framing. If you want light engagement and a decent puzzle break, fine. If you want thorough, balanced reporting on sensitive topics, don’t rely on this as your primary source.
About i
i is a technology brand associated with Apple Inc. Apple designs and sells consumer electronics, including the iPhone smartphone, iPad tablet, and Mac computers, along with related software and digital services. Its products are aimed at individual consumers as well as education, small business, and enterprise customers. Apple also operates retail stores and an online store for direct sales and support.
This information is based on publicly available data and is provided for orientation purposes only.
Details
Contact Information
Categories i
Page Statistics
Last update: March 2026
Advertising notice: Some links are affiliate links. For purchases made through them, we may receive a commission – at no additional cost to you.
Review with most votes
Quietly tilted
positioned as independent, but borrowing content that often carries a clear conservative slant. There’s no follow-up. No fact-check or context that balances the angle. So if you... Read onBy: Marlene Nolan