This page explains how m1k.tech works: who pays for what, where review units come from, how I source claims and how I fix mistakes. If something here stops being true, I’ll update the page and the date at the bottom.
A side project, not a business
m1k.tech is a personal project I run on my own time, alongside an activity outside the tech media industry. It doesn’t pay me. There’s no salary, no sponsored content, no affiliate links, and no advertising. Nobody but me decides what gets covered, and nobody pays to publish a post.
Review units and brand relationships
Some of the hardware I write about comes from brands. Here’s exactly how that works.
Loaned units. Through brand community and ambassador programs, I sometimes receive devices on loan. When the review period ends, I return them to the brand.
Units I keep. Some brands let reviewers keep the device after the review. When that’s the case, the post says so.
Devices I buy. I pay for everything else with my own money.
Every review states which of these applies, near the top of the post, before the review itself.
Whatever the arrangement, a few things never change. No brand pays for coverage. No brand sees, reviews, or approves a post before it’s published. I honor embargoes, which means I publish at the time a brand sets, but an embargo decides when I publish, never what I conclude. The conclusions are mine, and I’ve published critical reviews of products from brands I have relationships with.
If a brand ever pays for travel or accommodation to an event I cover, the post will say so.
Illustrations
Article illustrations are generated with AI in the site’s visual style. Any name, number, or date that appears in an illustration comes from the article it sits on and is checked against it before publishing. If an error gets through anyway, it’s treated like any other mistake, as described below.
Sources
Reporting on m1k.tech leans on primary material: earnings filings, launch presentations, regulatory texts, technical papers and specification sheets, rather than secondhand coverage of them. When I rely on another outlet’s reporting, I name it. When a claim can’t be verified against a primary source, the post says so, and leaks and unconfirmed reports are labeled as such. Posts list their sources at the end.
Corrections
When I get something wrong, I try to fix it in the post and add a dated note at the bottom saying what changed. For example:
Update, October 4, 2026: An earlier version of this post said the chip has 12 CPU cores. It has 10.
I don’t quietly change facts after publishing. If a mistake affects the conclusion, the note says so, and the headline is corrected too if it carried the error. Typos and formatting fixes don’t get a note.
Spotted something wrong? Email me at mike@m1k.tech.
Contact
Questions about this policy, corrections or review requests: mike@m1k.tech.
Last updated: October 4, 2026