Making it a Facebook app would have largely defeated the point. The impact is made greater by removing the data from the context of Facebook entirely and putting it up somewhere else in another context.

I agree with the notion that Google is riding it's legacy of taking search from something that was literally an impossible problem to solve to something that was instant. It earned every bit of that, but search has entered a new era.

Bing is now competing at the forefront, which is taking search from finding results in an index to finding answers to questions and solving problems. "Decision engine" is a bit overhyped, but it's the right direction to move in, in my opinion. This is a good thing, because Bing and Google will push each other.

I generally refer friends and people I know to Bing because they tend to treat search engines like a natural language processor, or as a companion that can help them answer questions and solve problems.

Google is still (much) more effective if your Google-fu is powerful, but if it's not, Bing can be a bit friendlier and better at getting you to what you want to see.

I don't think we're going to see this blow up like the iPhone app store. I don't think people are crazy for apps - they are crazy for mobile apps. The mobile platform offers a specific set of benefits and drawbacks that makes it ideal for the app explosion we've seen:

- Location awareness
- Accelerometer functionality
- Forward and/or rear-facing cameras
- The novelty and utility of the web in your pocket
- Bandwidth limitations and limitations imposed by the form factor, reducing the utility of what's possible in the browser and raising the relative value of proprietary applications designed for the form factor

In my head, the average Apple fan's interaction with the store will be something like the following: "Awesome, a new app store for my desktop/laptop! Let's check it out.... oh. I guess I don't really need any apps because Safari already gets me everywhere I need to go, and rest of these aren't apps, they're just programs." People aren't as likely to pick up cheap distractions and website-replacement apps for a desktop or laptop. Maybe it will make them more likely to purchase higher-priced software, but this isn't going to be another "app revolution."

Instead of treating the students like small children, why not let them decide what works best for them?

Keep the laptops, keep the wifi.

Explain to students that there aren't many professional work environments that ban either, so they need to get used to managing their own usage, and get used to people around them doing things on their laptops. It's an opportunity for people who have problems with either or both to learn that if they can't rein in their attention, they're going to fail at class, at work and at life.

For those that say that it's not the job of the class to teach these lessons, I agree - it's simply the students' job to take control of their own life. It's no different than someone tailgating you on the freeway or cutting in front of you in line. University classrooms are learning environments and professors and TAs should help enforce that, but they aren't surrounded by some magical force field that entitles you to a guardian angel when you walk in.

If Joe Laptop won't turn off Netflix or Quake Live, grow a pair and ask them to turn it off, or just get up and move. Don't sit next to him next time. If your classroom has become a LAN party with every student except for you participating, talk to the TA or professor after class and ask them to help. It is their responsibility to help ensure that you have an opportunity to learn; it's not their job to guarantee that you'll have a private fort wherever you decide to sit.

This post is the winner.

Split-screen gaming is dying because it sucks. I would love to get a great multiplayer FPS or racing experience on one screen for the convenience of it, but it's just not going to happen.

I think there's lots of space in the market for more 2-4 player "same screen" games, and I wish developers would make more of them.

Sure. Lower the price on your service to compensate, since it's now worth less, and I'll consider.

What's that? You're going to keep the same prices and institute restrictions? No thanks.

I don't think they misunderstand so much as they don't care. With half a billion users that flinch for a day or two every time some new feature is released and then settle into it like it's always been a vital part of their lives, I can hardly blame them. The company is there to make money and make a dent in the universe, and they can't do either if people turn off all the features they introduce.

Now we're just a hop and a skip away from "Once users are banned from browsing non-Google-approved websites or attempting to use non-Google services, security, usability and more are improved."

For those that always say "but you can modify it!" or "well you don't have to use it" (the latter of which is true even for Apple's iEcosphere), that doesn't address the problem. The problem is that a whole lot of people will see the convenience and the stability and they won't modify it and they will use it, making the whole concept of walled gardens and lockin more popular among consumers who want ease (as opposed to choice) and companies who want to make money. Large groups of people will forget that they ever had a choice to begin with. I'm not trying to evoke 1984 here or say that we're all going to be slaves to Google, but in the world of consumer technology right now, the leading idea that is getting the most users and making the most money is "step into the [Apple/Microsoft/Google/Facebook] world and bask in the luxury of having everything work together and not having to make choices."

Just like the old adage about privacy and security, is it worth trading choice for convenience?

I agree. Pen and paper, tablets, smartphones, etc. are all portable, but civilization still has desks, offices and workplaces for a reason.

As it turns out, when asked, all 774,651 people were "just trying out to see how it was before they bought it."

Copyright Apple 1976-2010

I'm going to have to ask you to step back into the Free Speech Zone before making any more comments like that.

No shit; everyone assumes it's a time traveler from 2010 with 2010 technology just because the footage was discovered recently.

It's obviously a hearing aid, but from the perspective of "it might be a time traveler," for all we know it's someone from the year 30,000 with a radio that transmits and receives time-traveling transmissions.