No one I know would be interested in a device dedicated to a single provider's service. Everyone I know who uses Internet-based delivery for some of their media uses more than one source, and none of them would have any desire to have multiple devices. Perhaps if this was the only way to consume Amazon's video offering... but it isn't.

There's already a number of devices (Roku, PS3, XBox, a variety of DVD/Blu-Ray players, etc.) that allow access to Amazon's Instant Video as well as Netflix and a host of other media services. I can't see how Amazon thinks it's a good idea to compete with that.

It's not only jailbreaking that lets you get around Apple's app restrictions (and I wouldn't rely on it, since jailbreaking gets harder with each release); you can also write an HTML5 app. The only restrictions are what the OS allows HTML5 apps to access. The overwhelming majority of App Store apps I've seen would work just fine as an HTML5 app -- only the more graphically-intense games or things that rely on direct access to hardware features even need to be native.

It has to go through Apple. I needs to meet Apples arbitrary corporate 'standard'

Only if it's a native app. If it's an HTML5 app, then you can make it available -- and installable -- instantly with no review from Apple. The only problem is that the HTML5 apps don't give you access to the complete capabilities of the device.

There's no doubt that the iPad is optimized as a consumption machine. But I think the focus on the walled App Store is a little misleading. It's true that creating and sharing a native iOS app is onerous -- but Apple has excellent support for offline-capable, "installable" HTML5-based apps. People seem to forget that a lot

Now, I'm not saying that the good support for HTML5 apps absolves Apple of the problems with the App Store; but it does mean that saying "you can't use an iPad to create and share an app with your friends" is inaccurate.

It's poorly-phrased. I think that the author meant that people found it strange that when these two collaborated again, they used students from Gates' "model school" as an example of failure.

I mean, a slightly different interface, but substantially the same. And Google killed that product; why do we think this time around will be better?

Well, Google's interest is certainly in getting data; but they wouldn't be able if there weren't a market for it. Why? I don't just use one device, so I want easy, transparent access to my data no matter what I'm using. And some of my devices are quite tiny; I don't want to lose my data when I lose my device, so I'd at least want some kind of automatic remote backup...

Not to mention that things like Evernote do a lot of processing on the data you send them that would be onerous on a portable device. For example, if I snap a pic of a business card, the text on that card is OCR'd and made searchable. That would suck hard on a phone; it's much easier to offload that capability (and corpus!) to the cloud. This saves me precious battery and improves the quality of my results.

The issue isn't network-based computing, it's that we don't have the controls in place to assert control of our data on a provider's equipment; we are forced to trust that they won't do Bad Things. And that's a problem.

Maybe some compensation for all that personal data and advertising revenue they got from his use of Gmail? It's not like Gmail is provided at no value to Google (same with Reader, actually).

OOXML has some serious problems, but "proprietary" isn't really one of them. OOXML is actually two standards: OOXML Transitional and OOXML Strict. OOXML Strict is, by most accounts, a reasonable standard -- some bits open enough to interpretation that there will still be some problems between implementations, but HTML has the same issues.

OOXML Transitional, on the other hand, is filled with specified items that are just holdovers from MS's native implementation(s) of Office file formats. This is, more-or-less, the original submission from MS, and it was roundly rejected on its own. OOXML Strict solved enough of the problems that the standards bodies were willing to accept the dual standard -- OOXML Transitional used only for documents that are converted from old formats, and OOXML Strict used for new documents.

The problem with corporate-sponsored standards, though, is that the sponsoring organization usually has the first or leading implementation -- and the implementation itself becomes more of a de facto standard than the published standard. In the case of OOXML, Microsoft shipped OOXML-Transitional capable systems pretty quickly. But they still haven't shipped a product that reliably writes OOXML Strict documents (though Office 2013 does read such documents accurately).

Because the leading implementation is so... odd... the other "big players" haven't made a significant commitment to OOXML.

This is why I hate science reporting. This kind of study exists entirely to obtain funding for higher-quality research. But it's getting reported as though it were conclusive. The way research of most types works is that you do a cheap, low-quality study that tells you whether there's an interesting enough thing happening to warrant a more-expensive, more-thorough study. In this case, the conclusion is basically "hey, it's possible that caffeine intake might be a factor in glaucoma; we should really do more than just case review and self-reporting to see if it's real." But all we're going to hear about from the media now is how coffee makes you blind.

I've been trying to stay out of politics lately, but my ethics and concern for my country require me to reply to your posts.

In the last decade or so (after 9/11, not coincidentally) there has been a rash of cult-like right-wing nationalism and tribal "us versus them". It existed prior to this millennium, but it's been getting worse, and more concerning. The rhetoric is, in my opinion, becoming dangerous and increasingly ridiculous, and if not checked, may lead to severe consequences for our nation and the world.

You can't reason with a cult member, and likewise, with an ultra-nationalist or conspiracy theorist. The best you can hope for is that a method of cult recovery "deprogramming" comes along, or that a significant shift in the dialog marginalizes the cult.

Still, even though you won't, I encourage you (and anyone reading this who thinks as you do) to step back, get a look at the big picture, and try making friends with some people outside your echo chamber, before your rantings move any further from merely extreme into the "bat-guano insane" category. Sorry for being so blunt, but this is what conservatives would call "tough love".

For the record:

Obama is not a socialist communist fascist Muslim Brotherhood member of the Trilateral U.N. Knights Templar.

Progressives/Liberals are not your enemy, nor are they the enemy of the state. They merely favor a different approach than you do for government's role in society. They do NOT believe any less than you do in freedom or democracy. Deal with it.

When teachers make as much as military contractors or wall street traders, you can talk to me about teacher's unions. Until then, no dice.

Despite your signature's attempt to demean the concept, some ideas ARE so good they need to be mandatory. I'm sure you've heard that absolute freedom destroys freedom (it's true). Your freedom to pollute the air must knuckle to my freedom to breathe clean air, and so on.

Really, my friend, come down out of the trees. And ask some of your friends to turn off the hate mongers on the TV and radio, and come down out of the trees with you. Please do it soon, so we can avoid the less pleasant consequences that are coming if this radical polarization and crazy fear mongering continues. You don't need lots of guns and ammo. You need balance.

Architecture that facilities a man in the middle attack (which is essentially what this does) is just asking for trouble. Skype used to have a pretty impressive peer to peer encryption design. No longer, I guess.

This is bad if law enforcement uses it illicitly. It's worse if some Skype/Microsoft employees go rogue, or if a hacker breaks into the infrastructure. I mean, you're baking insecurity right into the design of the frickin' product. What could go wrong?

I wonder sometimes if big brother is going to knock on the door tomorrow and stick a monitoring device right up my backside.

The 13 years are those for which we have records. When the Earth was covered with lava, I don't think anyone had a thermometer, smarty pants.

The vast majority of scientists in the applicable field believe the Earth is warming. If you don't believe it, that's your problem.

The vast majority of those scientists believe that the warming is being significantly accelerated by human processes, and that the trend line is far sharper than standard climatic cycles would ordinary produce. If you don't believe it, that's your problem.

Most outcome predictions based on the rate of change we're seeing include massive effects on humanity. If you don't believe it, that's your problem.

But sadly, you are our problem. People who, despite growing evidence, fail to grasp the urgency of the matter will be our collective downfall. Even though I tend to get very frustrated at the ignorance, I've pretty much just come to accept it. The thing that really ticks me off is that my children will suffer because of people like you, spreading the "it's not that bad" schtick.

And by the way, industry can mean a lot of things. A clean energy industry would be awesome.

It's unbelievable. I object to this crap on so many different levels:

First, nations have little control over the laws in other nations. The UK, for instance, has scant control over the insane copyright laws in the US. But they are considering extraditing one of their citizens to the US for allegedly breaking those laws. What if some other country makes it illegal to look at an image of a woman with an uncovered face? Will the US extradite me to that nation for breaking their "laws"? Where does it end?

Second, it's old news that copyright and patent laws in the US have long strayed past their constitutional purpose. In fact, at this point, it's well established that the laws actually act counter to, rather than in support of, the intent of Article 1, section 8. How much longer will we blindly assent to this?

Lastly, we are in a bad economy, and the government is flailing for resources. Especially in that situation, I don't want them spending my tax dollars to extradite and prosecute someone for breaking stupid laws on behalf of tainted, greedy and evil corporations. There are much better ways to use our Justice Dept. monies.

Really, stop the madness. It's gotten so bad I don't even know where to begin working to make it better. I suppose a donation to the EFF is a good start.

In other words, as it has been since time immemorial, IT decisions are being made without completing full due diligence. Including understanding and planning for support, training, and related costs.