Many IT professionals including myself feel that IPv6 is a joke and is unnecessary in most practical scenarios. Arguments I tend to throw out on face value are "why not IPv6?" and "we're running out of IPv4 addresses". Keep NAT'ing IPv4 until the cows come home - no one except tech geeks will really care if we do.

"If Ikon goes off-line it will assume that there has been a catastrophe and will initiate launch on its own." -General Vostov

All this speculation about iThis and iThat is premature - this could be nothing more than a new foray into the new market known as cloud computing. Big bets suggest there is money to be made, though I'm not sure anyone has figured out the market enough yet to know how to make it. The very young cloud computing space is already crowded with the likes of Amazon, Intuit, Google, Salesforce, Microsoft, and the list goes on. So it looks like here comes one more in Apple for the giant cage match. Like a lot of new areas of competition it will be interesting to see who buys which operation, which ones fail, and who is left standing at the end.

I have four young children and almost everything we listen to or watch is stored digitally and instantly available. When they grow up it will be hard for them to imagine having to put anything physical into a unit in order to watch it or listen to it. The main exception is the current generation of game consoles, but I anticipate the next generation of consoles making everything available via download (at least optionally). Heck, with DVR they already struggle to understand if what they want to watch isn't available right this second.

Apple by controlling the OS and hardware out of the starting gate had it right. Microsoft learned it the hard way after years of unsupportable carrier-specific hacks of their Windows Mobile OS, culminating in a much more rigidly defined Windows Mobile 7. Phones that are difficult to upgrade and that cannot run software that runs on other similar phones hurts brand loyalty. If Google wants to retain loyal customers in the mobile market, they are going to have to consolidate these variants and force a single, portable, upgradable OS like Apple and Microsoft are doing.

Legitimate mathematical philosophies of finitism or ultrafinitism invalidate any 0.999...=1 proofs before they can even begin.

...and neither will the majority of TV-watchers. Tech-geeks and videophiles might buy special equipment to do an otherwise simple everyday task, but those groups make up niche markets.

All of the apps on any TVs I have personally used have been sluggish and slow to respond. Hooking a computer/media center/game console up to the TV and using apps hosted on those devices has always resulted in a much more pleasant experience for me and my friends. I doubt the introduction to Google apps on TVs will make an impact on anything.

IIRC it wasn't long after the original superbowl ads that we knew everything from the looks and implied specs were not going to be met. I would have seriously considered buying the car they showed in the original ads - an electric (or hybrid) vehicle with looks to match was promising. The final form looks as blah as a Prius or Civic Hybrid, so no thanks. (and yes, I'm shallow that I care what the car looks like more than I care about MPGs)

If you are a one man show developing for a large company, I'm afraid the choice of browser is not yours to make. While compatability is nice, the common case that will use your application is the company standard browser so you better make sure your code runs really well on that.