Are you really trying to argue against increasing the odds that abuse of police power will be caught and recorded?

I'm unconvinced. You have a lot more confidence in Congress' ability to take action than I do. Especially on a topic that pretty much guarantees that a public brouhaha would end badly for congress. I can see the complaints now: "You nitpicked Google, but you approved the Patriot Act?" It seems pretty clear to me that the government has no credibility from which to try to advocate privacy without first starting from within. And frankly, I think we need products like Google Glass to ensure that more unanticipated events can be caught on camera. Cops abusing their power, transactions with lying customer service reps, and I recently had wait-staff who probably could have used this, etc. These are more important topics than whether someone gets a picture of you in the gym locker room.

This was from eight members of Congress. Eight. I don't see that Google has much to be worried about from 8 congressmen out of 435.

Ah, then I think we are in agreement.

I think perhaps you misunderstood my niche comment. I was referring to two industries where getting a "niche" is like guaranteeing yourself a future. Now that airlines are using a device in the cockpit, it will be there until Hell freezes over. And have you tried getting nurses to change anything in how they do things? Get 'em on a tablet and they'll fight any other change tooth-and-nail.

Yes, exactly my point.

You're confusing a concept and a business model. It's a good concept and a bad business model. Create industry standards for strong security and it simply becomes part of the next generation of "shiny devices" instead of a niche.

Interesting timing, mentioning Gtalk right as the product was merged with Hangouts. I am still wondering why they didn't merge Wave into Talk, and when they will roll Voice into the new Hangouts now that they're promising SMS messaging as an upcoming feature.

Your point?

One might think so initially. But they're naive if they think they will be able to compete with existing and future products that offer the same services either as a package or a la carte and do it either cheaper or for free (and probably even better).

Even if tablets do "take over" as a primary computing device, I very much doubt they will be much more than interfaces to some kind of cloud service at that point.

I see what you're trying to say with the bold text, but the issue isn't that there is a need in some select cases.

Until such a day as RIM brings something that makes them more exciting than a trip to the dentist, they'll continue to lose anyone who doesn't absolutely have to have their specific features. That's no way to stay afloat in the mobile device market today, and their users will be essentially abandoned by the market.

I think to a certain extent some people know that the Internet in some countries is filtered, and that it could lead at any point to "social" products being blocked. Blackberry Messenger on the other hand would seem a less likely candidate.

I think if the tablet market dies, it will die because of the gigantic phone that doubles as a tablet market. Really though, tablets are not a standalone device. They're an accessory and a document viewer. They've found a niche in a lot of industries that have been clamoring for a basic digital reader. Airlines and medical have been dabbling in iPads, and shipping companies have been using such devices for a long time. I doubt tablets will ever take over computing, but I think they'll have a place for many years to come.