They've done it before--ADB.

One issue, though, is how long would Apple maintain both? Yeah, Apple dumped 68K for PowerPC, but they also stopped developing PowerPC. When Apple switched to Intel, they stopped doing things for PowerPC.

They could probably switch the iPad Air to Intel. But what about the iPhone? Apple--and 3rd party developers--would probably end up supporting both ARM and Intel for several more years in iOS.

Yes, but it is the Internet. Thus, you must have a car analogy.

Your 1993 Escort Wagon is a fun example. It's got some extra room for carrying grass seed or lots of groceries. It gets good gas mileage. As a 1993 vehicle, it probably produces more smog than a newer vehicle. It has no torque, so you don't want tow anything uphill with it.

But it hits a certain sweet spot--it does everything you want a car to do.

By your original statement, I would have one car for going fast. I would have another car for carrying groceries. I would have a third car for towing a boat or carrying heavy things. Realstically, that's not going to happen because cars are too expensive.

But do I want four different devices? Do I want desktop with a nice big screen and high-performance for working at home, a laptop for working on the go, a tablet for light-tasks while I sit on the couch, and a phone for when I'm out and about? A company like Apple, of course, says that's exactly what I want and they are more than willing to sell me each of those devices.

What Microsoft is trying to do is find that sweet spot that, in a car, is filled by your 1993 Escort Wagon. Something that will satisfy the largest number of people. A jack of all trades and a master of none, if you will.

When I was in high school, they were remodeling three out of the four years I was there. Somehow, we all managed to survive. It did mean that some kids had to share lockers with their friends and the "class corridor" (i.e., senior corridor, freshman corridor) system sort of broke down as people tried to snag lockers where they could.

Which is fine--if you're not one of the millions of people.

Back in the late 90s, my roommate went back to Vietnam to visit some friends. She went back to the house she grew up in and discovered that almost all of the people who lived there had moved away. Why? Because the street they lived on was across from a hospital and it was tough for the ambulances to get in. So the government decided they were going to widen the street. So they told everybody, "Hey, we're widening the street and you may end up losing the front 6 feet from your house. Sorry about that." No wasting money buying property or law-suits or anything like that. Just a "You're fucked. Move on."

Of course, there's not much for disclosure rules, either. So what everybody did was sell their place to the next sucker in line and get out fast. Of course, once those people found out, they did the same thing.

What's funny is that had been going on for three years. The government still hadn't shown up to widen the street. In fact, when she went back in 2012, they still hadn't widened the street.

I kinda like that part of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution about "[...] nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Yeah, it does gum up the works for worthwhile infrastructure projects, I agree. But I'd rather not wake up one morning and find the house that I live in is going to be part of a freeway and I'd better move...

That's actually kind of a funny idea...

Step 1: Set Cruise Control to 90 MPH.
Step 2: Activate Lane Control.
Step 3: Exit the vehicle. Yes, I know this is the hard part.
Step 4: Find a local bar and watch the police chase your car.

You might need to place a mannequin or something in the drivers seat...

If one person does it, they'll think he's a traitor.
If two people do it, they'll think they're both faggots.
If three people do it--imagine! Three people walking in, leaking information, and walking out? They'll think it's a terrorist organization.
And can you imagine 50 people walkin' in, leakin' information, and walkin' out?! They'll think it's a terrorist movement!

(Apologies to Arlo Guthrie...)

Yes.

Well, that's sort of the point, isn't it? You don't know what's being stored in there.

I believe Virgin America or Jet Blue allow you to order food from your seat--and you pay with a credit card. I don't remember if they have a credit card swipe at the seat or if you have to give it to the FA. Nowadays, also, they don't necessarily have free movies--you have to pay for them at the seat.

Now is it just taking the credit card info and authorizing immediately and calling itself done? Or is it recording your credit card so that if you order something else--some snacks with your movie, perhaps--you don't need to swipe it again? Or is it holding onto the information and waiting until the flight is over before submitting everybody's charges?

I'll admit, I don't know the answer to this. But I could easily believe that somebody's system holds onto credit card information...

Uh, no, that's baseball.

Dun-dun-dun...

"We can't communicate with the pilots!"
"Why not?"
"Somebody hacked the WiFi network and put 'Plants vs. Zombies' on the pilots' iPads!"

Now we know what happened to MH370...

Credit card data, perhaps? I assume they want you to pay for that infotainment, not to mention any food or drinks you're ordering.

While I don't necessarily disagree with you in regards to the benefits of free downloads, if I wrote the book, shouldn't I be the one who decides how it is going to be distributed and marketed? Or at the very least, someone that I have decided will have that responsibility (i.e., a publisher)?

...and I assume your next complaint will be how inefficient government is and why the hell should you have to pay for inefficient government?!

Actually, it wasn't bad if you had a less powerful Mac. I remember watching videos on my black and white Mac Plus--dithered appropriately to create faux greyscale at 320x240 (since the screen was 512x384, it took up better than half the screen!).

I would love this for my phone.

I am nearsighted. I have no problem reading my phone but I have problems seeing things that are far away. So I wear my glasses when I drive, bike, or go to movies. It's not too bad--I have driven without my glasses by mistake before with no major collisions. I've seen movies without my glasses and I can tell what's happening on the screen. But having glasses on definitely helps.

So if I'm nearsighted, why would I need this?

Because, with my glasses on, I have a hard time focusing on close things--like, say, my phone. Yes, I know, the answer is bifocals. But wouldn't it be cool if my phone could look at my face, go "Oh, look, he's got his glasses on!" and adjust the screen appropriately for my eyes behind the glasses?