Yes, this is an attack on Google, and has little to do with being "pro-consumer".

I keep seeing this presented as an attack on Google, but it seems to me that it would help Google more than it would hurt it. Consider this: If you're logged into a Google service they can (and will) still track you. With Google's new privacy policy it doesn't matter which service you're logged in to. So if you use Google Docs, Gmail, YouTube, etc. and don't log out every time you do a Google search you'll be getting tracked regardless. Hell, a lot of people have to be logged in to Google services just to get work done now.

So who's going to end up not tracking you with this setting? Ad networks that don't have the sticky-apps that Google does. Will Google lose some data? Yes. But the other guys will lose more and Google's ads (relatively speaking) will perform better as a result.

Microsoft has managed to weather several OS flops (Windows Me anyone?) thanks to their domination of the market, but with Android gadgets and iPhones becoming pervasive can they pull it off again?

In a world where gadgets replace personal computers does Windows 8 or 9 even matter? Wouldn't Windows Phone be the relevant operating system? It's not like if Windows 9 is suddenly amazing, people are going to start shoving laptops in their pockets.

I'm going back to the Blackberry now that amateur hour is starting!

They have to be aware that 3D is failing in the marketplace around the rest of the world (looking at 3D movie attendance, Nintendo 3DS sales numbers, 3D TV sales figures, etc.), so my question is: Why are they jumping on this ship now?

It's tough to be the middleman... Netflix stands between the consumers and the content providers, but streaming video is rapidly becoming a commodity, so no doubt the content providers will get greedy and decide they want to own the whole thing end to end. I'm sure they'll ignore the amazing feat Netflix has accomplished (namely getting people to pay for streaming content online) and attempt to set up their own sites with onerous terms (pay-per-view with 24 hours to start) and high monthly rates, then be all surprised when no one signs up and start claiming piracy is destroying their business.

The "summary" makes it sound like a port is available now, and then throws in an iPad comparison that's nowhere in the original article. From TFA:

"Figure this will take a good long while. Keep your expectations very low and for now enjoy WebOS..."

and my favorite...

"Further complicating the initiative, some of the developers don't yet have TouchPads."

So this is 3 guys planning a porting effort of an older version of Android. (Google hasn't released the source code to Honeycomb yet.) Also from TFA:

"Still, people who bought it took a risk, since it's not clear if HP will continue to develop the operating system."

Really, that's not clear? You think HP might be planning major OS updates for a tablet they just fire-saled?

So there have been a number of articles about how the 3DS (with an actual 3D screen) is having a hard time competing against the iPhone. Sony's entry? Basically the same specs as an iPhone 4. Yeah the Vita has a faster cpu and hardware buttons, but it also has a lower resolution screen and the games will be more expensive. Needless to say all the rumors point to a new iPhone being released in the next few weeks which would probably close the gap on the cpu. Are hardware controls really going to sell $40 games?

So let me get this straight... A free update makes the game look better by using new DirectX11 features, but the whole article is criticizing the game for using a hardware technology (that's only just starting to appear in game engines), in a way that isn't as optimized as they would like? Are gamers feeling that entitled these days? If you speculatively purchase a faster hardware, it's not anybody's obligation to write software to push it to the limit you know.

Why does Mozilla keep treating Firefox like it's something they need to apologize for? Firefox has the best add-ons out there, hands down. And it's been around for years. Why are they acting like Chrome and others are setting the standards now? Why do they act like they're in some kind of pissing contest with Google? Google is the one with something to prove here, not Mozilla.

Maybe because 85% of Mozilla's funding comes from Google.