Many people simply don't believe MS is able to deliver. Trotting out a prototype/development tablet with a fan doesn't inspire a lot of hope. Are they really that far behind that they're still not running on their target CPU architecture, yet?

Wouldn't need much work to weather-proof it.

Looks completely different to even the white iPad, too me.

Then why have all the other manufactures managed to differentiate their design?

Yeah, lets forget for a second that the TouchPad was actually quite a buggy POS -- yet another unfinished product. That wouldn't have anything to do with people still going with the iPad, surely? Normal consumers just love to feel like they're special beta testers for some fancy new tech product!

If they went for $200-$300 at the moment, they'd either have to compromise on hardware, or cut their profits substantially.

Yeah, most of them are probably cheap models. Are those stats international or US only?

The difference between Apple and Tyson is that Tyson did have some reasonable competitors. If you think Apple does, you probably don't really understand why the iPad is so popular.

Not to mention other psychological variables not taken into account for. How on earth is the experiment similar to how people choose and read stories in the real world? They've been put into an experiment, so they are obviously going to behave differently. Did any of them even care about the story they were reading? If so, would they have cared about it as much as a story they had chosen by themselves purely for the purpose of reading? It reminds me of that experiment on free will, ignoring the fact that the participants have volunteered of their own free will to submit their free will for an experiment. At least with that one the people doing the study were measuring specific neurological signs and it was probably someone else who ran with a quack conclusion/interpretation.

You make it sound as if Exxon is the only company interested in developing petroleum products. Exxon is much more replaceable than Apple. How does that make it more important?

I say Apple is way more important that Exxon. There will be plenty of people willing to make some money via the oil industry as it has proven to be quite profitable. There aren't any major tech companies out there doing what Apple does. If Apple were gone, it would just be the sea of Dells and HPs, etc, running Windows, because that's a more proven way to make money than spending years innovating and being content with a small market share until you develop a break-through product that sends your profits soaring.

Jobs has filled Apple with the kind of people he sees fit to be there. Apple isn't Steve Jobs -- that seems like an insult to both Jobs and all the people who work there. He is certainly responsible for making the company into what it is today, but the company would continue do fine without him.

Why upload the video onto the device if you don't yet have the subtitles?

Apple never gave in to anyone with regards to folders and multitasking. I'm sure it was on their road map right from the start. And I'm sure they'll improve the way iOS handles documents, but they won't be introducing the Finder for iOS to do it.

Also, in general, "I can't see why X...", as an argument, only betrays a failure of imagination or empathy in the speaker. Better to explain why X is not a good idea, or why not-X is a good idea.

Or perhaps I just imagine things differently.

My understanding of iCloud is that developers are able to create the same syncing abilities as Apple's apps. So it shouldn't matter if there is a file type that Apple hasn't anticipated. As for multiple apps for the same document, I'm not too sure. I think the idea is more to send a document between apps. I remember seeing something about document management and it seemed much improved in iOS 5, but I can't find it.

I look at it this way: iTunes does what I'd normally do with a file system, and more. Such as keeping smart playlists if you're limited on space. Sure, you could write a script to do that, but I'd rather use the existing script tailored specifically for that purpose that is iTunes. I guess if you're on Linux, it's another story. And also understandable if you have to use iTunes on Windows. But that is more to do with the availability and quality of iTunes than filesystem vs dedicated music manager.

What I mean is, you should never need to resort to having to deal with the file system, which is basically like a manual sync. At least not on a stream-lined device like a tablet. I understand the problem of unanticipated document types, but have you got an example of how that is a problem in practice? If you don't yet have an application installed to make use of a type of document, then why is it so important to be able to upload the file to the device before you install the app to deal with it? It's a problem that "power users" might face, for sure. But if you're a power user, you probably still frequently use a desktop OS, not matter how much you use your tablet.