To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Yeah, I know it's unrealistic. That's kinda my point: this is a device that's pretty much only useful during the five minutes a day that I'm sitting on the toilet. I'm not paying even $200 for a device that I'll use all of five minutes a day. Especially not while my paper magazine subscriptions are still supported -- archaic tech tho they are!
That's even part of the point of the article! Just creating a really neat piece of tech isn't enough: they have to make it cheap enough that people who will only use it for half an hour a day or less will be willing to pay for it! Edit: and I highly doubt they can, because that price point is probably a lot lower than what it'll cost Apple to make the device.
Edited 2010-01-22 17:06 UTC




Member since:
2009-02-19
I agree completely: if we can fawn over how incredibly shiny the Apple logo on the back is going to be, we can point out that, for most people to buy it, it probably needs to cost less than $200 (at least, that's what it'd take for me, given the very limited use I'd actually have for such a device).