Linked by Cymro on Thu 21st Jan 2010 22:35 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 405484
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-02-19
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