Geoffrey Sperl

@Grubasaurus Rex: Just this week, I've been comparing the iPad against my Kindle. I'd have to be nuts to go with the iPad for reading - the backlight hurts my eyes after 30 minutes of reading. YMMV, but I suggest playing with your devices of choice before buying one or the other.

Interactive fiction.

That's all I want game-wise on the Kindle.

It's a no-brainer: Infocom worked on all those interactive fiction titles in the 1980s and the vast majority of them were text-only. This is an easy one for Blizzard Activision (they own Infocom's assets at this point) and Amazon... and I can't see why it isn't happening.

I want "Zork" and "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe" text adventure on my Kindle... this shouldn't be difficult!

@tikigawd: You're joking, right? Building the Classic layer into the first versions of OS X to ensure compatibility with old apps? Putting Rosetta into Intel versions of OS X to ensure PPC app compatibility?

The fact that the iPhone's OS can be upgraded is still an abnormality in the mobile phone market, and a 2007 iPhone can still run most apps published in the App Store (the ones that don't have hardware specific requirements). How many mobile phones, across the board, can you say that about?

Apple does a hell of a lot to extend backwards compatibility. It's unrealistic that they should have to make sure old applications run on a brand-new OS just because the user is too cheap to spring for a new version from time-to-time.

@DrScope: TV has always been about what makes the producers and networks money.

Are you honestly saying "I Love Lucy" was "about more then meets the eye, about thinking, learning"? Or Milton Berle? Or Dark Shadows, The Dick Van Dyke Show, Guiding Light, The Tonight Show, etc.?

Come on... there's been some great TV over the decades, no doubt, but you're romanticizing what it is - a business. And you are a consumer.

@Son Goku: I believe I heard Glee state that the feeling is mutual.

Wow... there's a lot of ignorant comments on here. Let's review the Hulu Plus service, shall we?

1) Plus is coming to a boatload of devices, including Samsung devices, the Xbox, and the PS3. This app is for iOS, but the Plus service is not exclusive to iOS.

2) The $10/month is supposedly for access to more video than you get in your web browser currently. They will have to clearly prove themselves there.

3) Again, the $10/month is not to watch the free service on an iOS device.

4) If you (or your parents) pay for cable or satellite, you're already paying for a service that also delivers commercials to your eyeballs.

@KwietStorm: Twitter is free, sure (who knows how long that existence will last).

The others aren't though - if there are ads, it isn't free. You may not be paying out-of-pocket, but your eyeballs are still looking at those ads, which means there are people out there that will continue to pay Hulu, Facebook and Last.fm to advertise their products.

So, if you had to pay $50/year to Sony for PSN and $50/year to Hulu... that's only $100/year. What if most of the shows you watch on cable are on Hulu? What if the fee means you can watch them ad-free?

Honestly, $100/year is far less than most people around here pay Comcast or Charter or whomever for cable per month. If it's coming, and costs a reasonable price, then it might make sense to check it out and not dismiss it just because it could cost some money.

"Risk: Black Ops is beautiful and I promise to care for it, always."

@MaJoR: It's the overly populated areas where it's an issue (NYC, California, etc.). I have to say that I have almost no issue with AT&T in metro Detroit (but we're only at 3 million population across a tri-county area).

@ViewtifulJason: You aren't reading what he said. He's saying no one wants to buy a box. "Buy" is the operative word. He points out that the cable company gives you a box for "free" (at least the initial one), so why pay out of pocket for an additional one (TiVo, and its monthly service, being an excellent example)?

Therefore, to convince people that they want to buy a box (as opposed to have one given to them for "free"), things have to change with the box in question.