helio9000

@TBolt

I wish I could believe that! Love the freedom but, honestly, not seeing the innovation. The apps are second class - at least so far.

I think this one-way-in approach sucks but, apple has proven that this is what people want. Sadly.

On the other hand, Divx is supposedly supported. That's god because yxflash blows.

@maxxorz

It is far more likely that this will rely on other platforms ALLOWING silverlight than MS denying them. It has long been rumored that MS wants it on Android since it is a platform that would benefit from ubiquity. However, you will spend a lifetime waiting for apple to allow silverlight onto the iPhone. It is laughable when people are critical of netflix's lame iphone efforts when, in reality, that has everything to do with Apple. Netflix uses Silverlight - apple doesn't acknowledge its existence. So what are they supposed to do? Convert everything to a an iphone friendly stream only to cross their fingers once they submit a non-apple-media playing app?

Apple's submit or die approach has worked great but once other phone maker's get their act together it will start to suffocate. Let's hope they let it breathe a bit in response. But I don't know - apple is at war with everyone who doesn't get in line. Say what you will about MS but I bet you silverlight competitor Flash will be on windows phones before it is on the iPhone.

@PastorTom

Yeah but it looks shit there too. Even the Giz has already made fun of the difference.

@swooshy

Sorry but the fact that you've stuck with it that long probably has something to do with your viewpoint on this. WinMo was always quite powerful but the pc on a tiny screen metaphor has always been deeply troubled. I was not sure they find their way back from that. The fact that their longtime users (uh, victims?) are those most likely to not like the new UI gives me even more respect for the risk they took in tearing everything down.

If by "solved the issue entirely" you mean, "made these this type of setup so hopelessly unappetizing that no one would ever put one in their home" than I agree with you.

Congrats on finding a multitouch table that's uglier and less ergonomic than the Surface one. Funny they don't show a figure actually sitting at the table! I wonder why. Perhaps because with the giant bezel, at least 4-5(?) times wider than the one on the Surface, you are going to uncomfortably leaning over a void to touch anything at all. I played with the surface and though I would not want to play around like that for days at a time at least you are right up on the action. There is room enough for drink which is all you need.

@ Nilay

The FIRST ipod was lame and, as slashdot stated then, well behind the times. It sold poorly and it was not until v3 that they got it right. They were just getting it out the door and surprisingly, after all these years, that's what they have done here. That bezel in particular is gonna look silly by the time v3 rolls around.

> emulator's bezel is a tad thinner than the real thing

That's because the emulator's designer couldn't believe the size of the bezel when he was given the device's dimensions to emulate so he went with what he assumed an apple product's bezel would be not the real world chunky/"first gen eeepc" style where the screen is fighting valiantly to keep the bezel from taking over.

@Xega

He's talking about the look not the concept.

@Wesscoast

When it first launched in 2002 by another name...oh yeah, the TC 1000.

FTFY

It is funny to me that any of this stuff is supposedly even patentable. When touchscreens first started kicking around research labs in the late 1960's people were writing papers about gestures, pinch/zoom - basically everything we see in devices today. It is weird that you can make a claim on that. Even funnier are all these comments about how they can't believe engadget didn't bring up this or late - they have already written it about a few times, frankly more cogently that most of the posts here:

http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/04/some-more-perspective-on-the-droid-and-multitouch/