Am I the only one underwhelmed and/or concerned?
The pictures I take and in their pure 'negative' form (RAW) they're 15MB or more. I have about 500GB of these since 2003. Are all of them Ansel Adams? no. But would I want to be forced to toss them or spend money to upload them 'somewhere'?
What about the legal issues of this 'cloud' computing? You're stuff isn't your stuff anymore. One call from the senator and your data could go away. There are lots of legal issues that should be sorted about hosted vs in your house data and stuff before I would be comfortable with this type of.
What about spam? Meaning what if you do something stupid and get flagged as spam and your data goes away? It's happened to blogspot/blogger people where their blog was deleted because it was flagged as offensive/spam?
Then there's the elephant in the room of shitty broadband connections. Download? ok not terrible, but uploads? 128k caps? 512k max? Any creation of data is going to take forever to get 'to the cloud' and any big download will take a while 'from the cloud'. We don't have decent inexpensive high speed bandwidth everywhere, and we don't have inexpensive mediocre high speed wireless either.
I've never seen one and again I'm reserving judgment but I've been surprised that no one has discussed these issues and/or asked about it during the launch. Maybe they have some wild method to handle this but no one has talked about it. The legal issues are a big red issue for me though.
For the use-cases that you mention, this device wouldn't be effective, obviously. I don't even think this device would be aimed for anyone doing heavy computing. The reality is, many people can and do have more than one computer in their home (at least in North America), which makes having a second device for lighter tasks a plausible consumer reality.
I for one would love to have a cloud based device for my daily browsing after work and before bed.