Wow. Were Air Jordans really that long ago?

It should be noted that Apple's stock price almost always drops after a Stevenote - it's almost like clockwork.

You know, I don't have any illusions about my own moral standing (it's poor), and I've done more than my fair share of pirating over the years, but I have to say, when I read these comments:

At least I don't partake in sheer glee at the prospect of stealing something that I haven't purchased or hold to some pathetic belief that by pirating content online I'm "fighting the power."

Thanks for making me feel a little bit better about myself. I guess.

It is, however, illegal to use Handbrake, et al., to rip content from an encrypted DVD. Since all commercial DVDs are encrypted...

Being open source doesn't make its use legal.

His point had nothing to do with the utility of reading, or the value of literature.

His point was a business one: does it make sense to build a standalone book reader when 40% of the potential market will never buy them, because they don't consume books.

If you're reading this blog, you're probably not in that 40%. I know, it's hard to imagine, but there are people who don't approach the world in the exact same way you do. I do a lot of reading, myself. But there are people in my family who probably come under that 40%.

His point is this: Why build the iPod? Because nearly 100% of people listen to some kind of music. Why build the iPhone? Nearly everyone will have a mobile phone in the near future. Why do AppleTV? Almost everyone has a TV. They're all potential consumers.

He's saying that the ebook reader market is not large enough for significant profitability. Is he right? I have no idea, but his recent track record has been pretty good.

From American Heritage Dictionary: "n.
1. A fraud or swindle.
2. One who defrauds; a swindler.

[Probably short for Gypsy.]"

Dictionary.com: "[Origin: 1885–90, Americanism; back formation from Gypsy]"

From Wikipedia: "A slang, pejorative term referencing Gypsies"

It's inappropriate in journalism. That's the bottom line. There are other word choices available to convey the same meaning.

It's not "pathetic whining." It's called being aware of how other people react to words. But then, since you have apparently no understanding, we'll just assume you're white and dumb.

It is ridiculous. At that price, they should be including the optical drive and various dongles in the box.

And yet, 4M iPhones sold in 200 days? Despite all the criticisms and limitations?

It seems that right now, Apple can do no wrong. That's not fanboy-ism, it's just the sales figures.

If you're in North America, you don't. Tata doesn't sell there.

At 31hp, the only way this vehicle hits highway speeds is in the vertical. OTOH, having been passed on the streets of Delhi by a buffalo-drawn cart, it's probably perfect for its intended market.

For all of those going nuts over this walking thing: In the developing world, most people walk considerable distances - for work, for food, for services. However, the suggestion that they necessarily walk the whole way is ludicrous. Almost certainly, these people do what everyone else does in the developing world - they hitchhike.

@Gnaget, et al: Actually, it generally *is* illegal to print trade secrets.

Clifyt gets it mostly correct, in that, in this case, a large part of the reason for the legal action involved the fact that Ciarelli was actively enticing Apple employees, working under NDA, to supply him with secret information that he could then turn around and post for profit. Think Secret didn't shut down to protect his sources, or because Apple paid him off. Ciarelli almost certainly agreed to a settlement because his lawyer explained that if it went to court, he was going to *lose*.

@clifyt: The First Amendment is not a blanket statement that one can say or print *anything*. If it were, all libel, slander, and "secrets" laws would be unconstitutional. They are not. The First Amendment was never intended as complete protection for *anything*, nor has it ever been construed that way by the courts. In general, your rationale beyond that is correct: broadly speaking, the courts weigh the question of the public good vs. the party's interest in maintaining secrecy.

Had Think Secret revealed that Apple was dumping mercury into San Francisco Bay, that clearly would have been in the public's interest to be made public, despite an employee's NDA. Disclosing a plan to develop an audio breakout box, the drooling of Engadget-reading geeks notwithstanding, does not come under that heading.