Nope. Every one of those is something that most people either a) don't really care about (unified mailbox, video recording), or b) find mildly annoying after they've already bought one (MMS, photo quality). Remember I'm talking about "most people", not people who hang out on TUAW and Engadget. Turn-by-turn is something that people will actually talk about, as in "hey, I saw that there's this Google phone that has a Garmin built in, and you don't have to pay for it". Not true, I know, but this is how buzz is built.

This is the first time a competitor to the iPhone can boast a feature that people (not just tech geeks) actually care about. That's a big deal. Apple needs to issue a press release really soon saying that it's on its way to the iPhone.

You have a funny perspective on business, technology, and progress. Things change, technology gets better, and not every business model can last forever. You're arguing against this basic truth.

I couldn't disagree with you more about the whole "mini didn't work as a switcher's computer" thing. I'd be interested to know if you have any evidence to support your statement.

Um, I don't know how to break it to you, but you're paying too much for batteries. ProTip: don't buy name brand batteries for non-critical uses that can be replaced any time (ie, everything but survival gear and safety equipment). Amazon has a box of 100 AAs for about $25, or a quarter each. If you're replacing 2 keyboard batteries and 2 mouse batteries every four months, that's 12 batteries a year. Buy the box at Amazon and this is costing you $3 per year. Even if we figure that these batteries are crap and last half as long as Duracells or whatever, that's still only $6 a year. I guarantee that if you're in the market for a computer, you can afford that without blinking.

"the removal of the last Mac with a replaceable battery"

Not true. The bottom of the macbook is designed to back taken off to access the battery. Not exactly something you'll be doing on an airplane, but still technically user replaceable.

@Jon,

I was going to engage in this thread until I saw that you actually, and seemingly without second thought, cited an article published by AAPS. So, instead of debate you on climate change, I'm instead going to pass on this piece of advice: In the media world of 2009, you really need to watch your sources. You can find someone who has "published" an article voicing just about any opinion possible, and thereby the forum is worth almost as much as the content. Getting back to the climate change issue, the VAST majority of scientists who seriously study climate change are in consensus about the major causes of the observed phenomena. The fact that there are outliers who disagree is not surprising - there are people who think the world is a cube (www.timecube.com), after all. Science is not the same as political opinion - it's not something in which the majority of folks are just going along with the trends. Scientific theories are built and strengthened by continual experimentation and observation, and when most people conducting this observation are agreeing, it's because they're being critical of the established theories and in the process coming to the same conclusions.

@Kevin

I can't explain the value of not giving you the option of full zoom (options are good!) but I'll take a stab at why I think it's not there.

I think you'll find that this is mostly an issue of Windows vs Mac computing habits. I almost never hear this request from longtime mac users, but almost all Windows users want it.

Think about the difference between Mac and Windows in terms of the placement of the menu bar. This is a fundamental difference between the two OS's, and cause for massive confusion, particularly in moving from Windows to Mac. In the Windows side, each new window feels like a separate instance of the program - each one is the full program complete with menus. On the Mac side, however, each window is simply a function of the larger program, which contains multiple windows all under a unified menu bar. I'm not saying this is how the code works, just how the UI metaphor works.

This relates to your question because in the Mac metaphor, I would never want to cover up my whole screen with a single window, because I assume that there could be other windows from the same program behind it. I'm constantly clicking through to background windows both in the same program and other programs, and to me covering up my whole view would be wasteful. On the Windows metaphor, however, a window is treated as a full entity, containing everything you'd need at least within the same program. Covering up everything else seems logical in that world.

Again, I'm not saying one is better, I'm just trying to explain my interpretation of why you almost never hear mac users calling for a full screen zoom feature, but almost every Windows switcher would like it.

Flickr isn't great for the quickly sharing pictures of your friends last Saturday night purpose. Most people are using Facebook for that - Flickr is a better service for amateur photographers looking to hone skills by sharing with other amateur photographers. I use flickr as a kind of social portfolio service, while Facebook is for goofy shots.

I for one would actually be willing to pay for Hulu, but under specific conditions:

Complete content (no episode cutoffs like currently exist)
Portable content (including both downloadable formats for iPods and TV output ability)
Increased content (including more movies)
Limited ads (I'd actually be willing to watch one at the beginning of an episode/movie, assuming the other criteria are met)
Cheap ($5/month absolute max, assuming other criteria are met and exceeded)

Then again, I might be in the minority: I don't own a TV, and thereby don't already pay for cable programing. If I did, I'd be pretty reticent to pay for both.