I assume I won't see anything faster, as I don't have a 4G radio, but here's to hoping I'm wrong.

So does this mean my phone will get faster data, or is this WiMAX stuff just for the broadband cards they sell? I'm using a Touchpro with Sprint...

No, Ion isn't the silver bullet to end all Hulu-woes, but my understanding is that Ion isn't really supposed to solve the problems in the first place. Hulu is flash-based, which is entirely dependent upon your CPU. That's why all these single-core atom devices are useless when it comes to Hulu. The reason there's hope for this latest EeeBox is that it has a much better processor than previous models. The Anandtech review focuses on single core atom builds, where this is dual.

Honestly, what really is there to compare to? I'm being serious.

At $249, the ZuneHD doesn't compete with the iPod Touch, it blows it out of the water. It's entirely different hardware.

Right, because OLED screens, Tegra processors, HD radios, amplifiers, and all the other bits and pieces that will make up the Zune don't cost anything at all. I mean, if 64GB flash memory costs $130 at retail, as you suggest, 64 GB Zune's should sell for, like, $100!!!

I agree, and I think this makes sense for all manufacturers.

Umm, no, it's not. How many people own a MBP? It's a VERY small market percentage. Other laptops have had SD slots for eons.

Listen, I love Mac products (own a Mac Pro and use it frequently for audio production), but putting SD cards in these notebooks isn't changing a thing. How much does a card-reader cost? Almost nothing. Just building the dumb thing in isn't going to have a meaningful impact on the way that major camera manufacturers like Nikon and Canon choose to outfit their gear.

Apparently Schweppes has never heard of the iPod touch, which is clearly a bag o' shite by his own definition. Dumb monkey...

People complaining about the price and/or quality of this lens/camera are clueless. The Nikon and Canon equivalent zooms (approx 28mm-300mm focal length on 35mm) cost between 650 and 800 dollars and have approximately the same lowest aperture.

This Panny lens, however, has both a continuously variable aperture and a silent autofocus motor. Nikon and Canon lenses don't. The reason for these features in the Panasonic lens is for filming. And it costs more, too. If Nikon or Canon had a separate lens available with the same tech as this Panasonic lens, it would probably cost between 800-1000 bucks on its own. But they don't have this kind of tech in their lenses, yet, and as a result, you cannot control aperture or shutter speed while filming, and generally speaking, autofocus for filming sucks on Canon/Nikon dSLR's, if they even have the feature to begin with.

Compared to video cameras, there is nothing out there that I'm aware of that will shoot HD and take multiple lenses at this pricepoint, much less any camcorder with so large a sensor. I mean, this sensor size is astounding compared to regular prosumer camcorders. There's a reason the night footage looks so good on this (and all video-capable DSLR's). These things are going to re-write the book on camcorder standards.

How many people are spending 600-800 dollars on a DSLR and 600-800 on an HD video cam? (Hint: lots). This camera combines BOTH pieces of kit, does so with a much nicer lens than anyone is getting when they buy their 600-800 dollar DSLR/camcorder, and in a smaller form-factor than most. While it's not going to blow any comparably priced DSLR out of the water in terms of image quality, it IS head and shoulders (and we're talking the head and shoulders of Andre the Giant, here) above ANY video cam out there at this price.

One last cost breakdown, for those who haven't been paying close enough attention:

Comparable lens from competitors - 600-800 bucks (and that's WITHOUT the aperture/autofocus tech in the Panny lens)
Comparable DSLR from competitors - 600-800 bucks
Comparable camcorder from competitors - 600-800 bucks (Ok, not really. Comparable camcorder would cost MUCH more. But this is the price range that most basic HD-camcorders fall in.)

Total comparable cost - 1800-2400 dollars, and that's for multiple pieces of gear that's a generation behind in technology.

This is the future of DSLR's/Camcorders. Nikon and Canon had better get it right next time around (usable autofocus, full manual controls while filming, get rid of shutter roll effect, etc.) or they may find Panasonic cutting into their sales.