It is. Chris was joking.

You're misunderstanding. "Facebook-the-entity" stores content. They have an API, which 3rd party apps use to access that content. That's EXACTLY what Palm IS doing to make Synergy work, and what other WebOS apps like FriendsFlow and Palmbook are doing.

The API is not an issue, and it's not what Atheos was complaining about. He seems to think that the WebOS SDK is insufficient to make a good Facebook app, which is total nonsense. Anything that the "native" Facebook app for the iPhone does COULD be done in a WebOS application using the SDK that is available now.

There are certain things that are not possible with the current SDK. Serious gaming is out, but Facebook doesn't make games anyway. Also, Facebook couldn't make an app that integrates their chat with the built-in Messaging application on the Pre (without working with Palm). Apple's "superior" SDK doesn't allow that either (not that it could, since the iPhone can't even do IM without an app).

Just take a look at the Facebook app for the iPhone, and tell me if you see anything that wouldn't be possible using Palm's SDK. I don't think there is anything. Meanwhile, there are certain things that you CAN do on WebOS that you can't do on an iPhone (run in the background, for example), which Facebook could use to build a better experience than is possible using Apple's "native" SDK.

A "native" SDK would be nice for other reasons, but there's actually nothing that one would want from a Facebook application that couldn't already be accomplished through the existing SDK.

Think about it: Facebook is a website! What else do you need that a well-written web app couldn't do? I'm sure that the stuff you'd actually want hardware access for, like photo capture and uploading, is possible though the MojoSDK. Facebook could easily make a full-featured app for WebOS using the existing tools, they just haven't yet.

The Facebook on WebOS situation isn't horrible, but it's really confusing. Synergy pulls in contacts, the mobile site is useful for some stuff, you can upload pics right from the built-in Photos app, Status reading and commenting works well though the official Facebook app, and Palmbook is a very promising homebrew app (though not yet feature-complete).

As a Palm Pre owner, I can interact with Facebook just fine (especially considering how little I actually care about using Facebook). However, there's not one single go-to application that has all the features that anyone could possibly want.

It's not unfair to compare this to a netbook, because it IS a netbook. It'll have an Atom processor, and it will run Linux. Like a netbook, it's primary purpose will be to browse the web. It's a netbook with a touchscreen, and no keyboard.

None. This device is intended for browsing the web ONLY... and that's why it will fail miserably. For the same price (or less), you can get a netbook that does so much more. Sure, cheap netbooks don't have touchscreens, but I'd rather have a keyboard on a portable computer than a touchscreen anyway.

Yes, it does SEEM like a good deal for the hardware. However, given the $60-100 monthly bill you'll be getting to go along with it, it might makes sense to disregard the hardware cost, and just get the best device you can get.

Over the course of two years, the lower price of the Pixi will only account for 5% (or less) of the total cost of ownership. I think most people will be better served by a slightly more expensive device with better specs, such as the Pre, or either of Sprint's Android phones (HTC Hero or Samsung Moment).

I don't know if it's a Intel licensing thing or what, but pretty much every system with a CULV processor has the same integrated graphics processor. The upside is that it's actually a lot better than the old GMA950 that you find in most netbooks and really low-end laptops.

You can get a thin and light CULV system with 9-hour battery-life for like $600. Why would anyone buy this hideous thing?

A sub-$300 price-point for a touchscreen netbook with no keyboard is totally feasible. I've seen Dell Acer, and Asus selling netbooks for $200. I'm not entirely sure that anyone would actually buy such a device.

Do people really need a device between the web-friendly smartphone they already have, and the netbook they also already have? Perhaps there are some techophiles who like the possibility of yet another way to browse the internet on the toilet, but even they would be a hard-sell. For the same price as a netbook, would they be content with such a single-purpose device?