I disagree. In coach these days, you can't easily open the clamshell of any laptop if the guy behind you leans back at all
Really? Surely coach isn't that bad, i've flown coach on domestic flights before and it was fine, certainly would be fine with an 11" Air.
but you can easily use an iPad and it's a far better viewing experience than an iPhone.
Of course.
Yes, but crippled to wifi only or 10/100 USB ethernet, clumsy external DVD drive and limited storage space, it's kind of handicapped than a traditional laptop.
Interesting that you mention that, i don't see any ipads with 10/100 Ethernet, USB (which the Air has) or any DVD drive support at all much less the kind of storage space that even a Macbook Air comes with, if those are indeed your requirements then an ipad is most definitely not an alternative.
I used to travel with my laptop, but it's so much easier with an iPad for basic communications tasks and as a stand-in entertainment device for video and audio. It's vastly lighter and thinner than a laptop and much easier to use on a plane or other cramped spaces and has far better battery runtime.
I certainly find that a smartphone and a laptop (i mainly use an Air) negates the need for a tablet. Realistically the weight and thickness aren't much of an issue given the size of the Air, the battery life on it is extremely good and if you're in such a cramped space that you can't open your laptop then a smartphone is probably a better choice than a tablet anyway.
If I was on an airplane a lot for work, I'd probably have an Air as a laptop replacement and maybe not travel with my iPad. But it still doesn't make the Air into an iPad as far as form factor and convenience go.
You are aware we are talking about the Macbook Air, which is a laptop? Given that it is a laptop and the ipad is a tablet they aren't going to be matching form factors because they are - by definition - different form factors.
My own preference is to simply avoid MS software whenever I can on a Mac, it is just bad ju-ju. The apps don't work like Mac apps and it just becomes a frustrating experience, I wind up cursing MS a bit worse every time I get forced into using their stuff.
What's wrong with Office for Mac? I use that all the time.
Office is going to be ported to W8 on ARM. Pity. Apple didn't sell the millions of iPads based on the availability of document readers, as you imply-- it's all about comfort.
iWork exists on iOS solely because Apple decided there was indeed demand for such a product and I doubt MS is pinning the entire future of W8 on Office for ARM anyway.
Tablets aren't designed for document production, and that's what the Office suites were designed to do.
There's a difference between 'document production' and 'document editing', not everyone is writing 3000 word documents. Being able to edit and markup documents, spreadsheets and presentations on a tablet is useful. Of course in general building those things from scratch is not ideal on that form factor but that's no reason to bin the ability to edit/markup them.
The last item can't be solved. It's impossible to prove the engineer didn't look at the patent when he was developing a similar solution.
That doesn't justify the elimination of patents, changing the rules on expiration, who can hold a patent, patent trading and the obviousness of patents is what is needed.
They are responses to the obviousness of the lack of protection for inventors (you rely solely on everyone involved keeping a secret with virtually no recourse if they don't), the obviousness of why businesses would not want to engage in such agreements and the obviousness that such an approach is marginally worse for inventors than the current patent system.
No, it's not. A contract applies to whoever signed it. A patent applies to everyone.
So you're going to approach a company with an idea, if they like the idea they have to pay you the amount you want, otherwise they are barred from using it. However if the gain knowledge of the idea without signing the contract then they are free to do whatever they want because the inventor has no protection. Yeah great idea.
Even if you don't find the leak, the company is still bound by contract and therefore can't produce the invention. So why would they leak again?
Yeah im sure companies are really going to go for this, they get bound by the contract and have to pay the inventor, but because the info got leaked their competitors get it for free...you'd have to be a monumental idiot in the business world to go for an agreement like that.
It's called choice, people like it, especially customers.
You have choice, wtf are you on about?
Suppliers who act like dicks and deny the customer a choice and force changes upon, hmm, existing purchases
Yeah you say that but you're wrong, you don't have to upgrade.
in order to create annoyance and awkwardness as a motivation buy more stuff, well, they really are fucking arse holes.
In what way does it create annoyance and awkwardness? The new interface is more efficient than the older one even forgetting about kinect.
Companies need to remember to let the customer choose what changes they will and will not allow. Don't want angry customers, don't blame them and act like a dick.
They do have the choice of whether to upgrade or not, no-one is blaming the customer for anything. But the thing that should be blindingly obvious is that there are dependencies going forward, if you want to get the latest version of Final Cut Pro you can't expect to run it on a PowerPC with OS9.
Then you add in the contract "you can't produce this invention without a license". There, if they get a license, they can now produce it. It's a contract, you can put mostly whatever you want.
Then it's just a patent, the licensing of an invention.
Again, no party has an incentive to make that happen. Even if the VC/Big corp leaks it, they can't produce it, therefore they have an high incentive to protect it.
Is it perfect? No. But the problems with patents far outweigh them. The whole notion of a patent - that you can infringe despite having invented it yourself independently, because patents are forced on everyone - is completely abject.
Well no, you have to find out where that leak came from, it could be from anywhere, then you have to prove it, and even then the best you've got is a breach of contract suit. The inventor is not protected, it's big business that gets all the advantage.
Why would they be locked out of the market? They simply couldn't use the invention demonstrated, just like a patent.
The inability to use it is precisely what locks them out of the market. The difference is that with a patent they can license it even if the inventor is funded by someone else. In your 'solution' they are either locked out totally or free to do whatever they please without compensation to the actual inventor.
How would a patent protect in that case? It doesn't prevent anyone from entering the same market, just from selling the same invention. If "there is nothing of value" then there's nothing to patent either.
As in the patent has value, it is license-able. If the information leaks the inventor is protected by the patent, in your 'solution' there is no recourse, the inventor is screwed.
Yes, because right now startups can totally sue big corps and expect to win; it's not like they have huge legal teams who can keep lawsuits going until you run out of money while they countersue you with their patent warchests.
Huh? What are they going to counter-sue you for? What damage have you done to them? I'm not sure you understand this concept. Suing someone over patents is a hell of a lot easier than trying to sue someone over breaching an NDA, particularly when you probably don't even know who breached the NDA and you're much more likely to get something out of it.
I'm not saying my solution is perfect, but it's damn well better than patents ("mugging", as Carmack puts it).
Your 'solution' is FAR worse, it just makes it phenomenally easier for the inventor to get screwed.
If you're already paying $60/yr for online console access, wouldn't you want these things?
Of course you would, and you do get them, they're called 'DLC'.
This concept that developers can't patch their software on Microsoft's service is going to have to change at some point.
Huh? What concept is that? Do you actually know what this is based on? It's not that they can't patch their software on Microsoft's service, in fact it's not even specific to Microsoft at all, it's from a one-liner quote about the cost to patch a game on home consoles.
As I said "... and similar agreements", by which I mean, other contracts, including ones that can actually prevent them from using the information.
Right, so you're going to pitch an idea, set a price and if they don't agree they are locked out of the market until when? This sounds absolutely no better than patents, something that can lock out potential competitors.
No. An agreements is voluntary. You are obligated to follow it because you voluntarily signed it. A patent is forced. You are obligated to follow it without ever having agreed to it. There's an huge difference.
So anyone who doesn't agree to it isn't even impacted by it, it means everyone involved has to be under an NDA because the reality is there is nothing of value except for a jump on the market, one slip from anyone involved at all and it's game over.
Then that startup fails. But if that happens more than once to a VC, their reputation will be crushed - nobody will take the risk of talking to them, and they can't really afford that since the probability of that single invention being extremely profitable is low*. So both parties have an high incentive to respect those contracts.
* VCs are essentially casino players, they make money off of a single startup that pays for the other 100 duds.
It's not necessarily VCs but anyone who buys startups, which includes primarily big businesses, but we all know you can trust big businesses to honor their agreements, it wouldn't be at all naive not to believe that. And of course you can trust asian manufacturers not to screw you over, sure they don't need you once you've handed over the information but they wouldn't dream of violating NDAs, there's never any leaks in that industry.
If you have a 360, there's a good chance you already are paying. That was the point I was making. Microsoft is already collecting the subscription fees I was talking about (with my tongue firmly planted in cheek). I question the necessity to double dip by charging developers a fee when they're already charging gamers a fee, both of which are presumably being applied towards handling the same set of expenses, namely data centers and other infrastructure costs.
If that were true then Silver members (non-paying) wouldn't get updates or would have to pay for updates. Just because they charge one party for one thing doesn't mean they shouldn't charge another party for something different.
The patent system needs to be overhauled so it isn't abused but there still needs to be some kind of a system in place so that startups can exist, no-one is going to fund/buy a startup without knowing the ins and outs of how they work and if there is no protection of that then they aren't funding/buying anything that they don't already now have, if you understand my meaning.
That's what NDAs and similar agreements are for. You don't need patents, just contracts with the prospective VCs/buyers.
So how is that enforced then? NDAs are fine but a patent is what will stop a company from actually using the information they gain, not the NDA. And if that information slips out, then what? You're boned, you'd have to prove how it got out, probably not something a startup with no funding is going to be able to do.
You're basically advocating for an agreement that does what a patent does, stops a company from using the idea/process/concept unless moneys are paid. The current system is flawed but you can't just abolish it and use NDAs, they are totally different.
You need to read the whole sentence. The OS isn't the revenue generating part of Android. The hardware is. The other Google services are. The open source OS is just the way they get their product (you) and their paying customer (also you but third parties who want your eyeballs) in the door.
You need to read the whole sentence: That's open source and generates revenue through their ad network. As you can see i noted the way in which the Android open source software is funded by a profit model that doesn't require the software to be closed, which is very much the open source economic model, which is what i replied to: They themselves don't believe in the open source economic model.
As in 'i don't like it'. It's basically a tabbed form of the old one that puts all the 'channel' content on the screen for each tab at once, it's more efficient.
a bunch of shit based on a shitty interface (Kinect) that I refuse to shell out $150 for
I don't use kinect for the UI, seems kind of pointless, but the voice stuff is good.
and a bunch of app crap that I never used. I'm unimpressed and MS can go fuck themselves.
Wow, getting a bit angry and fired up there aren't you? It's just a dashboard update. The new video on demand and youtube stuff isn't going to appeal to everyone so i guess you just wouldn't be using it.
I understand that. I'm not advocating the elimination of patents or other intellectual property laws, just their overhaul. For instance, I don't think they should be transferable. Able to be licensed / rented / loaned, sure. But sold? Inherited? I think those are causing us more harm than good - well, except for the lawyers, that is.
I certainly agree with that, it would stop patent trolls.
If I take land from you - say you weren't strong enough to defend it - then you don't have it any more. If I take your idea, you still have it, and might not even be aware that I took it. This is the root of what's broken with intellectual "property" models as currently defined by law.
Patents aren't about the idea, they are about exclusive rights to that idea in the market. If you take that idea and take it to market then yes i still have the idea but you've taken (or rather eliminated) the exclusive rights.
The patent system needs to be overhauled so it isn't abused but there still needs to be some kind of a system in place so that startups can exist, no-one is going to fund/buy a startup without knowing the ins and outs of how they work and if there is no protection of that then they aren't funding/buying anything that they don't already now have, if you understand my meaning.
Just like any other fads, this "Apple frenzy fad" will become stale, people will lose interest in Apple
Assuming they don't really have specific uses for Apple products, but then again it's not expensive to have one lying around for compatibility just as many people have Windows machines (or VMs) for that. Apple do make great products and they are high quality but there's no denying they've lost their exclusivity, the iPhone 4 (pretty sure this is still true) is the single most common smartphone in the world and the 3GS is dirt cheap (i've got 2 in my drawer, one relegated to being my workout ipod) which does push them into commodity device territory, like owning a Nokia in the late 90s/early 00s. But hey, if they can maintain their 'cool' image, continue to build high quality products and keep pace with industry innovation then there's no reason to think they will fall from their lofty position.
That device (and I notice you had to look VERY hard pre-iPad to find something even sort of close) doesn't even have SYMMETRIC borders! They vary from 1-2".
Well to be fair this was before the iPad. Sure it doesn't have symmetric borders, but then the samsung tablet doesn't have a 4:3 aspect ratio. The iPad doesn't have LEDs on the front like the crunchpad concept but then unlike the iPad the Galaxy Tab has branding on the front and doesn't have any physical buttons on the front.
I find these cases to be absurd, particularly when people are arguing that things like symmetric borders matter but aspect ratio doesn't matter, and rounded corners matter but lack of a distinctive physical button doesn't matter, that the front matters but the back doesn't matter, and that branding doesn't matter.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. In coach these days, you can't easily open the clamshell of any laptop if the guy behind you leans back at all
Really? Surely coach isn't that bad, i've flown coach on domestic flights before and it was fine, certainly would be fine with an 11" Air.
but you can easily use an iPad and it's a far better viewing experience than an iPhone.
Of course.
Yes, but crippled to wifi only or 10/100 USB ethernet, clumsy external DVD drive and limited storage space, it's kind of handicapped than a traditional laptop.
Interesting that you mention that, i don't see any ipads with 10/100 Ethernet, USB (which the Air has) or any DVD drive support at all much less the kind of storage space that even a Macbook Air comes with, if those are indeed your requirements then an ipad is most definitely not an alternative.
I must disagree with you again, strongly. Wrong tool for the stated job.
How is editing a document/presentation/etc... on a tablet the wrong tool for the job? It may not be optimal but it's far from wrong.
I have shovels in my garage but do you think I'm going to dig a mine with them?
No, that would be like writing a novel on a tablet, which i clearly stated - if you bothered to read - would not be appropriate.
I used to travel with my laptop, but it's so much easier with an iPad for basic communications tasks and as a stand-in entertainment device for video and audio. It's vastly lighter and thinner than a laptop and much easier to use on a plane or other cramped spaces and has far better battery runtime.
I certainly find that a smartphone and a laptop (i mainly use an Air) negates the need for a tablet. Realistically the weight and thickness aren't much of an issue given the size of the Air, the battery life on it is extremely good and if you're in such a cramped space that you can't open your laptop then a smartphone is probably a better choice than a tablet anyway.
If I was on an airplane a lot for work, I'd probably have an Air as a laptop replacement and maybe not travel with my iPad. But it still doesn't make the Air into an iPad as far as form factor and convenience go.
You are aware we are talking about the Macbook Air, which is a laptop? Given that it is a laptop and the ipad is a tablet they aren't going to be matching form factors because they are - by definition - different form factors.
My own preference is to simply avoid MS software whenever I can on a Mac, it is just bad ju-ju. The apps don't work like Mac apps and it just becomes a frustrating experience, I wind up cursing MS a bit worse every time I get forced into using their stuff.
What's wrong with Office for Mac? I use that all the time.
Office is going to be ported to W8 on ARM. Pity. Apple didn't sell the millions of iPads based on the availability of document readers, as you imply-- it's all about comfort.
iWork exists on iOS solely because Apple decided there was indeed demand for such a product and I doubt MS is pinning the entire future of W8 on Office for ARM anyway.
Tablets aren't designed for document production, and that's what the Office suites were designed to do.
There's a difference between 'document production' and 'document editing', not everyone is writing 3000 word documents. Being able to edit and markup documents, spreadsheets and presentations on a tablet is useful. Of course in general building those things from scratch is not ideal on that form factor but that's no reason to bin the ability to edit/markup them.
Have actual ownership of my device that I paid for? Sounds crazy I know....
What's your definition of 'have ownership' in this context?
The last item can't be solved. It's impossible to prove the engineer didn't look at the patent when he was developing a similar solution.
That doesn't justify the elimination of patents, changing the rules on expiration, who can hold a patent, patent trading and the obviousness of patents is what is needed.
Worse for some inventors. Better for all the other getting sued by patent trolls, obvious patents, independent inventions, etc.
Hence my original point that the current patent system needs to be overhauled, not eliminated.
Are you a fucking moron? Read your own sentence. "...revenue through their ad network"
Are you a fucking moron? 'revenue through their ad network', how hard is that to understand? You have that much difficulty with something so simple?
They are responses to the obviousness of the lack of protection for inventors (you rely solely on everyone involved keeping a secret with virtually no recourse if they don't), the obviousness of why businesses would not want to engage in such agreements and the obviousness that such an approach is marginally worse for inventors than the current patent system.
No, it's not. A contract applies to whoever signed it. A patent applies to everyone.
So you're going to approach a company with an idea, if they like the idea they have to pay you the amount you want, otherwise they are barred from using it. However if the gain knowledge of the idea without signing the contract then they are free to do whatever they want because the inventor has no protection. Yeah great idea.
Even if you don't find the leak, the company is still bound by contract and therefore can't produce the invention. So why would they leak again?
Yeah im sure companies are really going to go for this, they get bound by the contract and have to pay the inventor, but because the info got leaked their competitors get it for free...you'd have to be a monumental idiot in the business world to go for an agreement like that.
It's called choice, people like it, especially customers.
You have choice, wtf are you on about?
Suppliers who act like dicks and deny the customer a choice and force changes upon, hmm, existing purchases
Yeah you say that but you're wrong, you don't have to upgrade.
in order to create annoyance and awkwardness as a motivation buy more stuff, well, they really are fucking arse holes.
In what way does it create annoyance and awkwardness? The new interface is more efficient than the older one even forgetting about kinect.
Companies need to remember to let the customer choose what changes they will and will not allow. Don't want angry customers, don't blame them and act like a dick.
They do have the choice of whether to upgrade or not, no-one is blaming the customer for anything. But the thing that should be blindingly obvious is that there are dependencies going forward, if you want to get the latest version of Final Cut Pro you can't expect to run it on a PowerPC with OS9.
Then you add in the contract "you can't produce this invention without a license". There, if they get a license, they can now produce it. It's a contract, you can put mostly whatever you want.
Then it's just a patent, the licensing of an invention.
Again, no party has an incentive to make that happen. Even if the VC/Big corp leaks it, they can't produce it, therefore they have an high incentive to protect it.
Is it perfect? No. But the problems with patents far outweigh them. The whole notion of a patent - that you can infringe despite having invented it yourself independently, because patents are forced on everyone - is completely abject.
Well no, you have to find out where that leak came from, it could be from anywhere, then you have to prove it, and even then the best you've got is a breach of contract suit. The inventor is not protected, it's big business that gets all the advantage.
Why would they be locked out of the market? They simply couldn't use the invention demonstrated, just like a patent.
The inability to use it is precisely what locks them out of the market. The difference is that with a patent they can license it even if the inventor is funded by someone else. In your 'solution' they are either locked out totally or free to do whatever they please without compensation to the actual inventor.
How would a patent protect in that case? It doesn't prevent anyone from entering the same market, just from selling the same invention. If "there is nothing of value" then there's nothing to patent either.
As in the patent has value, it is license-able. If the information leaks the inventor is protected by the patent, in your 'solution' there is no recourse, the inventor is screwed.
Yes, because right now startups can totally sue big corps and expect to win; it's not like they have huge legal teams who can keep lawsuits going until you run out of money while they countersue you with their patent warchests.
Huh? What are they going to counter-sue you for? What damage have you done to them? I'm not sure you understand this concept. Suing someone over patents is a hell of a lot easier than trying to sue someone over breaching an NDA, particularly when you probably don't even know who breached the NDA and you're much more likely to get something out of it.
I'm not saying my solution is perfect, but it's damn well better than patents ("mugging", as Carmack puts it).
Your 'solution' is FAR worse, it just makes it phenomenally easier for the inventor to get screwed.
If you're already paying $60/yr for online console access, wouldn't you want these things?
Of course you would, and you do get them, they're called 'DLC'.
This concept that developers can't patch their software on Microsoft's service is going to have to change at some point.
Huh? What concept is that? Do you actually know what this is based on? It's not that they can't patch their software on Microsoft's service, in fact it's not even specific to Microsoft at all, it's from a one-liner quote about the cost to patch a game on home consoles.
As I said "... and similar agreements", by which I mean, other contracts, including ones that can actually prevent them from using the information.
Right, so you're going to pitch an idea, set a price and if they don't agree they are locked out of the market until when? This sounds absolutely no better than patents, something that can lock out potential competitors.
No. An agreements is voluntary. You are obligated to follow it because you voluntarily signed it. A patent is forced. You are obligated to follow it without ever having agreed to it. There's an huge difference.
So anyone who doesn't agree to it isn't even impacted by it, it means everyone involved has to be under an NDA because the reality is there is nothing of value except for a jump on the market, one slip from anyone involved at all and it's game over.
Then that startup fails. But if that happens more than once to a VC, their reputation will be crushed - nobody will take the risk of talking to them, and they can't really afford that since the probability of that single invention being extremely profitable is low*. So both parties have an high incentive to respect those contracts.
* VCs are essentially casino players, they make money off of a single startup that pays for the other 100 duds.
It's not necessarily VCs but anyone who buys startups, which includes primarily big businesses, but we all know you can trust big businesses to honor their agreements, it wouldn't be at all naive not to believe that. And of course you can trust asian manufacturers not to screw you over, sure they don't need you once you've handed over the information but they wouldn't dream of violating NDAs, there's never any leaks in that industry.
If you have a 360, there's a good chance you already are paying. That was the point I was making. Microsoft is already collecting the subscription fees I was talking about (with my tongue firmly planted in cheek). I question the necessity to double dip by charging developers a fee when they're already charging gamers a fee, both of which are presumably being applied towards handling the same set of expenses, namely data centers and other infrastructure costs.
If that were true then Silver members (non-paying) wouldn't get updates or would have to pay for updates. Just because they charge one party for one thing doesn't mean they shouldn't charge another party for something different.
The patent system needs to be overhauled so it isn't abused but there still needs to be some kind of a system in place so that startups can exist, no-one is going to fund/buy a startup without knowing the ins and outs of how they work and if there is no protection of that then they aren't funding/buying anything that they don't already now have, if you understand my meaning.
That's what NDAs and similar agreements are for. You don't need patents, just contracts with the prospective VCs/buyers.
So how is that enforced then? NDAs are fine but a patent is what will stop a company from actually using the information they gain, not the NDA. And if that information slips out, then what? You're boned, you'd have to prove how it got out, probably not something a startup with no funding is going to be able to do.
You're basically advocating for an agreement that does what a patent does, stops a company from using the idea/process/concept unless moneys are paid. The current system is flawed but you can't just abolish it and use NDAs, they are totally different.
You need to read the whole sentence. The OS isn't the revenue generating part of Android. The hardware is. The other Google services are. The open source OS is just the way they get their product (you) and their paying customer (also you but third parties who want your eyeballs) in the door.
You need to read the whole sentence:
That's open source and generates revenue through their ad network.
As you can see i noted the way in which the Android open source software is funded by a profit model that doesn't require the software to be closed, which is very much the open source economic model, which is what i replied to:
They themselves don't believe in the open source economic model.
They have and will never opensource their revenue generating products.
Of course not, how are they going to make money otherwise?
They themselves don't believe in the open source economic model.
errr...Android? That's open source and generates revenue through their ad network.
a fucked up user interface
As in 'i don't like it'. It's basically a tabbed form of the old one that puts all the 'channel' content on the screen for each tab at once, it's more efficient.
a bunch of shit based on a shitty interface (Kinect) that I refuse to shell out $150 for
I don't use kinect for the UI, seems kind of pointless, but the voice stuff is good.
and a bunch of app crap that I never used. I'm unimpressed and MS can go fuck themselves.
Wow, getting a bit angry and fired up there aren't you? It's just a dashboard update. The new video on demand and youtube stuff isn't going to appeal to everyone so i guess you just wouldn't be using it.
I understand that. I'm not advocating the elimination of patents or other intellectual property laws, just their overhaul. For instance, I don't think they should be transferable. Able to be licensed / rented / loaned, sure. But sold? Inherited? I think those are causing us more harm than good - well, except for the lawyers, that is.
I certainly agree with that, it would stop patent trolls.
If I take land from you - say you weren't strong enough to defend it - then you don't have it any more. If I take your idea, you still have it, and might not even be aware that I took it. This is the root of what's broken with intellectual "property" models as currently defined by law.
Patents aren't about the idea, they are about exclusive rights to that idea in the market. If you take that idea and take it to market then yes i still have the idea but you've taken (or rather eliminated) the exclusive rights.
The patent system needs to be overhauled so it isn't abused but there still needs to be some kind of a system in place so that startups can exist, no-one is going to fund/buy a startup without knowing the ins and outs of how they work and if there is no protection of that then they aren't funding/buying anything that they don't already now have, if you understand my meaning.
Just like any other fads, this "Apple frenzy fad" will become stale, people will lose interest in Apple
Assuming they don't really have specific uses for Apple products, but then again it's not expensive to have one lying around for compatibility just as many people have Windows machines (or VMs) for that. Apple do make great products and they are high quality but there's no denying they've lost their exclusivity, the iPhone 4 (pretty sure this is still true) is the single most common smartphone in the world and the 3GS is dirt cheap (i've got 2 in my drawer, one relegated to being my workout ipod) which does push them into commodity device territory, like owning a Nokia in the late 90s/early 00s. But hey, if they can maintain their 'cool' image, continue to build high quality products and keep pace with industry innovation then there's no reason to think they will fall from their lofty position.
That device (and I notice you had to look VERY hard pre-iPad to find something even sort of close) doesn't even have SYMMETRIC borders! They vary from 1-2".
Well to be fair this was before the iPad. Sure it doesn't have symmetric borders, but then the samsung tablet doesn't have a 4:3 aspect ratio. The iPad doesn't have LEDs on the front like the crunchpad concept but then unlike the iPad the Galaxy Tab has branding on the front and doesn't have any physical buttons on the front.
I find these cases to be absurd, particularly when people are arguing that things like symmetric borders matter but aspect ratio doesn't matter, and rounded corners matter but lack of a distinctive physical button doesn't matter, that the front matters but the back doesn't matter, and that branding doesn't matter.