I guess MS wasn't POOPY when they offered more competive codecs, but now that one publication (apparently) claims that others have made greater improvements than they have (in an unrelated application no less) suddenly MS's quality has dropped to the POOPY level.
You are either an idiot or you feel entitle to redefine the meaning of POOPY.
But everyone knows you're a bold faced liar, including me. The facts are on my side. Here's what you said:
"...Apple's video is POOPY to begin with - in comparison to Real.
So we get POOPY on top of POOPY. Quite a dog pile!"
Nothing in the StreamingMedia press release (yes it's just a press release, not the actual report which you evidently don't have) supports your wild-assed claim. Yes, the press release says that Real's products did well, but saying Apple's and MS's did less well is not the same as saying that their quality is "POOPY". Of course, you know that. You're just an argumentative asshole and troller.
"Okay Apple/Jobs/Quicktime lemming apologists - let's hear it!? And Gates's Apple smashers - don't start yet. The Streaming.com study mentioned above - stated that Micro$oft's WindowsMedia video sucked even more than Apple's H.264 and that folks interested in video needed to forget about Micro$oft."
This was your statement. Please point out where StreamingMedia said that or STFU. I quoted you correctly.
I've refuted the "evidence" you offered in your original post already. No need to do it again. You've already been proven wrong to everyone but you.
If only we all could make unsubstantiated, inflammatory claims then declare that they are right until proven otherwise. Good luck in your debate class. I'm sure the judges will respond well to your insults.
We see how you treat people who take issue with your mindless arguments. No wonder you're so popular and have so many/. friends.
"Windows Media had started to fall behind. Usually it was at or near the bottom of recent objective studies that Microsoft was directly involved in. Companies using or considering Windows Media really need to evaluate other technologies."
I'm sure all the streaming video providers will now "forget about Microsoft" because you said they should.
"Look jerk off - you keep going in dialetic circles."
No, you just don't accept any argument other than your own inflammatory one and you can't respond rationally so you throw insults. Perhaps you should just relax and enjoy the video.
"Since you now admit you know f-ck all."
Actually I didn't; I pointed out that you offered no information whatsoever to draw the conclusion that you demanded. I'm not the one making qualitative judgements without any facts, you are. I have no personal position on whether Apple's products are of poor quality or not, but I do know that Real's codec has no bearing on Apple's quality and streaming formats don't matter in this instance. Apple is not going to use Real's product (and neither is MS).
"Go and read StreamingMedia's completed study which says Apple's low quality H.264 video sucks..."
I'm not paying $295 in hopes of finding that someone else says Apple is POOPY besides you. I already know I won't find that and it's not worth a penny to me either way. Since you clearly have a copy, why don't you post some relavent quotes?
"Then use something called Google - as do some research. Hmm you might find Doom9's info."
Why don't you do that and post the results here? One would think that you'd want to provide evidence to support your claims. Instead, all you're offering is flamebait.
No I don't. Companies make major infrastructure investments in streaming video and don't just switch on a whim. Furthermore, technology leads can change rapidly. When someone says "you need to evaluate other technologies" they aren't saying "forget about Microsoft", they are saying that you may need to be considering options. I realize you may be incapable of understanding that, but then, what do you even know about streaming video?
"Oh and what you say is true."
Yes, it is.
"...Do you need explained further or can you now figure it out?"
Sorry, but your argument, if you can call it that, isn't compelling. I never said Cringely was wrong, I simply said he was offering opinion, not fact, and that he makes money offering opinion.
"Aside from transcoding upwards in size (GEEEEEZ) - the fact is that Apple uses a low quality profile of H.264 - there is no Apple Quicktime High Profile H.264. YES/NO?
Not only would be the High Profile H.264 quality be as good as MPEG-2 - but at a fraction of the data. YES/NO? Makes sense for download or true streaming YES?NO?"
You are suggesting that I make a qualitative evaluation of Apple's product based on absolutely no actual information or experience with it. If you are so convinced that Apple's encoding is POOPY times 2, then I'm sure you are qualified to perform testing and produce documentation of that "fact". I look forward to you detailed review. No, I don't count quoting unavailable tests on unrelated encodings, wild-assed conspiracy speculation and posturing on your part as proof.
That's right, and when a customer sees video quality that doesn't meet a reasonable standard I would imagine Apple would want to know. 100% auditing of such a vast library isn't practical.
I'm not an Apple apologist but I'll give it a try...
"According to Cringley - Apple has to keep video quality POOPY to please Walmart."
Just because Cringely offers an opinion for sale doesn't mean it's true. Furthermore, he never described the video quality as "POOPY". What he said was:
"Apple deliberately repositioned its movie offerings to be better than broadcast quality but less than DVD quality and quite a bit less than HD-quality."
Better than broadcast quality isn't poopy. DVD rips that are recompressed are less than DVD quality too and that's what you typically see on P2P networks. In fact, they are typically less than 640x480.
"According to Streaming.com 2006 video transcoding study, Apple's video is POOPY to begin with - in comparison to Real."
Perhaps "in comparison to Real" but that doesn't make it POOPY. Here is the announcement:
The reports themselves are for sale. You may buy them if you like.
No matter, since this was a streaming video codec study, not a downloadable one. The results of these tests say nothing about the quality you can get from video purchased from the iTunes store.
"So we get POOPY on top of POOPY. Quite a dog pile!"
That wouldn't be true in any case. Neither of your claims are actually true, but even if they were, you could only claim that the result was "POOPY" not "POOPY on top of POOPY". Apple could have achieved "POOPY" by using their "POOPY" codec. They wouldn't need to make it "POOPIER" still.
"The Streaming.com study mentioned above - stated that Micro$oft's WindowsMedia video sucked even more than Apple's H.264 and that folks interested in video needed to forget about Micro$oft."
It didn't say that either. It said "Companies using or considering Windows Media really need to evaluate other technologies." and it never said that any other the tested products "sucked". As I said before, this was a streaming video test and doesn't represent what is achievable in different formats.
Apple may make it the provider's responsibility, but it remains Apple's responsibility to the customer. Apple is the one who advertises a certain level of quality and Apple is the one who collects money and distributes. If there is a misrepresentation of the quality of the product it is Apple that makes it.
"The "limited" in preview is exactly what the CC license forbids."
Sure, but the question is whether it matters in a "preview". The purpose of the DRM is to assure that the shared tracks don't constitute "distribution". If that isn't the case then Zune has a far greater problem than the CC license. If it is the case, the Zune has no problem with any content including CC licensed stuff.
Ultimately, the question will be whether a user has a right to limited sharing of copyrighted content without the consent of copyright holders. In Zune's case, it's not only the DRM that limits the sharing to 3 views or 3 days but also the device itself that limits the sharing to 4 other users at any given time. IANAL so I don't know where MS got these numbers from, but I do know that the CC license is not the concern for them; general violation of copyright is. If they can get around that then CC licensers will have no complaint. Frankly I think they have only the slightest complaint anyway, since after 3 days or less the content disappears along with any possible violation.
"Since the user initiates the transfer, it is always the burden of the user, who is the one who agreed to the license."
I believe that's right. I made that point only because people insist that Zune itself will be in violation of the CC license when I don't believe that would be the case. It ultimately doesn't matter because the feature is worthless if it can't be used.
I think I addressed that issue with screen dpi. The Zune screen has plenty of resolution for 3". If the screen were 4" the resolution would still be 100 dpi, the same as every mac display. A 4" QVGA would be fine for video. Maybe Apple will "invent" it soon.
Apple wouldn't release a 1 pixel display, they'd release a 0 pixel display and call it a feature. If you don't agree, look at the Shuffle.
The Zune screen may be "chunkier" but I'd hardly call 133 dpi "chunky". If you think 133dpi is bad, I can't imagine what you'd say about the 100dpi displays that are found in all macs. I've had Dell notebooks with 130+ dpi displays and most people think the pixels are too small. I don't agree but that's another matter.
The fact is that the Zune has 44% more display area than the iPod and that's a good deal. I agree that I'd like an even bigger display but not if the device will be bigger. Not all video usage on these devices is 2+ hour movies. I use mine to watch TV shows while doing cardio and I'd much rather have 3" than 2.5".
I'm not defending it because i don't agree either, but Apple succeeded with iPod against entrenched competition partly because of it's superior integration with it's computers. Remember that the 1G iPod did not support Windows and Apple marketed it specifically as part of the "mac experience". Not really that much different.
"That might even make it a breach of license agreement for creative commons licensed music, because they demand that if you give a track to someone else, that person has to be able to pass it on, impossible with the Zune."
Zune doesn't give tracks to anyone, what it gives is a limited preview. In order to give the track to someone, you have to use a different method. In any case, the burden is on the user.
"Due to Zune's DRM restrictions there will be no widespread sharing on school yards, so even if the world would demand to return to the early Napster days, the Zune will not allow this."
I agree with this. What kids want is unlimited sharing. Zune's version isn't appealing to them.
"There have been a lot of other media players already featuring larger screens, so this alone does not seem to be a reason for customers to switch."
Yes, but all those players are significantly bigger than the iPod. Zune is the same size but with a bigger screen. Watching video on an iPod does suck pretty much so a larger screen would be welcome. I'm not convinced it is larger enough. I sure don't want one.
"What will ZUNE do that the Pocket PC / Windows Mobile platform cannot do?"
- have more than a few optimistic hours per charge - be easy to use as a media player - not be dog slow and prone to lockups and reboots - have WiFi that's actually useful for its intended purpose
"Why would Microsoft all but stop its interest in the pocket computing field that is totally capable of everything Zune can do, then build an entirely new device on a new platform?"
Because the new platform is far more desirable as a media player.
"The only thing todays Pocket PC's don't have that Zune does have is the new software and a large harddrive."
That's a pretty big thing, though, isn't it?
"How hard could it be for M$ to add some software and bigger harddrive support to the already wonderful existing line of Pocket PC's?"
That is what they did, but they optimized the package so it wouldn't suck (as bad).
"Apple isn't the best out there. But they lead the market because they simply give a product that fills most consumer needs."
Isn't what Apple does with the iPod exactly what you just criticised Microsoft for doing?
and I agree too. Kids want to share music and keep it (nevermind the legality). Once they understand the sharing feature won't give them what they want then they'll just continue to want an iPod. Without Zunes being prevelent the sharing feature is worthless. Nice idea but doomed to failure due to DRM. You have to like that, actually.
"This is the latest "iPod killer" article that will be forgotten in a month. How many of these "killers" are we going to hear about before people wise up? Come on, one of the reasons listed in the article is "Zune is actually pretty cool." It's a fluff piece mixed with subjective op-ed from the author."
Yes, it is a fluff piece but not any different than fluff pieces we see that are pro-Apple. Selling a product on "coolness" is more an Apple thing after all.
Regarding Windows marketshare, his point was that MS has a lot of leverage due to its dominant position with Windows. I agree that it doesn't matter. iTunes runs on Windows and iTS is more established than anything MS *will* do. MS's YouTube ripoff doesn't exist yet either. Apple should be concerned, though, since MS has the resources to put together a complete competitor and it has demonstrated that it doesn't mind losing money to win a market.
The biggest differentiator is the WiFi. Sure it has a bigger screen but it's still small. Right now, most everyone that wants a player wants an iPod and knows how to use iTunes. MS has to overcome that and I'm not sure that the WiFi feature will overcome that. At least they have something no other iPod competitor has had.
I don't know about now, but the original Raptors were simply destroked to reduced average seek times. The entire platter was still there and the outermost tracks were the ones that were used. It is not a technical challenge to make a 3.5" drive spin 10K. Raptors now may be different but I doubt it. WD charges more for it because they can. 15K drives have smaller platters as you say.
I believe that by "hypothesis" he meant that those were his priorities. He wasn't arguing that those priorities held true for everybody. If he was then that could be easily argued.
It isn't SATA vs SCSI that determines performance, it's the class of drive that does (and enterprise drives are still SCSI).
SAS is NOT far superior to SATA. In fact, SAS uses SATA's physical interface (deliberately) and implements the SCSI protocol instead of the ATA one. They did that because the SATA interface was perfectly good, it would save cost, and it enables a single controller to support both. SAS is superior to SCSI and is equally desirable for RAID as SATA. Either is a better choice for RAID than SCSI is because SCSI introduces a single point of failure for multiple drives. SCSI (the parallel kind) is really the wrong technology for RAID.
The main killer of hard drives is heat, and SCSI drives are no more immune to heat than SATA drives are. The difference is generally that SCSI-based products are designed to provide better cooling. Because SATA is inexpensive relative to SCSI, it is likely that the products you are comparing are in different price classes so it's unfair to generalize about heat issues. Keep a SATA drive cool and it will last.
Ideally, there is no advantage to using SAS over SATA in a RAID environment. Practically, though, enterprise drives are far more likely to be SAS than SATA because doing so results in higher margins for the drive manufacturers. The best RAID products will use the best drives and those drive will likely be SAS ones.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess MS wasn't POOPY when they offered more competive codecs, but now that one publication (apparently) claims that others have made greater improvements than they have (in an unrelated application no less) suddenly MS's quality has dropped to the POOPY level.
You are either an idiot or you feel entitle to redefine the meaning of POOPY.
cunnuck is an idiot. YES/NO
Prove me wrong.
I'm not the one with reading comprehension problem. Does the cold weather effect your brain?
But everyone knows you're a bold faced liar, including me. The facts are on my side. Here's what you said:
"...Apple's video is POOPY to begin with - in comparison to Real.
So we get POOPY on top of POOPY. Quite a dog pile!"
Nothing in the StreamingMedia press release (yes it's just a press release, not the actual report which you evidently don't have) supports your wild-assed claim. Yes, the press release says that Real's products did well, but saying Apple's and MS's did less well is not the same as saying that their quality is "POOPY". Of course, you know that. You're just an argumentative asshole and troller.
"Okay Apple/Jobs/Quicktime lemming apologists - let's hear it!? And Gates's Apple smashers - don't start yet. The Streaming.com study mentioned above - stated that Micro$oft's WindowsMedia video sucked even more than Apple's H.264 and that folks interested in video needed to forget about Micro$oft."
This was your statement. Please point out where StreamingMedia said that or STFU. I quoted you correctly.
I've refuted the "evidence" you offered in your original post already. No need to do it again. You've already been proven wrong to everyone but you.
If only we all could make unsubstantiated, inflammatory claims then declare that they are right until proven otherwise. Good luck in your debate class. I'm sure the judges will respond well to your insults.
We see how you treat people who take issue with your mindless arguments. No wonder you're so popular and have so many /. friends.
"Windows Media had started to fall behind. Usually it was at or near the bottom of recent objective studies that Microsoft was directly involved in. Companies using or considering Windows Media really need to evaluate other technologies."
I'm sure all the streaming video providers will now "forget about Microsoft" because you said they should.
No, I'm asking you to make your case rather than having you tell me to do the research for you.
I never challenged what Cringely or StreamingMedia said. I challenged that the supported your opinion (which they do not).
I am not the prosecutor. You've made statements. Now it's time for you to back them up.
"Look jerk off - you keep going in dialetic circles."
No, you just don't accept any argument other than your own inflammatory one and you can't respond rationally so you throw insults. Perhaps you should just relax and enjoy the video.
"Since you now admit you know f-ck all."
Actually I didn't; I pointed out that you offered no information whatsoever to draw the conclusion that you demanded. I'm not the one making qualitative judgements without any facts, you are. I have no personal position on whether Apple's products are of poor quality or not, but I do know that Real's codec has no bearing on Apple's quality and streaming formats don't matter in this instance. Apple is not going to use Real's product (and neither is MS).
"Go and read StreamingMedia's completed study which says Apple's low quality H.264 video sucks..."
I'm not paying $295 in hopes of finding that someone else says Apple is POOPY besides you. I already know I won't find that and it's not worth a penny to me either way. Since you clearly have a copy, why don't you post some relavent quotes?
"Then use something called Google - as do some research. Hmm you might find Doom9's info."
Why don't you do that and post the results here? One would think that you'd want to provide evidence to support your claims. Instead, all you're offering is flamebait.
"Do you need a brain transplant?"
No I don't. Companies make major infrastructure investments in streaming video and don't just switch on a whim. Furthermore, technology leads can change rapidly. When someone says "you need to evaluate other technologies" they aren't saying "forget about Microsoft", they are saying that you may need to be considering options. I realize you may be incapable of understanding that, but then, what do you even know about streaming video?
"Oh and what you say is true."
Yes, it is.
"...Do you need explained further or can you now figure it out?"
Sorry, but your argument, if you can call it that, isn't compelling. I never said Cringely was wrong, I simply said he was offering opinion, not fact, and that he makes money offering opinion.
"Aside from transcoding upwards in size (GEEEEEZ) - the fact is that Apple uses a low quality profile of H.264 - there is no Apple Quicktime High Profile H.264. YES/NO?
Not only would be the High Profile H.264 quality be as good as MPEG-2 - but at a fraction of the data. YES/NO? Makes sense for download or true streaming YES?NO?"
You are suggesting that I make a qualitative evaluation of Apple's product based on absolutely no actual information or experience with it. If you are so convinced that Apple's encoding is POOPY times 2, then I'm sure you are qualified to perform testing and produce documentation of that "fact". I look forward to you detailed review. No, I don't count quoting unavailable tests on unrelated encodings, wild-assed conspiracy speculation and posturing on your part as proof.
That's right, and when a customer sees video quality that doesn't meet a reasonable standard I would imagine Apple would want to know. 100% auditing of such a vast library isn't practical.
I'm not an Apple apologist but I'll give it a try...
. html
3 36
"According to Cringley - Apple has to keep video quality POOPY to please Walmart."
Just because Cringely offers an opinion for sale doesn't mean it's true. Furthermore, he never described the video quality as "POOPY". What he said was:
"Apple deliberately repositioned its movie offerings to be better than broadcast quality but less than DVD quality and quite a bit less than HD-quality."
- http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060914
Better than broadcast quality isn't poopy. DVD rips that are recompressed are less than DVD quality too and that's what you typically see on P2P networks. In fact, they are typically less than 640x480.
"According to Streaming.com 2006 video transcoding study, Apple's video is POOPY to begin with - in comparison to Real."
Perhaps "in comparison to Real" but that doesn't make it POOPY. Here is the announcement:
http://www.streamingmedia.com/press/view.asp?id=4
The reports themselves are for sale. You may buy them if you like.
No matter, since this was a streaming video codec study, not a downloadable one. The results of these tests say nothing about the quality you can get from video purchased from the iTunes store.
"So we get POOPY on top of POOPY. Quite a dog pile!"
That wouldn't be true in any case. Neither of your claims are actually true, but even if they were, you could only claim that the result was "POOPY" not "POOPY on top of POOPY". Apple could have achieved "POOPY" by using their "POOPY" codec. They wouldn't need to make it "POOPIER" still.
"The Streaming.com study mentioned above - stated that Micro$oft's WindowsMedia video sucked even more than Apple's H.264 and that folks interested in video needed to forget about Micro$oft."
It didn't say that either. It said "Companies using or considering Windows Media really need to evaluate other technologies." and it never said that any other the tested products "sucked". As I said before, this was a streaming video test and doesn't represent what is achievable in different formats.
Just tried it and got the following dialog:
"All purchases have been downloaded for this account
Purchases can only be downloaded once. You can burn a CD, DVD,
or use shared folders on your local network to transfer them to
another computer"
"This is the provider's responsibility."
Apple may make it the provider's responsibility, but it remains Apple's responsibility to the customer. Apple is the one who advertises a certain level of quality and Apple is the one who collects money and distributes. If there is a misrepresentation of the quality of the product it is Apple that makes it.
"The "limited" in preview is exactly what the CC license forbids."
Sure, but the question is whether it matters in a "preview". The purpose of the DRM is to assure that the shared tracks don't constitute "distribution". If that isn't the case then Zune has a far greater problem than the CC license. If it is the case, the Zune has no problem with any content including CC licensed stuff.
Ultimately, the question will be whether a user has a right to limited sharing of copyrighted content without the consent of copyright holders. In Zune's case, it's not only the DRM that limits the sharing to 3 views or 3 days but also the device itself that limits the sharing to 4 other users at any given time. IANAL so I don't know where MS got these numbers from, but I do know that the CC license is not the concern for them; general violation of copyright is. If they can get around that then CC licensers will have no complaint. Frankly I think they have only the slightest complaint anyway, since after 3 days or less the content disappears along with any possible violation.
"Since the user initiates the transfer, it is always the burden of the user, who is the one who agreed to the license."
I believe that's right. I made that point only because people insist that Zune itself will be in violation of the CC license when I don't believe that would be the case. It ultimately doesn't matter because the feature is worthless if it can't be used.
I think I addressed that issue with screen dpi. The Zune screen has plenty of resolution for 3". If the screen were 4" the resolution would still be 100 dpi, the same as every mac display. A 4" QVGA would be fine for video. Maybe Apple will "invent" it soon.
Apple wouldn't release a 1 pixel display, they'd release a 0 pixel display and call it a feature. If you don't agree, look at the Shuffle.
The Zune screen may be "chunkier" but I'd hardly call 133 dpi "chunky". If you think 133dpi is bad, I can't imagine what you'd say about the 100dpi displays that are found in all macs. I've had Dell notebooks with 130+ dpi displays and most people think the pixels are too small. I don't agree but that's another matter.
The fact is that the Zune has 44% more display area than the iPod and that's a good deal. I agree that I'd like an even bigger display but not if the device will be bigger. Not all video usage on these devices is 2+ hour movies. I use mine to watch TV shows while doing cardio and I'd much rather have 3" than 2.5".
"...unless microsoft does something to hamper the working of iPod on its OS - something it hasnt done till now."
I think you mean "something it hasn't done".
I guess, then, that it's illegal for Microsoft to sell mice and keyboards according to you.
I'm not defending it because i don't agree either, but Apple succeeded with iPod against entrenched competition partly because of it's superior integration with it's computers. Remember that the 1G iPod did not support Windows and Apple marketed it specifically as part of the "mac experience". Not really that much different.
"That might even make it a breach of license agreement for creative commons licensed music, because they demand that if you give a track to someone else, that person has to be able to pass it on, impossible with the Zune."
Zune doesn't give tracks to anyone, what it gives is a limited preview. In order to give the track to someone, you have to use a different method. In any case, the burden is on the user.
"Due to Zune's DRM restrictions there will be no widespread sharing on school yards, so even if the world would demand to return to the early Napster days, the Zune will not allow this."
I agree with this. What kids want is unlimited sharing. Zune's version isn't appealing to them.
"There have been a lot of other media players already featuring larger screens, so this alone does not seem to be a reason for customers to switch."
Yes, but all those players are significantly bigger than the iPod. Zune is the same size but with a bigger screen. Watching video on an iPod does suck pretty much so a larger screen would be welcome. I'm not convinced it is larger enough. I sure don't want one.
"What will ZUNE do that the Pocket PC / Windows Mobile platform cannot do?"
- have more than a few optimistic hours per charge
- be easy to use as a media player
- not be dog slow and prone to lockups and reboots
- have WiFi that's actually useful for its intended purpose
"Why would Microsoft all but stop its interest in the pocket computing field that is totally capable of everything Zune can do, then build an entirely new device on a new platform?"
Because the new platform is far more desirable as a media player.
"The only thing todays Pocket PC's don't have that Zune does have is the new software and a large harddrive."
That's a pretty big thing, though, isn't it?
"How hard could it be for M$ to add some software and bigger harddrive support to the already wonderful existing line of Pocket PC's?"
That is what they did, but they optimized the package so it wouldn't suck (as bad).
"Apple isn't the best out there. But they lead the market because they simply give a product that fills most consumer needs."
Isn't what Apple does with the iPod exactly what you just criticised Microsoft for doing?
and I agree too. Kids want to share music and keep it (nevermind the legality). Once they understand the sharing feature won't give them what they want then they'll just continue to want an iPod. Without Zunes being prevelent the sharing feature is worthless. Nice idea but doomed to failure due to DRM. You have to like that, actually.
"This is the latest "iPod killer" article that will be forgotten in a month. How many of these "killers" are we going to hear about before people wise up? Come on, one of the reasons listed in the article is "Zune is actually pretty cool." It's a fluff piece mixed with subjective op-ed from the author."
Yes, it is a fluff piece but not any different than fluff pieces we see that are pro-Apple. Selling a product on "coolness" is more an Apple thing after all.
Regarding Windows marketshare, his point was that MS has a lot of leverage due to its dominant position with Windows. I agree that it doesn't matter. iTunes runs on Windows and iTS is more established than anything MS *will* do. MS's YouTube ripoff doesn't exist yet either. Apple should be concerned, though, since MS has the resources to put together a complete competitor and it has demonstrated that it doesn't mind losing money to win a market.
The biggest differentiator is the WiFi. Sure it has a bigger screen but it's still small. Right now, most everyone that wants a player wants an iPod and knows how to use iTunes. MS has to overcome that and I'm not sure that the WiFi feature will overcome that. At least they have something no other iPod competitor has had.
I don't know about now, but the original Raptors were simply destroked to reduced average seek times. The entire platter was still there and the outermost tracks were the ones that were used. It is not a technical challenge to make a 3.5" drive spin 10K. Raptors now may be different but I doubt it. WD charges more for it because they can. 15K drives have smaller platters as you say.
I believe that by "hypothesis" he meant that those were his priorities. He wasn't arguing that those priorities held true for everybody. If he was then that could be easily argued.
It isn't SATA vs SCSI that determines performance, it's the class of drive that does (and enterprise drives are still SCSI).
SAS is NOT far superior to SATA. In fact, SAS uses SATA's physical interface (deliberately) and implements the SCSI protocol instead of the ATA one. They did that because the SATA interface was perfectly good, it would save cost, and it enables a single controller to support both. SAS is superior to SCSI and is equally desirable for RAID as SATA. Either is a better choice for RAID than SCSI is because SCSI introduces a single point of failure for multiple drives. SCSI (the parallel kind) is really the wrong technology for RAID.
The main killer of hard drives is heat, and SCSI drives are no more immune to heat than SATA drives are. The difference is generally that SCSI-based products are designed to provide better cooling. Because SATA is inexpensive relative to SCSI, it is likely that the products you are comparing are in different price classes so it's unfair to generalize about heat issues. Keep a SATA drive cool and it will last.
Ideally, there is no advantage to using SAS over SATA in a RAID environment. Practically, though, enterprise drives are far more likely to be SAS than SATA because doing so results in higher margins for the drive manufacturers. The best RAID products will use the best drives and those drive will likely be SAS ones.