the video iPod is ready, the NYT isn't

This article is retarded. Ostensibly, the guy is reviewing the new video iPod, but all he ends up doing is revealing his ignorance. He blasts forth by wondering who would want to watch TV shows on a 2.5 inch screen. Well, somebody wanted to, ya dipshit, or Apple wouldn't have built the thing. He bemoans the deart of programming available for iTunes. Well, the thing came like a week ago. Relax, brosef, more is assuredly on the way. He goes on to compare it to other devices like a portable TiVO (which, what? how?) and a new device called "Sling." Whatever. Those things will fail because they'll be ugly, too complicated to work, and nobody will know what they do or why they need them. Apple, though, knows that people will see that you can watch "Lost" on your iPod and go, "Oh, ok. I get it." I have no idea why I would need a Sling box to forward cable programming to my computer. I pretty much already download all the shows I want to watch anyway.

"There are no bogeymen like the original, illegal Napster or Kazaa to bring everyone to Mr. Jobs's table - at least, not yet. Rather, as more people get high-speed connections to their homes, Mr. Jobs is positioning his new device as a pre-emptive strike against pirates and file-sharers."

Ok, no. Has this guy never heard of BitTorrent? The first thing i thought when I heard "video iPod" was, "Can I play my downloaded TV shows on it?" Downloaded TV shows now are just like MP3s, quasi-legal, yet readily available. And the market has bowed to the reality of MP3s (in that iPods and other portable devices will play them), just like it will for shared videos. It's ridiculous to portray the video iPod as a "pre-emptive strike" against video pirates, because the pirates have already struck. Get with the program, NYT. Ha. Get it?

UPDATE: Much better.