This is precisely why you can't compare them, which was my point. While better options have come along for moving data (and even playing games), the vast majority of people still have a dvd or blu ray player in the house for movies. This means that dvds are going to be around a while even though they have long ago ceased to be the best for data storage.
That's a grand statement, that you have not supported. Where is your source for this? I don't have a similar argument, but from the trend of technology, it is almost obvious that optical drives are not what they use to be (ultrabooks, netbooks, tablets, cars, media players, etc.). If they feel that it is unnecessary, then we can assume that DVD's aren't a big part of life anymore.
Great example, except netflix ran blockbuster out by mailing DVDs to peoples houses, not streaming. Heck, they tried to start phasing out their dvds last year and were met with so much backlash they reversed their stance.
I see, well streaming has succeeded mailing out DVDs hasn't it? Was there any backlash against streaming?
Yep, but the vast majority of people don't have a way to watch that in their living room yet. While it is certainly growing, isn't there yet, or close for that matter.
This is true, I'm surprised the Apple TV hasn't caught on yet. It's such a good deal. I'm not sure about this comment. It's really a preference and I can't really argue against it. If they needed to, there are many ways to watch it on the TV such as HDMI cable, AV cables, AirPlay, but I mean, some people just don't like to do it that way... I don't know.
I don't understand this comment. It's condescending and makes no sense.
Again, I have no real issue with getting rid of the odd, provided we get something in return. And a thinner imac isn't enough of a trade. It's an idiotic trade.
It's Apple's idiotic trade to make and not yours.
On slimmer machines, you're way into diminishing returns on desk space. The only reasons would be aesthetics and marketing (because changing superficial elements makes them look new and shiny again). On game consoles, I think it's partially a desire to kill the used game market. It also makes it easier for these companies to port old popular titles with potentially lower distribution overhead.
I may be way too obsessed about desk space, but that's because in a crowded city like Tokyo, New York, London, there isn't space for another desk. The space on my desk is all I have, so if my computer can tuck away to the back of the desk, that's great.
I agree with you on the aesthetics and marketing, but if things don't come in a smaller package, there is no reason to make the internals smaller for the future. I'd like to think of it as creating space for innovation.
You are probably correct about the game consoles. I don't play games. It was just something off the top of my head since I heard the playstation has XXGB now and the Xbox has XXGB. It was a random example I probably shouldn't have brought up, but I learned something new, so thanks.
