Comments:

1. timmy t on March 8th, 2012 at 21:01:

   Some links that are critical of the viral video and organization here – http://www.whydev.org/a-readers-digest-of-kony-2012/

2. Ben on March 8th, 2012 at 22:42:

   And here:

   http://guyism.com/lifestyle/advice/kony-2012-viral-video-scam.html

   That paints the most balanced picture to me, and even includes Invisible Children’s response to the mounting criticism. It’s worth exploring every link.

   While capturing Joseph Kony wouldn’t be such a bad thing, it also wouldn’t improve anything either. And it can definitely be argued that the nonprofit’s resources could be put to much better use. The truth, as usual, probably lies somewhere in the middle of both views.

3. Sue W on March 9th, 2012 at 0:22:

   @Ben: I think stopping Kony would improve a lot of things. Doesn’t solve all the problems but warlordism is something worth discouraging.

4. benjaminsa on March 9th, 2012 at 12:03:

   @Sue W: No one is disputing getting rid of Kony is a good thing. Arming a different bunch of warlords to do it, not so much.

Comments:

1. Mudak on March 8th, 2012 at 13:25:

   Not necessarily. One of the most telling things about yesteday’s AppleTV announcement was that users of the previous generation of set-top boxes would get a software update that gives it the same UI as the new generation. I say this because as long as there’ve been rumors of an Apple-branded tv set, I’ve been thinking they’d be foolish not to make most of the major features of such a set available in a standalone box, too. There’s a certain economics at play here that’s unlike anything going on with any of Apple’s other business units.

   Use me as an example. I have a flat-screen TV in my living room. I bought it a little over three years ago for about $2500. Yes, I know that some newer tv’s out there right now might offer more bells and whistles — even a larger screen size — for the same money I spent on the one I’m using. But I also know that I’m not buying a new TV unless and until this one actually breaks. I suspect I’m not unique among consumers and Apple would be foolish to completely ignore this block of potential buyers. The cost alone — which only the high-end Mac users are anywhere near — is reason enough not to offer some features (if the rumors are true, then the full TV will have Siri integration. How about leaving that off but whatever licensing is needed for watching everything else, that could find its way into a set-top box…)

2. Desiato on March 8th, 2012 at 13:54:

   Yeah, mostly agreed. The question is, if you’ve spent over $1,000 on your current TV, what’s cool enough to get you to replace it rather than just getting the add-on box? (That’s what I was speculating about here.)

   It’s also possible that Apple could do what they’re doing with the iPhone and iPad, corner the supply of a new high-end display technology and use that to create a better TV. It’s possible. I would note that I’m not sure the retina display is the big selling point for the iPhone, and that the iPad sold just fiiiiine even before it had a retina display. What’re you going to do on a TV with more pixels than HD needs? Gaming? Or…?

   If I had to bet money right now I’d bet against Apple releasing a TV-with-screen-included device, at least in 2012.

3. Desiato on March 8th, 2012 at 14:02:

   As for the iPad, I would have been more likely to shell out money for an iPad Air: same spec as the iPad2 but about half the weight.

4. John Sinteur on March 8th, 2012 at 14:55:

   Or the negotiations with the content providers aren’t done yet, and that’s why they are waiting with the TV..

5. Desiato on March 8th, 2012 at 16:04:

   I’m inclined to follow Gruber’s logic that Apple sticks to long-planned schedules and doesn’t release multiple versions in the same product category in short succession. Given that they updated the existing AppleTV now, it seems likely they’re not planning to release anything else for a while.