Today I was looking at a list of the ten hottest gadgets for Christmas giving 2007. (Admittedly, these "lists" amount to little more than a catalogue of stuff hyped by manufacturers, and the only thing that makes them hot is the meaningless label and the fact that some "news" outlet, too lazy to actually go find out something important, chose to take a short-cut and print mere advertising as real news . But anon…)The least expensive gadget was $105.75 – something that claims to let you watch television wherever you want. As far as I can make out – and the information provided was really, not just virtually, useless – it will broadcast from your television to your DVR or some such thing. So basically you can watch TV from your computer or your tiny portable DVD player or someplace you don't have cable. Customer reviews indicate lots of problems, so what may make this a hot item is people burning it in frustration. (For what it's worth, the real list value of this thing is more like $130, and it goes for over $175 at some places.)
At the other end of the price scale, ironically enough, is a 50-inch television for $1,792.00.
So to sum up: Make your television viewing experience too big or too small for a price that is only too big.
But my real question is, why are these things called gadgets, usually defined as a small mechanical device? Fifty inches small? For two thousand dollars? For that matter, is a hundred and thirty bucks what you want to pay for a gadget? I think gadget = stocking stuffer, maybe five bucks for a jar opener or a crank flashlight.
Old Codger Man, signing off.
He'll be back! Christmas is the season for codgering.
No comments:
Post a Comment