I'm sure it's great for mobile, but on a desktop this site is nearly unusable.
However, on my computer I often scroll up and down with flicks just as often as I highlight text to focus. It's usually when I'm skimming.
Boy was I surprised when the article disappeared because I scrolled too far and there wasn't an obvious way to get it back. The subtle cues on the left side nav are not in my line of focus and I missed them, so the first time it happened I was really confused.
Scrolling doesn't seem like the right event to trigger the next article here. I don't want this feature.
On another note, why is the Nokia Lumia 920 an AT&T exclusive? If they want their platforms to become more popular, why do they hamper their access so much (the same can be said for Nokia who are supposedly in trouble)? Most Windows phones available from carriers are pretty lackluster. The only ones that catch my eye are the Lumia 920 and the HTC One X.
I'm sure they could stipulate presentation requirements to some degree, but the current state of affairs is not exactly how I'd want my hardware presented to customers.
I thought their partnership with Barnes and Noble was in part to address this. It wouldn't take much to expand the Nook store-within-a-store to include Surface tablets. I've been moderately impressed with the Nook sales reps in their stores. Sure, it would create some conflicts with the Nook Android tablets, but money can solve that problem.
If I were MS, I wouldn't be relying on OEMs to do anything except continue to suck.
Plus, a major source of their revenue is OEM licensing, so like it or not, they still have to deal with them.
It's amazing to me how many companies fall for a strategy that works for Apple, and think that it could easily work for them, too. Apple has so many advantages that makes stuff like this work, that it would be almost impossible for anyone else to get it working without those advantages.
"If only we would get carrier exclusivity, too"
"If only we had our own custom proprietary OS, too"
"If only we created our own proprietary docks and connectors"
"If only we had our own specialized stores"
And many other such things. They copy all these things, thinking that it will work for them just like it did for Apple, without realizing that those work only for Apple, because they are Apple.
I don't see many companies willing to invest in a long-term and multi-pronged strategy. With most companies, one down quarter or bad gartner report and they'll revise next year's activities and products.
It doesn't exist until Apple makes it.
It's about polished implementations that don't suck running on solid hardware.
The reality is that lots of companies copy lots of ideas and that is normal. The exchange doesn't just go from Apple geniuses to everyone else. No company is an island
Microsoft isn't betting the farm on becoming a hardware company.
I wouldn't call this a death spiral either, but what you're seeing is a large bet not paying out as expected.
Microsoft is not a hardware company. They haven't made a significant bet on becoming one.
Acer probably has less lattitude in this regard, but HP and Dell have non-trivial inroads to Microsoft's (very profitable) enterprise customers. And if they start building and shipping Linux-based servers that plug into the MS infrastructure they're already supplying, at massively less cost , Microsoft's entire fallback plan of milking the enterprise into the sunset (going IBM) is under threat.
 Consider an opensource Sharepoint replacement that has all the Exchange/Office/Active Directory integration. HP has the staff and resources to make that happen, given that they can deliver any and all windows plugins necessary to support the edge cases. Or even linux-based web and database servers that play well with an otherwise-MS enterprise.
With Windows 8 Microsoft is foisting a whole new UI paradigm on desktop users who didn't ask for it and mostly don't want it. Yes, you can still use the desktop mode, but I'm betting a lot of non-techie users will just suffer with Metro because they have been conditioned to unquestioningly accept arbitrary awfulness from computer software. I doubt 95% of computer users ever go outside of the web browser and Office applications... and no matter how awful the Metro implementations of these apps are (I imagine IE in Metro isn't much different, but other apps?) they'll just deal with it. After all, they learned how to use Word, one of the most arbitrary and capricious pieces of software this side of Lotus Notes.
I've seen it in person too many times to believe that most non-technical people don't realize software could be a lot better and that it doesn't have to be the way it is. And in a lot of corporate environments, even if they know, they can't do anything about it.
And the only reason MS is pushing Metro on non-portable device users is to jump-start their own app store, because I'm sure they are drooling over the idea of taking a significant cut out of every software sale like Apple does. They are drooling so much that they are willing to risk antagonizing desktop users in order to get it, understanding that a lot of people will just think "this is the new normal" and go along with it, because they don't have the knowledge or experience to realize they have some say in the matter.
This is not a bash on users... a user should not have to be an expert unless he wants to be, but Microsoft is counting on being able to strongarm these users to suit Microsoft's needs, not the users'.
MS is years behind in the tablet and phone markets and Surface doesn't look like the iPad-killer it needs to be to give them a foothold in a market where they are currently all but irrelevant. Ditto phones. MS can't coast on the biennial desktop/laptop upgrade cycle the way they used to because a huge chunk of money spent on computing devices is going to devices where MS doesn't (currently) have a decent entry.
Meanwhile, a lot of users will needlessly suffer with the angry fruit-salad of Metro and hate it, but just take it as the new "normal". If that weren't true, Office would have actually gotten better over the last 15 years.
Really? So much of their business is relying on the Surface RT that it will spell doom for the entire company? Highly unlikely.
Edit: Scrolling up at the "top" of the page should do nothing, not go to some other page.
I mean, let's look at it this way - 50% thicker than the iPad and Surface RT. Nearly 40% heavier than the RT and iPad. Substantially poorer battery life (estimates are between 5-6h as opposed to the 9-10h demonstrated on the RT and iPad). Runs so hot that it needs to put a spinning fan in your hands.
The Pro is strictly a niche device. If the RT isn't doing well the Pro sure as hell isn't going to save it.
Fitting that into a Surface like size will not be easy unless we see a component or platform that is yet to be introduced.
And double the screen resolution.
I don't get why companies are keen to dump hundreds of millions in development, but don't want to cut price on something because they'll "lose money" on the product.
There's probably more accounting issues and 'predatory pricing' arguments and such that could be made, but at the end of the day, they've already spent the money on all the development of the mobile/surface/phone stuff. If more people aren't using it enough to be a serious long-term player, they've "lost" the money already. "Losing" a bit more by selling the hardware at cost or below cost to establish an installed base doesn't seem wrong. Don't console manufacturers do that, and it's accepted in that market?