>> rose: welcome to the behalf. tonight, iran, the political revolution within, the effort to have a nuclear capability and what it means for the rest of the world, especially the united states. arab neighbors and israel. we talk to ethan bronner of "the new york times," bret stephens of "the wall street journal," jeff goldberg and abbas milani of stanford university. and we conclude this evening with a consideration of apple's new ipad with walt mossberg, michael polemenij of techcrunch and david carr of "the new york times" iran and the political forces at work as well as a look at the new ipad, next.

if you've had a coke in the last 20 years, ( screams ) you've had a hand in giving college scholarships... and support to thousands of our nation's... most promising students. ♪ ( coca-cola 5-note mnemonic ) captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: the obama administration is at a critical point in its policy towards iran. although it says the door is still open for negotiation, the administration is increasing pressure on the iranian government.

in the state of the union address last week, president obama appeared to take a tougher stance. >> diplomatic efforts have assisted with those nations that are in pursuit the nuclear weapons. north korea faces increased isolation and stronger sanctions, sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. that's why the international community is more united and the islamic republic of iran is more isolated. as iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations there should be no doubt, they, too, will face growing consequences. that is a promise. [applause] >> rose: general david petreus, top commander in the region made rare comments about defensive measures. u.s. cruisers are now patrolling off the iranian coast at all times, at least four arab countries have accepted the deployment of patriot antimissile system. as the u.s. continued to rally international support for

tougher anxious china has repeatedly stated its opposition, the israeli government is watching nervously. joining me to look at all of this, ethan bronner, the jerusalem bureau chief for "the new york times." bret stephens, foreign affairs columnist at "the wall street journal." from washington, jeffrey goldberg, and professor abbas milani of stanford university and i'm pleased to have each of them here. and i will begin with jeffrey goldberg in washington. where do you think the obama middle east policy and gulf policy stands today? >> that's a very good question. and it's a bit of a mystery to many people. i think they are in transition. they are in transition away from, let's say, an idea liftic or hopeful mode to a kind of sober recognition that iran might not want to play at all. and, therefore, we, the united

states, are going to do everything possible to buttress our arab allies in the region and buttress israel as well, with the caveat, of course, that the obama administration would add this point much rather see israel not take military action against iran. >> mitchell has been criticized because of the penalty on settlements and others say he is on the job every day working hard. what is your take? jeffrey? >> that's to me? i think that there's a feeling in washington that mitchell hasn't succeeded at all. there's a new push, of course, right now, to begin negotiations. i think one of the things that's happened over the past year is that the administration, key people in the administration, rahm emmanuel and hillary clinton have a history with

netanyahu and they were worried about his ability to come to the table ask come to negotiate. i think now there's been a shift, at least what i'm hearing, there's been a shift to the recognition that netanyahu is the only israeli politician at this point that could deliver 70 or 80% of the public to a serious negotiation with the palestinians so they're trying to recalibrate the way they understand him. i don't think anyone is hopeful right now. people are hopeful about the palestinian prime minister, al-fay yesterday and his willingness and confidence building up the beginnings of the state on a west bank but i don't think people are overly hopeful but they will make another push in the next couple of months. >> rose: but you know netanyahu well. tell me where you think his head is. >> his head is in iran, on the iran question, no doubt about that. and ethan is sitting in jerusalem, he knows this better than i do, i think netanyahu is very conscious of the fact that he can't alienate the obama

administration unduly with settlement building. you know, we have talked about this before. israel has a couple of key defense doctrines. one of them is obviously to prevent adversaries who are neighbors for getting nuclear weapons. seesaw that with iraq and syria. another core defense option is never get on the wrong side of the president of the united states. that's crucial. you cannot alienate a president of the united states. and right now, netanyahu is trying, imperfectly but i think he is trying not to alienate this administration on settlements so that he can keep the focus on iran. but, of course, this is a big "but" and israel is a vibrant and raw cushion democracy and he has constituents that want to see rapid settlement expansion so he is in a little bit of a tough spot. >> rose: the last time an israeli prime minister was on the bad side of an american president was shamir and bush.

>> you remember when he announced the white house phone number and told him to call him at the white house if he was interested in peace. i think this is a more serious moment because this is dealing with existential moments for israel. i think you have to go back to eisenhower and '56 to look at a situation as serious as the one that we have now. but yes, in the past, israeli prime ministers have gotten on the wrong side of presidents. usually that means nothing good for the israeli prime minister. the israeli public is very sensitive -- the voting public is sensitive to america's needs and wants and desires in the middle east. what is different about this moment is, you have a prime minister who seems to have alienated to some degree this administration but the public was behind this prime minister. that split has never really happened which just shows you how seriously the israeli public takes it threat from iran. >> it's interesting when he

talks about how the israeli puck went behind mr. netanyahu and that's true. i think that is partly a result of the sense in israel, an increasing sense that the world out to get us, that somehow obama and his administration are part of a shift away from israel. that's the fear in israel, toward recalibration, toward of the muslim world and the arab world. that was part of what led everyone in israel to feel angry about it. the result was that the obama administration was simply unable to make netanyahu and the building. that jeffrey is also right, that going to be building settlements in order to anger this administration but one thing '÷ be going on is people building settlements without the permission of the

government. so the difficulty of monitoring this moratorium, this freeze or pause or whatever you want to call it will be enormous. you have hundreds of thousands of settlers and their whole goal in life is to settle. not all of them. >> the israeli, from netanyahu's point of view, they are in a pretty good place, because the larger issue is the unsettled state of palestinian politics. it's just unclear how things will play out between- fatta, who the next leaders will argument and being prepared to talk without preconsiderations but there are prektion conditions. that's another story. he can make these gestures because there's confidence that the palestinian eswon't be able to reciprocate in a negotiation that is meaningful, and there were extensive talks between the

previous prime minister,7kieb&, merit and mahmoud abbas and they went nowhere because abbas was unable to accept them. so netanyahu can now say to the administration, look, i'm making gestures, i have frozen the settlement?6> project+4dsé 10 ms now, we're about half way into that. but at the end of the day, the increase. >> rose: frozen settlement projects on the west side. >> yes. x+ñínd6w"tm

>> lieberman wants him to think only about iran. lieberman has complicated schemes. these are the palestinians. lieberman wasn't palestine off the table. >> seems like today lieberman wants israel to invade syria or any number of countries. >> and he was pulled back by the prime minister on that point. >> he was. too serious to mess around with. >> this is a moment in terms of where people have to come to some sense of clarity about where we are with respect to iran, we being israelis and americans and policy makers who have to make decisions. >> well, look, from the israeli point of view, i think i have never seen such wall-to-wall unanimity between a dispatiuos people. there's no question that there's a consensus that iran has to be dealt with. the real question israelis ask

themselves is if they're capable of doing it themselves. that's why israel has been playing a crazy charlie game with the u.s. particular live the obama administration, publicizing large-scale aerial maneuvers, flying planes out all the with a i to gibraltar to telegraph to the obama administration, you had better do something about this and put the irans to a fundamental choice, they can keep their regime, or have a bomb or we will take action, and the consequences are difficult, difficult for the united states. and among american calculations it's not simply what to do about iran, but are they prepared to pay the price of a unilateral israeli strike on iran that would have consequences for american interests in the gulf. you saw the patriot batteries being installed in afghanistan where iran has ties with the taliban in iraq in particular where we're trying to wind things down but iran remains a

players of influence there. so that's -- the israeli strategy has been to tell the obama administration, think carefully, don't neglect us as players in this and don't neglect our interests because we have an ability to affect yours. >> rose: is it your sense that if the united states cannot do something whether they have sanctions at work or whatever the options are that the israelis will certainly act? >> i think there are people who take a different view. i have argue not only will israelis act but i think they will act sooner rather than later. time does not play into their hands here. >> rose: what is the principal reason that you believe that, sooner rather than later. >> the sooner they strike the more likely it is in that they n strike effectively. the longer they delay, the more enriched uranium, the irans will have, the more widely they can disburse it, the more capable

their offenses will become. so sense time is not on israel's side and we're at this moment where the diplomacy has been given its nine months to succeed, seems to have failed fairly decisively, this would be the kind of window in which at least outside of the technical issues of the military strike, israel would have a strategic opportunity to act. >> abbas milani, give us the perspective as you think it is from tehran? >> i can give you the perspective that i see both from the iranian people, from the iranian democratic movement. and i think that there's a consensus inside iran's democratic movement that this regime today is facing the most serious fundamental crises in its 30-year history. almost nothing can save this regime. but there is one thing that i think will save it and that

would be an israeli attack. that's why i think people like ahmadinejad would be happy if they're attacked by israel. in my view, their goal in having the nuclear program has been all along the goal for going -- for a nuclear bomb has been all along, in my view, to consolidate their own hold on power. i think they are trying to stay, as they have shown now, in power with any price, and it's becoming increasingly clear that they cannot. but if israel attacks, not only will there be widespread, i think, instability throughout the region, but i think this regime will be saved and i don't think that saving this regime is in the long-term interests of israel. >> rose: but -- i want you to continue, please. but are you saying that if, in fact, there is no attack from israel and there is nothing

hostile, other than sanctions, that this regime will fall of its own weight because of its internal conflicts? >> that is very much my guess, absolutely. if there are increased targets sanctions against the regime, if there are increasingly isolated on the international arena, if it is made clear by the international community that the democratic movement has the support of the world, if china is forced to give up its rather unsavory support of this regime at any price and i think china can be forced to do that. china has shown to be susceptible to pressure and people are beginning to put pressure. there was a paper signed by a hundred of iran's academicians asking china to give up this strange behavior. with these constellation of programs i think there can be serious hope there will be democracy in iran.

what i wanted to add is that you have to figure turkey in this equation as well. and i think turkey is increasingly critical view towards israel will become even more serious if such an attack takes place. >> rose: what i wanted to say is i think abbas's point is powerful one and i think bret was right before the election and he is less right and they do recognition what -- they watch what is developing, ticking clocks like the load of uranium they can produce. another is what is going on internally. another is their own ability to withstand any kind of counterattack from hezbollah and hamas and the other is iran's ability to withstand a an attack from them. these are four ticking clocks and when i attack to military intelligence people they talk about. my sense is things have shifted slightly, a, because they

believe the americans have grown more inpatient. the world generally has become less believing in the ability to negotiate with the iranians, and they say there could conceivably be some collapse that would allow them not to attack. my gut is that they know that attacking could unleash an enormous firesball of problems that they can't foresee and they can'tnette liz stop. so while they want, you know, if you were to slap a slogan on israel, it would be "never again" and think don't want that regime to have a nuclear weapon, i don't think they want to be the ones to stop it. they want the americans to stop it. >> i hope abbas is right. but the real question is, this regime could collapse in a year or 20 years from now. i remember in the 1990s people said north korea is certainly finished and it's remarkable to the extent it has succeeded in holding on. hunta and burma has been around

for decades despite every kind of pressure. that has to weigh on israel's calculations as well. as much as it is in their long-term interests to see the regime fail and collapse and go back to the kind of arrange mernt that they had with the shah where israel had diplomatic relations, as interested as they are in that they're more interested in making sure iran doesn't get a bomb. >> charlie, let me mick this one point contrary to bret. one of the things that the israelis are worried about and i attach my self to ethan's analysis, one of the things they're worried about is an attack by them on iran would unleash an attack on american troops in places like iraq and afghanistan and that, for israel, is a kind of doomsday scenario. israel cannot survive, certainly cannot flourish where the u.s. is blaming israel for american soldiers' deaths. and i think because of that, among other things, the brakes

are on than bret might have you believe. the brakes are on a little bit in terms of the israeli rush to bomb iran. >> look, we're obviously talking about the future, the future is very hard to predict. it seems to me that it's -- i mean, you have to question the rashnality of the iranian regime. but in the event of an israeli strike, what is iran's interest in then involving americans in acquiring a second enemy beyond the israeli ones? it doesn't seem to me to make sense from their point of view to bring in the united states one way or the other. >> it's not a lot of what they do make sense. >> well, there is a kind of rashnality, if you set aside the mailtarianism and the brutality, there's a calculating rationality to the regime, so they would have to think very

carefully before they embarked on those kinds of actions of picking a fight that only with one powerful regional neighbor but then picking a fight with the world's premier superpower. so i mean, let me just -- i'm not advocating an israeli strike. i think israel would devoutly wish to find ways to avoid that snare grow. it's an extremely difficult one for them. it raises all kinds of imponderable questions but i'm suggesting from israel's point of view they can't afford to wait 40 years possibly to wait for this regime to collapse. it took -- improperly regimes have lasted longer. >> rose: the judgment is not 40 years, if there's some pressure on the regime to collapse. abbas? >> first the regime doesn't need to directly take on u.s. soldiers in the region. the regime has proxy that it can increase its help to and have

them pick a fight and make life much more difficult for the u.s. in afghanistan, make difficult for the u.s. and in iraq. and i have no doubt they will do that. i'm not sure that hezbollah, for example, will ever pick a fight with israel just for the sake of iran but there might even be freshing hezbollah to do that. but i think that the problem with this discussion is that it is trying to find a good solution. there is no good solution. there are simply bad and worse solutions. and amongst these bad and worse solutions, the single worst is attacking iran. because if you truly want this regime to stay for 30 years, have israel attack it. >> rose: let me give you a good solution. >> the charlie rose plan. >> rose: well, wait until you hear it. >> i know. i'm eagerly awaiting. i am. >> rose: i think dennis blair

said to the congress when they all went down there, that you have 20 judge iran's nuclear decision-making as being guided by some cost-benefit approach. so i mean, can we imagine circumstances in which this regime, because of all of its problems, says, you know, we need to back off on this and we need to give up? >> that's very smart and rational. that's very smart and rational. what is also smart and rational is the iranian observation that the surest way to get america off its back is to be decisively nuclear. i mean, this is -- >> rose: that's a north korean scenario. >> what did they learn from iraq?

they think that the economy is iran is generally weak and that biding sanctions can make a difference. and that would add to the scenario of the regime not more difficult and delays their development of nuclear weapons. so i don't think it's a buys father choice. i think there'sñr a feeling rigt now of kind of going six months by six months and i would be surprised if in the coming six months that your snary played out that there would be an attack. i think they are actually pretty happy to wait and to push right now. >> rose: go ahead and then i have a question for you. >> i mean, if you look at the dynamics of the situation, israel has an ally in iranian democratic movement in the sense that they don't want this regime to have a nuclear bomb, because they realize that if this region -- if hamid gets his hand on the bomb he has a new lease on life. and the economy is in shambles.

reports that came out last week show the incredible collapse of the real estate market in tehran. there are reports in tehran reafs prices have come down 40%. the price of the dollar in the black market has increased by 50%. there's virtue althoughly no investment in any fields. the situation cannot continue. and what will begin make everything a new ballgame would be an attack on iran. i understand israel is concerned but i think we have to look at, from the point of view that you have to find the least damaging option, and i think that so certainly not a military attack. >> should the president of the united states on monday, or tomorrow, make a speech where he says to the iranian government a speech and some group in

washington, you cannot do this, you cannot continue to suppress the people the way you are and you cannot continue to have hangings in tehran the bay you're doing. >> or else. >> rose: or else. >> what is the or else? >> rose: yes. >> absolutely it can. >> rose: i think he is saying -- >> like in south africa. >> rose: ok. let me go around here. should he do that? even if he doesn't have an "or else" should he try to ratchet up the international pressure. >> i think he has to put the regime to a fundamental choice. it can either survive as a regime or they can continue to pursue a nuclear weapon. that's the only diplomatic strategy which i think might force the people in tehran, the leadership in tehran, to make the right decision, at least as far as the rest of the world. but this becomes the same probable that jcial had in the prunup to the iraq war. you isn't say "or else" and not

mean or else. >> rose: jeffrey is right about that. you can try to be much more forceful. i think the regime has been -- the american president has been remarkably restrained in terms of what he has said, to be critical and to be even engaged by the conflict in iran. >> charlie, can i just say that historically -- look, we, the americans, have not been very good at lining up on the side of the iranian people over the last 40 or 50 or 60 years. it's probably time to say, look, we stand with iranians who wasn't to be free. i think, you know, when history looks back on this period, i think obama will be seen better by history for having taken a strong stand for democracy and for freedom for the iranian people. i think there's no do you tell about that. >> thank you all. great to have you here. >> good to see you again. thank you, jeff. thank you. >> we will be right back.

>> hats count down to the academy awards continues we bring you another "oscar moment" of >> how do you relate to an illiterate woman who served in auschwitz? its extremely difficult to do that in comparison to the other roles have i played i have always been able to in some way connect the dots and dr comparisons to similar experiences in my own life, in my own past. and with this i had nothing. so i always felt, ok, you're terrified. that's a good thing. huge leap of faith. just go in there and make her your own. it was very important for me though not to try and humanize her. i had to understand her. and i had to make her a person, you know. stephen brilliantly put it yesterday the holocaust was started by normal people and it

was important for me to remember that, in all of my research and reading what i did and discovering what i learned about ss guards, these were young men and women who didn't know what it was they were signing up for and i have to think of hanna as absolutely one of those people. >> rose: we continue this evening with a consideration of the ipad. it was released by apple last week after months of anticipation. >> we call it the ipad. [cheering] >> rose: the ipad is .5 inches weighs 1.5 pounds and has a 9.7-inch multitouch screen and goes on sale at the end of march, $499 and the most expensive model $899. the at&t, 3g network will cost extra. steve jobs described it -- >> it's so much more intimate than a laptop and more capable

than a smart phone with this gorgeous display. >> the ipad will be a new platform to consider movies, games, books and more. it will also run apple's 140,000 iphone apps. joining me to talk about the impact, walt mossberg. michael polemenij from techcrunch in california and david carr of "the new york times." i begin with walt mossberg. although you have written about this in "the wall street journal," tell me about what -- what is your assessment of this? >> first of all, i think people who are focused on the hardware, they say, you know, it just looks like a big iphone, they are missing the key thing here. the key thing is going to be the software and the services that it will deliver. like you mentioned, a book store and book reader, and there are negotiations that are being reported about apple is hoping to do a video service and music

service that might stream and do other things. so that will be the chi. the other thing i would say is, from the short time i have used it, it feels great in the hand. it's wicked fast. i mean it's really fast. and it has software flourishes that are more like a mac or pc than they are like an iphone. the photo app on there looks like one you would get on your windows or mac computer than on an android or blackberry phone. and they have a full-blown productivity suite, word processor, spreadsheet, slide presentation program. so it's a different animal than an iphone. having said that, let me quickly add, and i think everybody here would grease, there's a big hurdle here that steve jobs has not faced even with his other successes. this is the first time he is going to have to make a market for a size and type of product

that has simply not existed or not succeeded before. it's existed but no one has succeeded with it. even though the iphone was a game changer, charlie, and you and i talked about it when it came out and it has proven to be a very successful game changer but there were smart phones. he didn't say you might want to carry a smart phones because people were already doing it. he just did a different one and better one for a lot of uses. this is different. he has to say, you already have a smart phone, a laptop and now i want you to carry this thing. he was honest about that. that's what he said up front. >> we could debate the features one way or another. but until we really have them in our hands for extended period of time it's hard to review them. but i think that this is definitely a new category of device and it will be successful or not as a category. personally i think people are going to love this. i think sitting on the coach and listening to music or looking up something on wikipedia while

watching tv, on an airplane where laptops are awkward to get on your lap, i think it will be something people have loved. we have seen it with the kindle. people love their smart phones. we will see how this does. >> one of the things that you have to understand about the gadget is the gadget disappears quickly. you're looking into pure software. imagine you're on an airplane or in a train or car with somebody and they seem to have the whole web in their hands. they seem to have a whole movie in their hands they can move around. it's not like the iphone where they're constantly trying to make you look at it and stuff. it will be sitting next to you and you're going to go, wow, that is -- that's an amazing looking thing. the gadget part of it is -- you know there's only one bottom ton on the front of it. it's all about the software. you're looking at a clears window into the software that animates the device and then the software that media companies made for it and gaming companies make for it.

>> there's no killer application here. >> i think there are two exiler apps. one is gaming. you have something where it's both a display and a controller. and so it's fairly addictive. and then the book. the book politics where you can take a page and you can see steve jobs enter irrevocably and this has bedefinitelied the industry, why do we have to wait for pages to load, why do we have to wait for e-ink it's a great application for books. they know this. they had an i book marketplace raring to go. >> you think amazon ought to be worrieded bought this will challenge the kindle. >> i think a whole lot of companies have to be looking at this and say is this a bridge to the future or gallows for us. media company stuff looks great on there but it's a question of,

well, we're selling politicses from your app store, you're going to have the relationship with these guys and we're going to send you software to animate our device. is that a good business for us? we can't tell yet. we don't know. >> rose: talk about price point, wallet. >> well, the price point shocked me. and i happened to be briefly chatting with steve jobs about a month before and i said how much is this. he wouldn't admit that he was making a tablet for a long time. but i said let's say you're making a tablet how much would that cost. he said under a thousand. i said that's code for $999. that's a lot of money. when he said $499, i thought 799 or something but when he said $499 i was amazed. they have a well earned reputation for premium pricing. thank i have done well. they're the only computerring company that has had record quarters during this recession

and yet they don't sell a computer for 500 bucks and so it's been a good strategy. but they are a premium company with premium prices and $499 doesn't sound like a high price. i know it goes to $829 depending on what you add but to get into this at $499 it will make it harder for developers who might be looking to steve jobs to make a market with the public for this and then come in under their price, under $499 will be hard to make a profit. >> yeah, i think that they -- you know, i think they're making plenty of profit on this device. it'suseing very low end chip. low end chip compared to your desktop and laptop machines. it's high end for a mobile device but still relatively inexpensive to produce this. there's a lot of cost in the touch part of the screen but i think they will make plenty of money. the price on this thing gets

high, up to $829 for a high end model. i think that, even at a thousand dollars they would sell probably millions of these if you look at comparables with the ipod touch and kindle, probably millions in the first year and that will be a raining success. >> anything you don't like about it? >> yeah. well, i don't like the fact it doesn't allow for flash in a browser. you can't go to hulu and waches hulu videos on this device. that's what this device is perfect for is watching a hulu or another flash video site. now you can download movies and i thuns and tv shows and music and listen to it that way and it has a great high define screen, i think it's 720p. but without flash you can't play flash games and can't watch flash movies i think that is a real problem. >> one thing i want to say about that $500 price, i think that's a total fakeout. i don't think anybody is going

to want that device at that level of power. i think they're going to have to step up. the other thing that a lot of people have brought up, the fact that you cannot multitask on the device. for certain people that weakness is a great strength. because to be able to sit -- i think there's a revolution in the fact that you lean back and read something as opposed to being up and trying to work on it. leaning back, not have your twitter stream screaming at you, not have your work email, not have your rss feeds but just lean back taking in a shows, taking in a book, find of a third place in termsan electronic place, a place where we can come to rest. i think people are going to like it. >> rose: it's made for this show, isn't it? >> yes, it is. except you're in flash i think though. >> well i think there's another weakness. there's another weakness which is it doesn't have a webcam. and it would be perfect for scips calls or i chat wiz is

apple's video service and it's a shame. >> why don't it have flash and why doesn't it have a webcam. >> why it doesn't have flash has to do with, i think, some business issues that have long existed between apple and adoby. adobe being the company that makes flash. i want to point out something that i know both david and mike are aware of, which is that, there's a kind of backlash against flash amongst some, not all of the tech companies but important ones, google, mozilla and apple are all supporting a new version of html which is the basic language the web is written in that can play videos without a flashz plug in. flash is used, as mike pointed out for games and other things, more than just videos. but the ipod touch, let's take that for a minute and most people understand it's like an iphone but it doesn't use a

cell phone service. the ipod touch has sold like hot cakes. it sold amazingly. and it has thousands of games. it's used hugely for games. it's clear that people can make games for the ipad without flash because the touch doesn't have flash either. and it just doesn't seem to have been an obstacle. with the new html version that doesn't requires flash coming along slowly, i think apple is probably gambling that they will at least be in as good a position as they were with the touch and eventually over the next 18 months or whatever, this html thing will provide a challenge. >> i think we're a good two years away from seeing sites like hulu be available without flash so we have that interim period where you're going to be stuck with itunes and you tube because you tube has an application for the iphone. >> you tube went and redid their videos in a different format

that the iphone and touch can understand and even their own android phones which doesn't use flash you go to you tube and you can use it there's no reason if hulu wantedded to do it, they could do their videos in something other than flash and be mart enough to say here is an an ipad coming in, we will serve it to this woman that has the ipad in a different format. >> consumers doesn't care about format. they just want to see the video. >> what can make this a game changer. >> if people begin writing applications that are irresistible in and among themselves. this will be more viral than most because it's so large that if you're sitting next to someone, it's going to market itself. i do think, as michael points out, at a certain point it's going to have to help you rome freezely across an ungated web and look at any kind of content

that you want in brilliant beautiful color. people couldn't want to have -- it's like having a really great cars and a tiny road to go on. you don't want the closed loop. you want this thing to be more of something that will allow you to roam. as a visual interface with the web or with media companies, it just really can't be beat. >> will magazines appear here? >> absolutely. >> authors can do videos right in their books. >> it was a terrible day for amazon and a terrible day for kindle. mr. jobs did say we stabbed on the shoulder of amazon and it was professional and gracious about that. but he left of the picture of the kindle up there for like two minutes and it looks like something men ennights made 150 years ago. it was not -- it was just to emphasis house old a model that was. and i do think that if content

begins to -- you know, you can expand it with your fingers. you can drill into it. you can make pictures. "sports illustrated" had a beautiful application where you're looking at a great picture, you touch it and the guy starts to run and the game continues. that is sort of game-changing for media companies if they can figure out how to make a cash flow, they can get a relationship with the consumer. their stuff looks great on the device. >> and there's no law of physics that says amazon has to sit still. there are plenty of factories in china that may not have apples end to end and software expertise but they can build amazon a better device than the kindle, a color device. one reason amazon and its current competitors went with that gray screen was they figured, it's a book, people are going to want a week of battery life, not 10 hours. jobs is gambling that if you can go all day and just have to charge it at night like you do

with a lot of other devices that you have, that will be ok with people. amazon didn't take that poifs when they started. but they can build -- they can come out with an lcd screen that looks like this and all of that. and if you look at the kindle app on the iphone, a lot of people don't know but there's a kindle app on the iphone. you can read your kindle books on there and that's in color. you can hiltz and change the shade of the pages and do a bunch of that stuff. >> there's a good point, while apple invented this category they're the first to market anything substantial. there will be a ton of devices out by the end of the year, by the time people are buying their holiday gifts there will be hp and dell and something else from amazon and consumers are going to have a variety of devices to choose from. i keep going back to the category of the hole and thinking i want this on an airplane, i want to watch a

movie on the airplane with this device or a device just like it and i think at a $500 price they're going to sell as an industry a lot of these. >> why did they go with at&t, michael? >> they have a long-standing relationship two at&t. the exact agreement with them, details are not known but i'm a little disappointed. i would have loved to have seen them issue an unlocked device like google has done with the nexus one and you can take it to at&t or t-mobile and use it with either caressier that you want. >> don't you think the fact there was no contract attached to it was an indication that people know, you prepay by hitting a button on the ipad, and the fact that you don't need a contract, you can just buy it by the month is an indication that they know that people aren't ecstatic about this service developing a long therm relationship with at&t. >> apple is totally aware that people are not happy about at&t. and just to pick up on mike'

point, nobody knows what the contract -- you see all kinds of stories that say, the at&t exclusive relationship with apple will end in june or end in november or end in april. and no one, to my knowledge, has ever published the actual details of this agreement between these two companies. so we don't know. it could be that they went with at&t because they have to go with at&t contractually at this; moment. and nine months from now, if we do another one of these shows, they could be on verizon or if they come to terms with them or they could do a thing(i@.óç like qh2÷ where you choose between at least t-mobile and at&t. >> what do you think the chances are they will drop the price again? >> sometimes they drop the price. sometimes they keep the price and add features. i will remind you the iphone came out at 599 and they dropped it to 399 after 60 days.

>> i think that steve jobs did a wonderful job of, as you pointed out, setting up where the runways is. it has to be -- to do more than

a computer. >> what does this say about steve jobs? >> to me, you know, he didn't point to the fence. he didn't say -- he said he was excited about this. i'm sure there are a few fan boys out there that aren't totally waving the pompoms about everything about this device. but you have michael arrington wament mossberg and when you have those guys interested in your device, i think they hit their mark. >> i think this is another example of something that is fundamental to understand about steve jobs as a c.e.o. he is not a market-research-driven guy. he doesn't want to go out and ask people, how can we make this a little better or what is the next little improvement that you would like. he tries to figure out what people don't know they want yet. and then do it, try to do it in

a beautiful way and tries to make them want it. and i'm probably being the most reserved here thofint because, although i did -- i do agree with david that the feeling is wonderful in the hand, i need live with it. but i will say he is not shying away from big bold risks and that has been true of them, whether you're talking about apple or pixar or whatever he has done as a business guy. it also means there's a risk of a big flop in some of these products over time. >> there's not much risk of a big flop here, is it? except for the thact that we don't know there's a great market for a tablet. >> but that's it, charlie. he is going into an area here, and -- look, look, i think the odds are likelier this will be a success than it will be a big flop. but he is going into an area where everyone is tried,

including bill gates, and he not a stupid man. he was totally personally passionate about the windows tablet pc, which was a big flop. so all i'm saying about steve jobs is, he trieses to think of what would be a good way to use technology, software, hardware, all together, the whole enchilada and i'm going to try to do it and try to make you understand why you would be excited and passionate about it, and that's his style. >> the businessman of the last decade said -- michael, do you want to add to spheches jobs? >> i think there's a couple of things to remember. he has had a couple of missed steps. i have a mac attached to my tv but it's not an apple tv because of the limitation. and if he has limited this device too much in this early version and they don't it rate

fast enough they could have a misstep and competition could come in and do something hurtful to apple but helpful to the consumer. >> is it possible he is working on something that isn't quite ready and it will be like a magical politics? >> i can't imagine this device by the holiday season won't have a camera in it. the tear down shows there's room for a camera. this is just the right time for these devices. talked about historically microsoft and others including apple, with the newton trying to create a touch device. you have these chips now that are very lowe's power and very high performance. the snap snapdragon and also the invideo chip. you have technology that working on bigger screens that was not around even a year ago for a screen of this size and this can now exist in a way that consumers can interact with it proposal the appropriately and i

think this is the right time for this category to emerge. >> i think one thing that it showed, and walt and i watched steve jobs take the stage. he is obviously engaged in building out his version of a future with this company. there's been no loss of momentum, no loss of ambition, no loss of scale. whatever he went through in terms of medical or illness issues which was a significant point of concern, on their reach into the cull sure and and ability to preoccupy occupation, steve jobs is doing what he has always done. >> rose: i think the opportunity to be obsessive about something like the ipad keeps him vital. thank you david. thank you michael. thank you, walt. >> thanks.

captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

if you've had a coke in the last 20 years, ( screams ) you've had a hand in giving college scholarships... and support to thousands of our nation's... most promising students. ♪ ( coca-cola 5-note mnemonic )

ken burns: we've frozen to death--ha ha!-- you know, in below-zero weather.

we've filmed in broiling-hot temperatures. it's every extreme, and yet, you know, i don't think there's any of us that ever complained about this, that didn't feel that we were part of this privileged moment of being able to capture this stuff. i just love these. buddy squires: like, if you can follow the ridgeline down... yeah. i know. i know. i just did. dayton duncan: we have shot in 53 of the 58 national parks. we extended our shooting schedule by about two years for a project of this size, mainly because there are so many places we needed to go. the parks themselves, the places themselves are, in essence, characters in our film. we wanted to be able to interview them as extensively as possible, and some of them we went 3 different seasons to visit them. burns: we're filming in denali, and it has only one road. it's 90 miles long, and most of it is dirt and completely unimproved,

and that's the way the park wants it to be, and so you have a sense that this is just your little ribbon of territory-- "don't leave this line. this is where you go"-- and the beasts there--the moose, all the other animals, but for me, especially, the bear-- and one day where it was in early august, we were perusing these brown bears in alaska, and we look at each other, and, you know, it's great. in this film, the landscape really is the character. it's one of the characters. it's the main character. i mean, it is a film about the parks, so, you know, thankfully, we have this incredible landscape to work with, and it's so varied, and it's so beautiful. i think the most amazing experience i had was in hawaii volcanoes. i was actually shooting hand-held