I too am a little surprised at how little attention Meteor seems to get. I attribute this to the fact that it sells itself as a client + server technology, rather than a potential client-side only tech (being fed by whatever server you want). When you sell yourself as a client+server then you might have a difficult time attracting the attention of all those who have significant investment in a different back-end, be it Node, Rails, or whatever. But yes, I agree, Meteor looks awesome. It's also got a steep learning curve. And much like Ember or even--I would argue, Angular--it's difficult to see the "magic" right off the bat. And given how new Angular and Ember and Meteor are, there is still a dearth of tutorials, videos, and books to help new comers see the value and get started.

So I'm definitely keeping my eye on Meteor.

That said, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Ember have something similar? If the data changes in the database then won't Ember update the client to reflect this? I'm not exactly clear on the distinction between Meteor's "Live HTML" and Ember's approach.