* Posts by Terrin

2 publicly visible posts • joined 13 Jun 2007

Real and MTV in joint bid to be crushed by iTunes


A few thoughts

First, Apple provides the DRM free tracks in a larger file format and charges more for them because 1) EMI probably wanted more for the DRM free tracks, and 2) Apple likely had to make the tracks a different size in order to not violate its contracts with the other labels. You see those other contracts would have contained a provision requiring Apple to increase the price on all its tracks if it increased the price on some of its tracks. By increasing the file size, the DMR free songs would be considered a separate product thus allowing Apple to charge more for songs without violating its contract with other labels.

Second, iTunes from it's inception has included user information attached to all of the songs, not just the DRM free ones. Some more tech savvy people then myself have pointed out this is necessary for some iTunes features to work. Whatever the case may be, it is not like Apple has keep this a secret, anybody with iTunes can see the metadata attached to the songs.

Third, I really do not see why Europeans get upset at Apple for prices varying through European iTune's stores. Apple originally said it wanted one European iTune's store. The labels wouldn't allow it, arguing that copyright laws are different in each country, and the contractual obligations to each artist are different in each country. Presumably if a record company has to pay more to the artists in Britain then France, it would want to charge more in Britain. At the end of the day, Apple's choice was not to open any European iTunes stores, or do it the way the labels wanted. Apple may set the retail price, however, labels set the wholesale price. The labels presumably are charging Apple more in certain countries then others, thus requiring Apple to charge different prices if it wants to make a profit in all Countries. Makes sense to me. This is even more the case when different currency is involved.

Apple's Safari lacks bold vision


I hope Complaining People are Reporting Bugs

I have tested the Beta on both OSX and XP. On both machines I have so far experienced zero issues. I can only assume I am not the only one. As such, it hardly seems fair to suggest the Beta is highly buggy. From my experience, Explorer 7 on XP is highly buggy. In fact, I had the same problem with it chopping off the top of the menu expressed here concerning Safari. Nonetheless, the whole point of releasing a Beta is so that people will test it out and report bugs (which is easy to do using Safari).

I will also say on OSX Safari seems quicker then the previous one, and there are a few useful new features. On XP, Safari is definitely Quicker then both Explorer 7 and Firefox 2. I think the main reason is that both Firefox and Explorer on the XP machine I am using are blotted down with features and plugins. For instance, it takes forever for the Yahoo and Google tool bar on Explorer to load. I think the beauty of Safari is that it really is a simple browser. There are features I wish it had, like better ad blogging, but there are plugins that accomplish that desire.