waffle

Sometimes Christmas comes two months early.

And that’s all I’m going to say about that for now.

You know, I might not mind variable pricing so much if people just stopped bullshitting me about it. Recall back in September how NBC unveiled its plans to shit in their customer’s hands and call it a sundae.

That’s why it’s refreshing to see this EMI quote:

There is a common understanding that we will have to come to a variable pricing structure. The issue is when. There is a case for superstars to have a higher price.

No bullshit. No avoiding the issue. They want to be paid more for more popular content. I might still not agree with the concept – who decides who’s popular? – but at least EMI respects their customers enough to be upfront about their plans and intentions.

Update: And now, a few hours later, the EMI segment is completely gone from the iLounge article, which in turn quoted a page behind WSJ’s pay wall.

“firestorm”, commenting on a piece on Objective-C GC by Scott Stevenson:

Garbage collection in Mac OS X 10.5 can be faster than retain/release on multi-core systems. retain/release requires the code to obtain a lock, which is expensive. On multicore systems, libauto (the GC) can examine the heap before it pauses the thread so it knows what it’s doing going in. And, if there are UI events in the queue, it’ll abort it’s job and wait for the next idle time. It’s probably the most advanced GC on the market.

If it was October 26th today, I could tell you how libauto is also interesting on account on being driven by requests from someplace lower (like Foundation) and how that means that it only collects when you or Cocoa ask it to, and how it only collects stuff on the main thread. But it’s not, so I won’t.

TUAW goes off the deep end:

BusinessWeek’s Cliff Edwards recently reviewed the iPod Touch. While he gave it four-and-a-half out of five stars, he also made the same mistake that’s plaguing many technophiles with regard to this device: Forgetting it’s an iPod.

It’s an easy mistake to make. The iPod Touch is handicapped by its resemblance to the iPhone and the fact that it was released during the iPhone media blitz. As a result, people expect it to operate just like its twin. When it doesn’t, they’re disappointed.

So, let’s see: Cliff Edwards was a good journalist because he gave it a high score, but he made a mistake when he ragged on it for not having iPhone features.

While the “Cult of Mac” is still mostly a fabrication, sometimes you start to wonder.

The second paragraph is absolutely correct: people expect for the iPod touch to work like iPhone where it can. And given how Wi-Fi already exists on the device, nothing is holding Apple back from supplying the Google Maps, Weather, Stocks and Mail applications. I say “supply” because the platforms are nearly identical.

TUAW’s article again:

That’s not an oversight, it’s an example of Apple keeping the iPod true to its primary function as a digital music player. It’s tempting – but unfair – to compare the iPod Touch to the iPhone.

It’s not wrong of anyone to ask for more of the poor iPod touch. And the iPod’s primary function as a digital music player is long gone. iPod shuffle‘s primary function is as a digital music player. (Its secondary function is as a hard drive or a tie clip, if you choose it to be.) The iPod at large still has a primary function, it’s just now a music player, video player and photo viewer, and the iPod touch adds iTunes purchasing, web browsing, YouTube and better “Extras” (except for games).

But, okay, sure: Bluetooth, microphone, camera – those are all indeed things that could dilute the iPod touch from being an “iPod” at the cost of a raised price of the device. But holding back pre-existing, pre-amortized functionality for the same platform? This is the kind of shit Apple themselves make fun of Microsoft for doing. (Recall Steve’s quip about how “I think most people will probably choose the Ultimate version” of Leopard, which comes in only one model.)

And in my mind, the decision to put physical volume buttons on the iPhone and not on the iPod touch is emblematic of the cheapskate attitude marring the device. Apple could throw in all non-phone, non-Bluetooth, non-camera, non-microphone features into the iPod touch and iPhone would still sell like hotcakes – and in fact the iPod touch would sell quite a bit better, too. You know why? The iPhone has a phone. That’s the only differentiator there needs to be.

Update: A comment on TUAW’s article brings up a question.

Seriously, who don’t people complain that the Zune doesn’t run Windows Mobile 6? Why does Apple get punished for having a more advanced version of its product (iPhone) but others don’t?

The answer is simple. While a Zune running Windows Mobile 6 is hypothetical, iPod touch and iPhone are clearly and demonstrably running the mobile “OS X”. The argument is bogus. The two are not identical setups since they don’t have identical hardware, but clearly identical enough that porting an application that relies on hardware found in both devices is going to be a matter of minutes, if it can’t already be accomplished by simply copying the application over.

Apple gets “punished” because they deliberately choose not to include applications that would work perfectly fine and already be fully implemented. Apple’s scared of cannibalizing sales, this is bullshit and people are reacting accordingly and calling them out on it.