Sponsored
Techradar |
- Tutorial: How to recover deleted photos and emails
- Review: KEF T-Series T205
- Review: HP Envy 14
- In Depth: How Apple became bigger than the Beatles
| Tutorial: How to recover deleted photos and emails Posted: 05 Feb 2011 04:00 AM PST  You've lost some important files – maybe you didn't back them up, or maybe a program crashed before you could save the file. Thankfully, the information may still be on your hard disk – all you need are the tools to restore it. In the past, data recovery was an expensive business, but these days you'll find it's possible to recover files quickly, easily and for free. The best free data recovery tool we've found is Recuva, which we're covering in this tutorial. Two versions are available: a standard version that you install on to your hard drive in the usual way, and a portable version, which enables you to run the program directly from a USB flash drive, ensuring files aren't written to your hard disk prior to attempting data recovery. 1. Install Recuva If your lost file is stored on a different drive or partition from Windows and your programs, simply install Recuva from the cover disc using the default settings, which installs it to your system drive. Once installed, leave Run Recuva v1.38 ticked and click Finish. Jump to step three.
2. Install portable version If you have a USB flash drive, select Recuva Portable from the disc. When prompted, click Continue followed by Browse. Select your USB flash drive from the list and click OK ➜ Extract ➜ OK. Once complete, double-click Recuva (64-bit Windows users should double-click Recuva64 instead) to launch the program.
3. Select what to look for Ninety per cent of deleted and lost files can be recovered quickly. If you know the name of the file you're looking for, click Cancel and jump to step 13; otherwise, click Next to either select the type of file you're looking for, such as pictures, music, emails or documents, or Other to search for all files. Click Next again.
4. Choose where to search If you know where the lost files resided – in the Recycle Bin, Documents or on a removable drive or media player – choose the appropriate option. If you know the exact drive or folder, pick In a specific location and click Browse to select it. Otherwise, leave I'm not sure selected and click Next.
5. Scan for files Recuva tells you it's ready to search for your lost files. You'll see a deep scan option is available – this can take hours to complete, and shouldn't be attempted until you've discovered whether the quick scan is able to detect your files, so leave the option unticked and click the Start button.
6. Sit back and wait Recuva now starts the scanning process. This can take some time, depending on whether it's searching a specific location or not. If you have more than one drive or partition attached, each is scanned and analysed separately. The progress bar keeps you informed as to the scan's progress.
7. Review results A list of matching files is displayed – if your file is among these and is marked yellow or green, tick the box next to it and click Recover. Select a different drive to save the file to and click OK twice. Try opening the file in Windows Explorer to see whether it's been recovered successfully.
8. Recover emails Recuva can find lost and deleted emails in Windows Mail, Outlook Express and Thunderbird. If any are found, they're collected together into a single zip file. Tick the box and save this to a different drive. Once done, quit Recuva and extract the contents of the zip file to a folder.
9. View recovered emails All recovered email messages are stored inside the folder as separate messages in EML format, which can be opened and viewed in any email program. Look for an option on the File menu to open a saved message; browse to the folder containing your recovered messages to access them.
10. Use Deep Scan If no files are found, you're prompted to scan again using Deep Scan – click Yes, then be prepared for a long wait. If files were found, but yours wasn't among them, close Recuva, then go through the wizard again, this time ticking Enable Deep Scan before clicking the Start button.
11. Use advanced view More results should appear in the list – many of which are marked as red, indicating they're just file fragments that contain no recoverable data. To get more detail about recovered files before you decide whether or not to attempt recovering them, click the Switch to advanced mode button.
12. Preview files The window changes to reveal more options and a Preview pane (see the annotation on the previous spread for a guide to using Recuva in advanced mode). Select your file to see if anything appears in the Preview window, or click the Info tab for more details about the file before recovering it.
13. Find a specific file If you know the name of the file you're looking for, the quickest way to find it is to type all or part of its name into the Search box. Select the drive you think the file is on from the dropdown menu (or choose All Drives if you're not sure), and then click Scan.
14. Explore your results If you can't find the particular file you want to retrieve, or don't remember its name but do know which folder it was in on your hard drive, right-click inside the list of files and then choose View mode ➜ Tree View from the pop-up menu that appears. You can now browse the results according to their location on your computer.
15. Search damaged or formatted disks Recuva only searches for deleted files by default. To force it to search for 'lost' files – which include files on corrupt or reformatted disks, you need to click the Options button, switch to the Actions tab and tick Scan for non-deleted files… Click OK, then click the Scan button to update the results.
16. Data recovery complete With a bit of luck you'll have found and recovered the files you lost or accidentally deleted. Recuva makes the process as simple and as straightforward as possible, and by following our tutorial, you'll have discovered how to rescue data from your computer without spending a penny in recovery fees.
| ||
| Posted: 05 Feb 2011 02:16 AM PST  KEF's new T-Series range of home cinema speakers are definitely a sign of the times. They've been designed with a clear purpose in mind – to be an aesthetic match to newer, thinner, flatscreen TVs, enabling buyers to couple their hi-def movies with authentic 5.1 sound without their living room looking like a branch of Sevenoaks. The question is: has KEF sold out? Can these skinny speakers deliver the audio quality that everyone knows the brand is capable of? Auditioned here is the T-205 system, which uses the larger T301 and T301c cabinets for the front left/ centre/right soundstage, a pair of the smaller T101 for the surround channels, and is underpinned by the T-2 subwoofer. It retails for around £1,500. The step-up £1,700 T-305 system uses the bigger cabinets throughout; those who live inside a shoebox can go for the £1,200 T-105 array. Whichever package you opt for, one thing remains the same – the thinness of the cabinet. Each speaker is an impressive 35mm in depth. They're sleekly styled, too, with a black cloth grille, black aluminium side trim and just a KEF logo to let you know that what you're looking at is actually a loudspeaker.
KEEPING A LOW PROFILE: The T-Series cabinets are only 35mm deep – a perfect match for your flatscreen TV If you were to see these in, say, Philippe Starck's apartment, you might confuse them with very minimalist objets d'art. Even the subwoofer is a stealth product, designed specifically to be slung in the corner of your room and out of your wife's sight. The look of the whole package might not be to everyone's taste, but I like it. All the T-Series components are only available in black, although if Samsung keeps selling shedloads of titanium effect TVs, you'd think KEF might make silver side trims available, too. A unique feature about the T-Series speakers is that they are meant to be wall-mounted. Speaker's usually sound best when they are positioned away from walls – when they are placed in close proximity they tend to get a bass boost, which can overshadow the midrange a bit. KEF has compensated for the influence of the wall in the speaker's design. However, not everyone will be wall-mounting these, so a special stand, called the Selecta-Mount, comes into play. Here, KEF re-adjusts the sound character of each speaker by introducing an extra filter section, before the speaker's crossover network, to switch the speaker into what the brand calls 'free-space balance'. This means the T-Series speakers can be wall or stand-mounted without adverse effects. Tech-tacular The T301s are a two-and-a-half-way design, with a single 1in aluminium tweeter sharing duties with a pair of KEF's new twin-layered mid-frequency drivers. It's this latter piece of tech that has enabled the brand to get the T-Series' startling form factor. Itself only 27mm in depth (compared to the KEF's KHT3000 Uni-Q driver, which is a positively obese 70mm), the MF driver has been crafted with Finite Element Analysis (FEA) computer modelling, borrows a bit from KEF's super-high-end Concept Blade prototype, and claims to deliver the same acoustic performance as a 'true' 4.5in mid-range. But does it? To test the T205's mettle I first put on what has become everyone's reference BD disc for sound quality, Avatar, and skipped to the Viperwolves chapter. This scene is a cinematic masterpiece for aural excellence and the slim, sexy KEF's handled it well. There was seamless integration between each speaker in the 5.1 setup, enveloping my listening position and drawing me into James Cameron's action. Sound was clear and detailed. When the 'dogs' are chasing Jake, they seemed dangerously close. Subtle effects in the cinema mix were deftly presented, too, adding an extra feeling of immersion into the movie. When speakers are able to do this, you know you are listening to something that is very good. Switching to Piranha 3D, the Kef's tweeters showed their worth, and the high-frequency chatter of the killer fish teeth tearing through flesh was real enough to make me wince. The T205 system can play loud, too. For such a slim cabinet design, I was surprised by the SPL levels achieved. Better yet, it was able to go loud and maintain clarity. This suggests these speakers have inherently low distortion, but based on the amount of R&D that's gone into them I'm not surprised. A lot of speakers can go loud, but thankfully the T-205 isn't ignorant when it comes to quieter material, either. In Avatar, after Neytiri saves Jake in the Viperwolves chapter, their awkward introduction to one another shows how dead silent the system can be – the only noise you hear is what was in the original mix. Whether it's with the raucous delights of Avatar and Piranha 3D or more serene movie fare like the cop comedy The Other Guys, I found dialogue remained pinned down and clear. The centre channel's performance is commendable. Centres are the workhorse of any home cinema, and they have to be able to handle the most complex scenes with a high level of composure. The 301c can do this. Let's play the music! With the T-Series clearly crafted for living room installation, it's likely it'll get a lot of use with music, too. For this I spun up a selection from AIX Records' Audio Calibration Disc HD Music Sampler (not got it? You're missing out...); hi-res tracks that really put speakers through their paces. The result was very natural-sounding, with a good amount of detail present. Some speakers can sound hyper-detailed, as if they're altering the original music signal and boosting the high frequencies, but here high notes were extended and clear, but not thrown in your face, so you won't get fatigued during a long listening session. However, the audiophile in me did feel it was missing something on these tracks. I wanted more transparency from the KEFs. Don't get me wrong, you can hear a lot of low-level detail, but I felt as if there was a bit of veiling of the music. Also, these cabinets are better when given support up by the T-2 subwoofer.
BELOW DECK: Adjusting the phase and bass boost levels on the T-2 sub will involve lifting it off the ground Should you ignore advice and listen to pure stereo you'll get a somewhat thin sound. Bring the 10in, 250W sub into play for a punchier, fuller performance. This little trouper can reproduce relatively low bass notes (down to a claimed 30Hz), but, more importantly, has a wonderfully tight, well-controlled and tuneful sound. Overall, the T205 is a seriously enticing 5.1 system. Build quality is excellent, it dazzles with movie soundtracks, and will suit most people's music needs. The icing on the cake is the slim, wall-mountable design – if you're looking for an affordable low-profile cinema system to complement your ultra-slim flat-panel, then look no further. With its T-Series, KEF has identified a target market and grasped it with both hands. Other brands will have to try hard to wrestle it away… Related Links
| ||
| Posted: 05 Feb 2011 02:07 AM PST  Although HP primarily sells consumer laptops through its Pavilion range, its Envy line offers a high-end alternative for those with a bigger budget. Unfortunately, while the Envy 14 (£999 inc. VAT) is a stylish, powerful and compact machine, it is a little flawed by awkward usability. Initial impressions are good. The sleek chassis and textured, metallic finish create an elegant look that makes it arguably the best-looking laptop in this group test. Its smooth clamshell design is comfortable to hold and it slips smoothly into a carry case. At 2.6kg the chassis is not as light as the 13.3-inch Toshiba in this group, but is still suitably portable for use at home or on the move. While the 215-minute battery life is bettered by both the Asus and Toshiba here, you can work for nearly four hours while away from mains power.
Full-sized keyboard With the lid open, the clamshell chassis reveals a full-sized, isolation-style keyboard. Fully backlit, the board moves with a smooth and responsive action when typing. We did notice some minor flex on the right-hand side of the board, however. Unfortunately, the large touchpad is not nearly so well designed. With the mouse buttons built into the touchpad itself, it is far too easy to misjudge where you are pressing and to send your cursor flying across the screen at any time. Where the Envy 14 fares far better is in the surprisingly high-powered performance it provides for such a portable machine. Built around a cutting-edge Intel Core i5 processor, there is a stunning amount of power on offer, matching all but the smaller Toshiba in this group test. Graphics are even better and double the power of all rivals in this group. One of three laptops here to be powered by a dedicated graphics card, performance is staggering for such a slim laptop. The 14.5-inch screen doesn't quite match up to the high standard set by its graphics card, but image quality is certainly acceptable. The bright panel and sharp resolution show photos off to good effect, but we did find the screen uneven at times, with images a little washed out. High-quality audio gets things back on track, with HP's Beats technology delivering a powerful and warm sound ideal for games, music and movies. The sound is even better when played through a set of headphones, making this certainly the best multimedia machine in this group. If you can live with the awkward quirks of its touchpad, there is no denying the style, power and features of the Envy 14. Unfortunately, we found usability too flawed to want to use this as our main machine, however, reducing the impact of what is an otherwise fantastic multimedia laptop. Related Links
| ||
| In Depth: How Apple became bigger than the Beatles Posted: 05 Feb 2011 02:00 AM PST  Apple is the biggest thing in music – bigger even than The Beatles. We discover how Apple became the music industry's best friend as well as its worst nightmare. Back in November, Apple teased us with a special announcement. "Tomorrow is just another day," the Apple site said. "That you'll never forget." The rumour mill instantly went into overdrive. New iPods? Streaming iTunes? When it turned out the announcement was The Beatles appearing in iTunes, you could hear the sighs echo around cyberspace.
John Lennon famously said The Beatles were "bigger than Jesus". Apple, it seems, is even bigger than The Beatles. Apple dominates music. NPD Group reports that the iPod has 76% of the US MP3 player market – Microsoft's Zune and Zune HD account for just 1% – and that iTunes accounts for 28% of all music and 70% of all music downloads sold in America. And yet 10 years ago, the world's biggest music retailer wasn't even in the music business. The long, winding road Apple didn't invent digital music, and it didn't popularise it. While Macs were – and are – a common sight in recording studios, digital downloads owe their success to two PC programs: Winamp and Napster. Winamp and Napster both used MP3, the digital music format that crushed audio files into tiny sizes without dramatically affecting their sound quality. Developed by the Fraunhofer Institute in Germany in the 80s as part of the MPEG-2 standard, MP3 turned out to be the perfect format for digital music. It's good enough to listen to, and small enough to download over dial-up modem connections… and Napster and Winamp were its perfect partners. You'd simply download music with Napster and then play it in Winamp.
WINAMP: Napster and Winamp revolutionised music and paved the way for iTunes Napster made it to the Mac in 2000, with clients such as Macster (later Napster for the Mac), MacStar and Rapster. Winamp didn't follow suit, but that was okay: the Mac had Panic Software's Audion and Casady & Greene's SoundJam MP. That year, Steve Jobs saw which way the musical wind was blowing and decided the Mac needed a proper music player. He approached Panic, but it was already in negotiations with AOL, so Jobs made Robin Casady and Michael Greene an offer they couldn't refuse. SoundJam was retired in June 2001, but by then much of its DNA was in something else: iTunes. Day ripper Apple launched iTunes on 9 January, 2001, and the following month it announced iMacs and Cubes with CD burners. iTunes' big selling point was that it could do what the iMac ads described as "Rip. Mix. Burn." That is, turn CDs into MP3 files and create CDs from MP3s.
Today it's widely accepted that burning CDs for personal use from music you already own is legal, but that wasn't the case in 2001. The Recording Industry Association of America argued that burning CDs wasn't covered by 'fair use' in copyright law, and in the UK the British Phonographic Society (BPI) pointed out correctly that UK law didn't allow for fair-use copying at all. With adverts actively encouraging people to rip music and make CDs, Apple should have become the industry's number-one enemy, but the major labels had bigger fish to fry. The entire mainstream US music industry, in the form of the RIAA, had already tried and failed to stop Diamond making its Rio MP3 player. They couldn't stop the MP3 player, but they could stop Napster. In July 2001, Napster closed its doors permanently (today's Napster is 100% legal and shares only a name with the original). And then Apple announced the iPod. The iPod wasn't the first MP3 player – that honour falls to Saehan's MPMan F10, which went on sale in 1998 with a then impressive 32MB of storage. Some would argue when the iPod launched, it wasn't the best. In an echo of Decca Records' famous "guitar music is on the way out" dismissal of The Beatles, many Apple-watchers agreed with Slashdot's CmdrTaco: "No wireless. Less space than a [Creative] Nomad. Lame."
SOUNDJAM MP: Apple acquired the rights to the much-loved Soundjam MP music player and turned it into iTunes, one of Apple's finest moves Help! He had a point. The iPod didn't sound as good as some other players (your correspondent reviewed the first iPod and found that Creative's Jukebox sounded better, although in my defence I did say "if Apple decides to support PC owners, it'll make a fortune") and it didn't have as many features. So was its success a case of style over content, Apple hype and clever ads? "Come off it," Paul Brindley says. As co-founder of music consultancy MusicAlly, Head of Communications of the Music Publishers Association and former bassist with The Sundays, Brindley has been involved in digital music since the first MP3 downloads. "While the iPod may not have sounded as great as some other players, it worked well, it had the fantastic innovation of the scroll wheel, the storage capacity was higher than most other players and it integrated nicely with iTunes," he says. "Yes, it had good advertising behind it too, but that's too simplistic an assertion." The first iPod had 5GB of storage, which was enough for 1,000 songs. But where were you supposed to get the music from? The record industry maintained that ripping was illegal. Five years after the iPod shipped, the RIAA was still arguing that moving music you'd bought legally to your own iPod was a crime – and when they launched their own download services, MusicNet and PressPlay, in 2002, the DRM-protected files were in Windows Media format, which wasn't iPod compatible. Our recollection of the early download shops was of sky-high prices, confusing copy protection rules and a horrible user experience. Are we being unfair? "Your recollection is on the money," Mark Mulligan says. The Vice President and Research Director of Consumer Product Strategy at Forrester Research has been monitoring the digital-music business since 2000, and recalls: "The first generation of download stores were simply not fit for purpose. They came at a time when the music industry had only just started to countenance that digital might be something more than an irritation that would eventually go away." It wasn't completely bleak – sites such as eMusic offered DRM-free downloads from independent artists, and sites such as MP3.com offered free MP3s from unsigned bands and the occasional household name. But if you wanted to buy a Top-40 album and listen to it on your iPod, you couldn't. Or at least, you couldn't do it legally. Fortunately, things would soon change.
TEN YEARS ON: Today's iPods are still setting the standard - and they're still dominating digital music Two years after Napster shut down, piracy was bigger than ever. The record labels were chasing Napster's spiritual successor Kazaa through the courts, but it was still going: at any given time between 1-5 million people were sharing more than 1.5 billion files, and that was just one of several file-sharing systems that appeared in Napster's wake. MusicNet and PressPlay weren't making much of a dent because, as Paul Brindley puts it, "They came at it from the perspective of the majors trying to control the subscription business. They soon realised they were not very good at that, thankfully." Mark Mulligan agrees, describing the legal services as: "A pitifully poor generation of products that actually accentuated the impact of disruption by making the legal alternatives [to file sharing] so poor that they were no alternative at all." And then Apple released iTunes 4, which included its very own music store. Everything MusicNet and PressPlay did wrong, the iTunes Store did right: instead of wildly varying pricing, every song was 99 cents. Instead of weird and inconsistent copy protection ("this track gives you one CD burn and three listens on a portable player, this track can't be burned at all, this track gives you six burns and 100 listens) iTunes tracks had FairPlay. This meant you could use them on three (later, five) Macs, unlimited iPods and unlimited CDs – although you could only burn a playlist containing FairPlay tracks once). Steve Jobs didn't want DRM at all. As he told Rolling Stone, "When we first went to talk to these record companies – you know, it was a while ago. It took us 18 months. And at first we said: none of this technology that you're talking about's going to work. We have PhD graduates here who know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content." The labels wouldn't budge, however, and despite Jobs' misgivings the iTunes Store launched with FairPlay-protected content. Critics accused Apple of operating a closed system, and that's true: it had the shop, the music software and the portable player. "Closed systems can only work if they are used to protect a quality of experience, not to simply control," Mulligan says. "That's why Windows DRM-powered services failed and iTunes succeeded." In less than three years Apple had 1 billion songs (the billionth was Coldplay's Speed of Sound) and four years later downloads cracked the 10-billion mark. As for PressPlay and MusicNet, the former was sold to Roxio, rebadged as Napster 2.0 and relaunched in 2003; MusicNet became MediaNet in 2007 and powers download shops from the likes of Yahoo, HMV and Zune.
ZUNE: Despite Microsoft's best efforts, the quite-impressive Zune HD isn't impressive enough to tempt people away from their iPods Baby, you're a rich man By 2007, Apple was the king of the music world. The iPod had 72.7% of the entire MP3 player market and 70% of the music download market. A 2007 study by Piper Jaffray found that among teenagers, iTunes had 90% share. That market power meant Apple, not the music industry, was calling the shots – and that was largely the fault of the record labels. The DRM they insisted on wrapping their downloads in made Apple the most important player in digital music, because the only DRM that worked on iPods was FairPlay. By effectively forcing every iPod owner to buy their songs from iTunes, the labels made Apple the only game in town. From 2003 to 2009, conversations between record labels and Apple went a bit like this: "Please can we put the prices up on iTunes? Please? Pretty please with sugar on top?" the labels would say. "Nope," Apple would respond. As Steve Jobs told reporters in 2005, "If they want to raise the prices it just means they're getting a little greedy… Customers think the price is really good where it is." The standoff continued through 2007, when Steve Jobs wrote his Thoughts On Music essay (http://apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic) damning DRM and publicly urging labels to dump it. EMI listened, enabling Apple to offer DRM-free songs under the iTunes Plus banner for a small extra charge, but other labels were stubborn. If they wouldn't do what Apple wanted, Apple wouldn't do what they wanted – so iTunes' price remained set at 99 cents and DRM remained on most iTunes tracks. Unlike the labels, Apple doesn't depend on selling music for its income. It could sell every track at a loss and still rake in millions from iPod sales. The labels pushed for higher prices and Apple resisted – and the more songs it sold, the more powerful it became and the less leverage the labels had.
COMPETITION: Amazon's MP3 store doesn't appear to be taking market share from iTunes Frustrated, some labels decided it was time to teach Apple a lesson: they would work with Amazon and help it launch an iTunes rival. The Amazon MP3 store launched in 2007 and offered DRM-free music, but it barely dented Apple sales. Even today Amazon is far behind iTunes, with NPD Group reporting that Amazon has 12% of the music download market compared to iTunes' 70%. Amazon's share is growing, but not at Apple's expense: iTunes is up 1% since last year, with Amazon growing at the expense of Rhapsody, Napster and Microsoft's Zune. Apple finally relented on pricing in 2009, but the labels had to dump the DRM to get it. Now, all iTunes music is sold DRM-free. Apple has long passed the point where it needs DRM to keep people shopping in iTunes. Beatles for sale The same Beatles deal that got Apple so excited could be getting other people excited too: antitrust regulators. While it's not illegal to have a monopoly in the US, it is illegal to throw your weight around to unfairly exclude your competitors. And with iTunes exclusives, it's arguable that Apple is engaging in anticompetitive behaviour because that music isn't available anywhere else. That's not a big deal when it's the occasional Ellie Goulding or Rihanna bonus track, but when it's everything recorded by the most important band in history you can see why some might be concerned.
BONUS: One man's bonus track is another's anti-competitive behaviour. Critics say iTunes exclusive are unfair to the market Every little thing A lot depends on how you define the market Apple is in. If it's all music, then Apple's sub-30% share of US music sales means it's a big player, but hardly monopolistic. But if you only count downloads, then depending on whom you ask, Apple has between 70% and 90% of the market. When Microsoft had that much of the web browser market, regulators pounced. "Apple is clearly too powerful," Mark Mulligan says. "Any market that has one company controlling 75% plus is not healthy." It's a view echoed by Columbia Law School professor and copyright expert Tim Wu: "Take a monopoly in several markets, mix it with an ideology of exclusion and it's easy to predict antitrust problems." Wu points out that to regulators, iTunes' refusal to support other firms' MP3 players (and the upgrades that stop firms such as Palm from syncing their devices with Apple's software) look very like the kinds of behaviour that got Microsoft into trouble in the 1990s. Mark Mulligan's concern isn't that Apple is taking an anti-competitive stance; it's that Apple's losing its long-held interest in music. "Steve Jobs' passion for music has undoubtedly been one of Apple's biggest assets," he says, but points out that Jobs' focus has moved to iPhones and iPads. "Up until nine months ago iPods were still selling at record rates, so new iTunes customers were arriving at a sufficient rate to keep the digital market growing solidly," he says. "Apple has taken its foot off the music product innovation pedal. Of course it has something up its sleeve, but it won't have the same priority a new-music offering would have had three years ago. As Apple dominates digital revenues, if music is less of a priority then the entire market feels the effect." Apple has become so big in music that when it sneezes, the entire music business catches a cold – and there's no sign of a serious competitor on the horizon. "If Apple faced any serious competitive threat as a music provider they'd respond," Mulligan says. "They don't yet." The most likely competitor is Spotify. At the time of writing, its long-awaited US launch has been delayed yet again, reportedly because it can't come to an agreement with the major record labels, and its UK operation is losing money. "Their business model has so many questions over it Apple probably thinks it's wise to let Spotify burn through its investment," Mulligan says. "Then it could be bought by a large media or technology company that will, within a couple of years, sap the momentum out of it – as happened with MySpace, Bebo and Last.fm. Apple's crown isn't in danger yet." 
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from techradar To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment