The site is pretty simple and does exactly what you'd expect - providing price comparison services for individual songs and albums from all the major online music retailers, from iTunes to Tesco. With the market being extremely variable (the current info shows that the lowest prices vary in terms of retailer quite drastically depending on the album/song), this new tool looks like being a great asset to consumers of legal music downloads, and is just the tonic in this current time of rapid proliferation of suppliers.

One interesting thing emerges from a quick visit to Tunechecker however, and it is aptly pointed out by the Guardian tech team in their feature about the site: iTunes is NEVER the cheapest option, and often charges more than double the price of other retailers for music. Once iPod and iPhone users realise that they can use other retailers to buy music, and that Tunechecker will show them exactly where to go for it, things could get interesting in terms of eroding Apple's market share. We'll have to wait and see on that issue, but for now it's probably enough to say that Tunechecker represents a very welcome and significant addition to the online music sector.

Dejan Levi

We could go on - in the desktop market Apple offers the iMac, while digital music software comes in the form of iTunes etc, but by now the point that the i-product branding, pioneered by Apple and associated with many of their most famous products, is potentially applicable to a vast range of consumer electronics/software is clear.

In essence there can be no doubt that such branding works extremely well for Apple, linking as it does with their emphasis on products that look different (hence the assertive individualism stressed by the 'i') and also connecting their entire product range with a common brand DNA which enables advertising on a general brand level (the effects of which then filter back through to all products).

Now, as is perhaps inevitable with an extrememly workable branding strategy like this, a few other things start to happen as a result of it:

a) Other companies try to get into the slipstream of such products by unofficial affiliation - like for example a company that designs an iPod waterproof case called, say, iSwim and wants to link itself to the primary product for which it is designed.

b) A variation on the above - but with software in question. For example Inventive, the company behind iClip, a scrapbook program for Macs. Since Inventive are in essence designing free software products exclusively for Macs, then they also borrow from the brand potential of the Apple in the choice of the iClip name, and basically create an unofficial extension to the Apple product family.

c) The final category, and the one which is growing at the fastest rate - while being also the one making least sense is the totally non Apple affiliated/connected product. For example iLike, the personalised concert info alert service which is currently close to being bought up by Myspace. Now this site, and the company behind it, has absolutely nothing at all to do with Apple or their products.

It is this final category which is starting to grate slightly each time I come across yet another example of it. It's not that the products are not good - in fact many of them are fantastic (i am a big fan of iLike for example) - just that i cannot help but feel like there are far too many companies borrowing the succesful formula developed and made effective by Apple, in what resembles a slightly uncreative branding process.

Not that it doesn't work: just look at iLike - going from strength to strength, as evidence that it does. Nor is it in any way illegal - Apple don't own rights to naming products 'i-something', nor could they if they wanted to. Despite all this however it's hard to escape the feeling that the current cliche branding trick of web 2.0 is quickly becoming the 'iProduct'.

Similar things happen with band names every now and then (notice the current vogue for 'the [somethings]' as a zeitgeist template). The sooner we move on from this current formulaic i-approach in the technology sphere, the sooner we'll find the next truly exciting and unique idea, which surely will be even more effective than trading on the icliche formula. Most of the time we are talking about really top quality software/hardware/ideas, which in all honesty deserve a bit better in terms of branding effort...

Dejan Levi

Well, the 30Gb model that features the leap year glitch was launched back in February of 2006, meaning it was in development probably as early as 2005 if not before - a whole three years before the next leap year would come around. Now in the grand scheme of things three years might not be so long - but in the life of high-tech consumer electronics items it can represent two or three generations.

It's for this reason that I suspect the oversight is actually symptomatic of a general lack of long-term durability testing that is becoming increasingly common in the consumer gadget market, rather than being simply a plain honest oversight.

After all, it's not so long ago we had the panic and hysteria over the dreaded 'Millenium Bug' - which actually caused a great deal fewer problems than some had feared (and facilitated the sale of endless 'protective' software packages). The programmers that work on Zune software are not 16-yr old bedroom amateurs new to such stuff - they are experienced professionals, who in all liklihood have had to plan for, and accomodate similar concerns in the past.

In other words; it is highly unlikely that they genuinely all failed to anticipate this problem because of the unique novelty of a leap year (we haven't had one since 2004!). I'm not suggesting that this problem was known about all-along but deliberately ignored; just that the reasons for it being forgotten might be more complex - and worth some consideration.

Most of us who own any sort of consumer gadget will be familiar with the throwaway culture that drives the market's constant expansion. With new models constantly superceding previous ones, it's not expected that we'll remain content with the old ones for very long. And even if, for some strange reason we do, the utter lack of long-term durability makes keeping a mobile phone, iPod or digital camera for four or five years pretty rare (obviously not all companies are the same in this respect).

But if we're paying upwards of two, three or four hundred pounds for something, aren't we reasonable to expect more than the standard (but slightly tight) one-year guarantee? Think to yourself - what is the average length of time a consumer gadget lasts you? Sure I've had the odd phone (especially back in the early days of the 90s) that was in essence a clever calculator which lasted a few years - but these definitely resemble exceptions in my personal experience.

Personally I feel that even if a gadget is being developed in early 2005 - those who intend to ask £300 or whatever for it should test it as if they expect us to keep it until 2010 or longer if we wish. Maybe if such attitudes were present at the development stage (of course this is down to company policy and not the developers themselves - they need only to be granted resources to do adequate work) - then the 30Gb Zunes might not have crashed yesterday. Even though the problem persisted only for a few hours, and even though my reading of its roots might be speculative in this particular case, the core point seems pretty solid. Maybe it's time we started demanding a little more from these expensive toys, and those who make them...

Dejan Levi

The premise is fairly simple - driven by a direct reconfiguration of responsibilities and re-direction of revenue streams. Basically ISP's would be made liable for illegal file-sharing, but in return for accepting this burden (and incentive to help combat the problem), would also receive a share of profits from legal music download sales. The plan is being proposed by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), and will be published in detail in January. But even now a few issues strike me about the whole idea...

First of all - is this to be mandatory for all ISPs, and if so can the government actually enforce such a move if ISPs object? (having a choice system simply won't work as then you'd have a situation whereby those in the mood for illegal downloading would naturally flock to the ISPs who chose not to accept the scheme). Therefore if this is to work then it has to be industry standard accross the board.

Now, the 'carrot and stick' approach (as this has been described) is all very well and good if the carrot is big enough and near enough to do the job. But considering the sheer scale and extent of illegal music downloading, I fancy ISPs are going to be hugely wary of accepting any serious legal responsibility, without a highly significant financial incentive. The issue is whether iTunes and all the rest of the online music stores reckon they can give up enough revenue to make ISPs go for it, without angering shareholders and damaging profits.

In short it seems BERR will have to convince all ISPs that this is a good idea (going against their collective industry wishes would be difficult if not verging on impossible) and this can only be done if the financial rewards are significant enough. Considering the risks and drawbacks for ISPs, the carrot is going to have to be pretty huge if they are to go for it. Are those who are currently making money from legal music downloads bothered enough to enlist the help of such expensive allies?

Dejan Levi

Now this is nothing new - it's many years since the Nintendo Gameboy made handheld entertainment a very everyday thing. And Walkmans have provided us with music on the move for even longer. The nature of today's handheld device is different only in terms of the specs and capabilities. Arguably we have had access to entertainment technology on the move for a long time.

However, in recent years the extent to which we use such items has increased drastically - and so too the degree to which this use is habitualised in our everyday routines. I for one have noticed myself instinctively plugging in my iPod for example nearly every time I sit down on a train - only to realise that I am doing it as much out of habit as from particularly wanting to listen to anything...

Indeed it seems pretty clear that if one steps onto the tube today there will be far more iPods and handheld devices in use (for entertainment/work/or whatever else) than would have been the case a decade ago - even though the actual concept is nothing new.

Perhaps it is that more people now own some sort of handheld device and so an increase in such gadget use is inevitable. It does also seem pretty logical that, when crammed on a packed commuter train, we choose to use the time for something productive or fun, rather than just to sit and wait.

Despite this I have been wondering if maybe we are becoming less accustomed to using free moments such as these for a bit of internal thought or contemplation, and instead are almost automatically closing ourselves off from the scene around us with headphones or a computer game etc.

Personally I am going to make a deliberate effort to break this gadget routine - whether it involves driving with the radio off, or leaving the iPod or laptop at home for the odd train journey. Some might baulk at the wastefulness of doing 'nothing' in these situations, but I personally think it can't hurt to switch off (technologically speaking) for a few minutes of the day at least.

Not to say you might not see me sitting on the bus doing a little work on my phone or listening to few mp3s on my iPod  every now and then - just that it will be from a conscious decision to do so - rather than a habit of simply plugging in during every spare moment I have. After all, lest all these shiny gadgets make us forget; sometimes it can be quite nice to just sit and ponder...

Dejan Levi