This is such a poorly structured argument that keeps cropping up since it generates clicks and engagement. Say something negative about Apple or Google or whomever, and the clicks and page views are coming in!

Safari is actively developed and matching new standards that Apple sees as aligning with the platform goals of maximizing the user privacy and security, while still implementing and optimizing the browser platform. IE6 was atrocious, slow, and buggy.. Safari is demonstrably not that.

Safari is implementing new features constantly, and the browser is adding new features over time. They certainly have bugs and issues in those implementations, but you are able to track it in a very visible manner at the WebKit blog: https://webkit.org

Somebody may disagree one what features are being developed, and what standards are selected.. but the criteria of SAFARI IS NOT CHROME is not a valid argument that something is failing or otherwise a problem for the internet community.

People have a vested interest to spread that FUD.. all that geo data is valuable, and what's the government's track record on protecting the information?

Is the RIAA actually going to try and work with technology? I thought the jamming the head in the sand and yelling aproach was working so well..

This isn't actually a bad idea from a service prospective.. you have your users handling the bulk of the traffic loads, users get songs faster with swarming techniques, and the RIAA gets money. I mean.. the artist.. its all about the artist remember.

I don't know that I would use their service, but trying to work with technology and doing something new is lots better than their previous litigation efforts.

(Of course, I'm assuming this is built on Windows DRM.. ah well.. Are they going to be so restrictive as to DRM limit the files to remove all usefullness to the user? No CD burning, coping to devices.. heck.. copying to my iPod? Oh wait, they said that was Apple's fault for not using an *open* format like MS's..)