Fired Apple exec behind new iPod competitor
SanDisk has launched a Wi-Fi-enabled MP3 player, Sansa Connect, and a central player in its creation is Zing, a company co-founded by former Apple executive Tim Bucher.
Using built-in Wi-Fi, the Sansa Connect can stream Internet radio from Launchcast stations, browse Flickr photo streams, and download any tracks or albums via Yahoo! Music Unlimited To Go subscription service. The software that allows it to connect to Yahoo!’s various Internet services was developed by Zing, according to the Wall Street Journal.
As described on Zing’s web site, Bucher previously “headed up Macintosh Engineering, where, among many other things such as creating Mac mini, he managed the core technology groups of Apple’s iPod.” Other hardware products he was involved with include WebTV, UltimateTV and the Xbox.
Bucher took over Apple’s Macintosh hardware engineering division in 2004 after Jon Rubinstein was put in charge of the brand-new iPod division. But only six months later he was mysteriously fired. He then sued Apple for wrongful termination contending there was no cause and that he was denied compensation.
Because of the Sansa Connect’s integration with Yahoo!, the $250 device is being promoted by Yahoo! Music’s Ian Rogers, who justifies the monthly subscription price by attacking iPod users as thieves:
For those of you about to complain about the $12/month to get unlimited tracks (like, um, Steve Jobs), check yourself before you riggity wreck yourself. Labels and artists get paid for every radio play and every Yahoo! Music download to the Sansa Connect, whereas we all know iPods are mostly full of not-paid-for MP3s.
If you think Rogers’ use of the ‘check yourself before you wreck yourself’ phrase was an isolated instance, here’s a list of other hip phrases he uses in the blog post: “It’s pretty fresh, Hells yeah, homey, yo, Word up”
Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.
“…we all know iPods are mostly full of not-paid-for MP3s.”
I’ve convinced some people really are just born idiots. That’s the only way I can possibly justify how comments this stupid come out of the mouth of a human being.
I agree with Josh.
This guy is a complete idiot, I for one (and I’m no angel) can honestly say there is not 1 single stolen song or video on my 80Gb iPod. Not a single one. There’s not a lot bought from iTunes either, I’ve just bought a lot of CD’s in my time.
Same here. Not a single not-paid-for song on my iPod. Way to go insulting potential customers. or maybe not, as it is probably unlikely any iPod using, iTunes shopping portable music lover would look twice at this thing.
The target market seems to be peeps who are currently stealing their music, and starting to feel a little guilty about it.
Josh, David, and Gordon,
Apologies for the flippant remark. Here’s my original clarification/retraction, which I posted to the comments on TechCrunch yesterday morning:
“Damn. Apparently I can turn any news item into an argument about file sharing! This was supposed to be about this rad new device! :)
Anyway, Michael is at least partially right to criticize my comment, which was made flippantly, as an afterthought to the blog post, and wasn’t buttoned up for a debate such as this one. Any conversation about where the music on an iPod comes from needs to take legally ripped music into consideration. Groups like NPD study this and you can talk about this on an actual percentage basis if you do your homework.
I, however, was looking a little further out. There’s no question at this point that CD sales are declining and digital sales aren’t growing fast enough to make up for the gap. I’d like to work to create a new paradigm (or a set of new paradigms) that works for music lovers as well as music creators. Do I think the model we have today with YMU and this device is perfect? No, I don’t. But I think it’s a step in the right direction and many music lovers are going to dig the freedom of unlimited portable music discovery and the piece of mind of knowing that Yahoo! is paying for every track they listen to.
We will get there. It’s my job to make sure we do.”
Apologies to anyone I insulted directly. It clearly wasn’t my intent.
Thanks for the name-calling, though. Next time lets do it in-person.
ian
Thanks for the reply Ian. I’ll be glad to call you an idiot in person. :) You call me a thief, I call you an idiot for calling me a thief…works out well. ;)
OK. Our Santa Monica offices are easy to find. See you there. I’ll buy you lunch. Warning: there might be an aptitude test. ;)
For what it’s worth, I wasn’t calling you a thief. It’s actually a well-studied fact that on average (you and the others on this thread may very well be the exception) a very small percentage of files on iPods are purchased from the Apple Music store. Again, folks like NPD can share the exact stats on this. But you’re right, many many many of those “other” files aren’t stolen, they’re from ripped CDs, which is perfectly legal. Regardless, they don’t represent any incremental revenue for the music industry, where the files downloaded to our device from our subscription service (and played on our radio streams) do. That’s the point I was idiotically trying to make. Sorry again for the flippant and oft-misunderstood comment.
ian
You’ve missed the point, Ian. Your entire approach to your potential customer base is backwards. It’s not the insult that was the dumbest thing about your statement; it was that you were essentially telling your target market: “Up until now, you’ve had it too easy, and we’re going to fix that.” That tells everyone where your loyalties lie, and it “clearly” isn’t with your customers.
If Ian actually speaks the way he types, he’s an idiot for sure. What is he, 12? And yes, monthly fees to listen to my music in insane. I don’t pay monthly fees for CDs I buy.
DBL, we’re actually trying to offer something easy, reasonably-priced, and convenient for the music lover that also works for the record industry. I acknowledged that this isn’t an easy deal to strike, but do think it’s worth the effort. But music subscriptions aren’t for everyone, and I acknowledge that in my post. If it’s not for you that’s fine. Many people love it. Personally I can’t imagine buying my music for $0.99/track. To each his/her own.
It seems to me you’re saying that you’re *either* for the consumer or for the labels, and that there’s no point in trying to strike a balance. If Steve Jobs believed this, we might not be where we are. He was instrumental in bringing the labels together and creating a new model.
Speaking of which, forget NPD. The fact I was stating can be found in Steve Jobs’ anti-DRM post:
“Today’s most popular iPod holds 1000 songs, and research tells us that the average iPod is nearly full. This means that only 22 out of 1000 songs, or under 3% of the music on the average iPod, is purchased from the iTunes store and protected with a DRM.” – Steve Jobs, Feb 6th, 2007
Again, my mistake was in adding the “not paid for” line, when clearly many many of those songs are from absolutely paid for MP3s. For this I apologize.
sjmills, your post has a typo in it. s/in/is/ (that’s a Perl regular expression, as any idiot would know).
ian
I think that money is the big issue between buying tracks and getting a subscription. You have to look at where the money goes for what you get.
When you buy a track, it is the same as buying a portion of a CD, meaning that it is measurable, trackable and with artist contracts, means that the artist should get a portion of the sale, whether there is a management company or not.
When you buy a subscription, you are not buying any particular track. If you download a thousand tracks, how much does each artist get of the $15.00? I would venture to say that the service gets a cut, the management company for the artist gets a cut, but the artist gets paractically nothing.Also, Yahoo may say that the artist gets paid, but how much each month goes to the artist for the same track that was downloaded several months ago? Does the artist get paid ONCE for the download or do they get paid every month?
In transitioning over from physical media (CD’s, Records, Cassettes, etc.) to a digital format, the artists, music companies, management companies and recording societies are having to completely change how they do business and justify their staying in business in some cases. Each wants to at a minimum maintain what they make and preferably wants to make the others lose so they gain more of the pie.
iTunes allows the artist to jetison some of the management companies and still be able to make some decent coin, even if they are not a huge superband. The stores that “licence” the music still requires a management company in the middle to ensure that they get their fair share so they can give the artist their slice – after expenses.
Time will tell of course how the industry changes, but those who will lose from the changes will be the most resistant to the change.
This is just my view of the industry and the fight for the money as I see it. YMMV. Industry images in the rear view mirror may not be as big as they seem.