Apple's dock connector change is awful, don't kid yourselves
With this week's iPhone 5 announcement, Apple confirmed many rumors about the new phone, both good and bad. The most disappointing confirmation of all, though, is the resized, redesigned, and still proprietary new dock connector.The 5 arrives CNET's hands-on with the iPhone 5 Apple out to prove it's still kingPictures: Apple's big iPhone 5 revealHo-hum. iPhone 5 won't wow anyoneiPhone 5: No Steve Jobs, no sizzleiPhone 5: What we didn't getComparing the iPhone 4S and iPhone 5iPhone 5 vs. Galaxy S3 vs. Lumia 920Poll: Will you buy the iPhone 5?Apple springs leak - rumors were rightApple shares up, down, then upStart your iOS 6 downloads September 19 iOS 6 hits major marksApple reworks, simplifies iTunesNew iPod Touch: Siri and a 4-inch screenNew Nano: Remembering the iPod MiniFull coverage: The iPhone 5 arrives Apple calls the new connector Lightning, but giving it a clever name doesn't mean it adds anything but dollars in Apple's bank account. The company has legendarily built a strong business on licensing its proprietary connection technology to accessory makers, and in selling its own premium cables for a handy $19 each, plus $29 for adapters. But as the rest of the tech industry moves to a standard micro-USB charging format, Apple's decision is unwelcome in a time of smaller budgets for most shoppers and it's ecologically irresponsible, to boot.The move is all the more disappointing since Apple was, as of last year, actually supporting the International Electronics Commission's push for a universal, micro-USB charging standard. Phil Schiller told AllThingsD that the dock connector changed because Apple wanted to continue making devices smaller and thinner, and the old dock connector just didn't cut it. That's true, the old dock connector was pretty big. But you know what's almost the exact same size as the new dock connector? A micro-USB charging port. And the smaller connector doesn't seem to add a single benefit that would justify its continued proprietary nature -- other than, possibly, Thunderbolt compatibility ("adaptive interface"). Although Schiller presented the new connector as a "feature," Apple isn't touting any faster syncing or charging. In fact, the Lightning to USB cable is a mere USB 2.0, not even 3.0. Lightning? Not so much. The Lightning adapter. This shouldn't be necessary.James Martin/CNETThe GSM Association reports that the mobile phone industry produces between 51,000 and 82,000 tons of replacement chargers every year, many of which end up in landfill. The association also notes that a standard charger could eliminate the need for new chargers with each device, reduce packaging, and reduce discarded charging cables, potentially lowering the carbon footprint of the wireless industry by, at minimum, 13.6 million tons per year. Plus, once certified, the chargers are potentially up to three times more energy efficient than unrated chargers, saving energy costs and lowering overall consumption.That all apparently sounded pretty good to Apple in 2011: it's listed here along with Nokia, Research In Motion, Emblaze Mobile, Huawei Technologies, LGE, Motorola Mobility, NEC, Qualcomm, Samsung, Sony Ericsson, TCT Mobile (ALCATEL), Texas Instruments and Atmel (or "everyone else," if you're keeping track at home) as a signatory to the new, universal standard. So, what happened? My hope would be that the iPhone 5 designs were already in the works in February 2011 and the company didn't want to change the plans until the next go-around. But Schiller also told AllThingsD that the smaller dock connector "is the new connector for many years to come."That may be good news for accessory makers -- I'm sure Bose will be happy to sell an upgraded SoundDock or two at $500 a pop -- and it's obviously good news for Apple, the only company currently selling the Lightning to USB and $29 or $39 Lightning adapter. Note, however, that the adapter product page points out, not all 30-pin devices will be supported, and it won't carry video or iPod-out signals (although, despite some earlier confusion, Apple has clarified that it will support analog audio signals). So, yes, the iPhone 5 and 2012 iPods will probably require some all-new accessories.That means Lightning is bad news for your wallet and bad news for the landfill, too. Update: This post has been corrected to note that the Lightning adapter will support analog audio signals. The previous version said it would not.
MySpace Music CEO should come from iTunes_0
MySpace Music CEO should come from iTunes
Those are the only companies that can claim success at selling music online on a large scale. If MySpace could lure away one of Apple's guys, then at least it could point to a proven winner.MySpace has to get this music service right. While Facebook has already elbowed past it as the world's largest social-networking site, one area where MySpace continues to dominate is music. The site has become the online equivalent of Soul Train or American Bandstand, a digital stage where musicians flock to showcase their talents.Music has helped MySpace stay relevant with younger audiences at a time when Facebook holds an edge in the cool factor.Meanwhile, Facebook hasn't shown a lot of interest in challenging MySpace in music. Other competitors have. Sites, such as iMeem, have attracted users by offering free streaming music for more than a year. So who is MySpace Music supposed to turn to for help?The company has already interviewed a slew of execs from both the digital side as well as music industry old timers. Andy Schuon, the former CEO of Universal Music Group's International Music Feed and past president of CBS Radio (CBS is parent company of CNET News.com), is being considered for the job along with a long list of others, said two music industry sources. Schuon could not be reached Wednesday. Hiring an old-school music suit to run a digital shop hasn't met with much success. But is MySpace supposed to hire some Silicon Valley guy with maybe a couple of so-so music start-ups under his belt? Who among that crowd has a winning record?The Deal reported last month that several execs with Internet experience were offered the job and turned it down, including former AOL executive Jim Bankoff, BigChampagne chief executive Eric Garland, and Benchmark Capital entrepreneur-in-residence Dave Goldberg, who also helped guide Yahoo Music. Tough jobThe delay in finding a chief executive also raised the question about whether running MySpace's music service is all that attractive. When it's fully operational, MySpace Music is expected to offer free streaming music, unprotected MP3 downloads, ringtones, and e-commerce offerings such as merchandise and ticket sales. The site is well heeled with backers that include Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., and the three largest recording companies. The new chief won't have to oversee a new download service as Amazon is expected to supply the infrastructure for that. But all that firepower may be part of the problem. Will the CEO be expected to answer to Universal Music Group, as well as to Murdoch? All of the stakeholders will hold a seat on the board, which met for the first time recently. Said one person who was interviewed for the job and turned it down; "It's a case where there might be too many masters." Perhaps, the least attractive part of the job is that whoever gets it will be charged with dethroning Apple CEO Steve Jobs as the grand poo-bah of digital music. Note to future MySpace Music CEO: Don't be frightened. Forget that MySpace has almost no experience in music retail or must compete against Apple's iPod without possessing any significant hardware partnership (that's a trick statement as there isn't any significant hardware in music besides the iPod). If you lose, the bright side is MySpace Music will join other marquee heads on Apple's trophy wall--right alongside Microsoft, MTV, Sony, Yahoo, RealNetworks, and Wal-Mart.
Those are the only companies that can claim success at selling music online on a large scale. If MySpace could lure away one of Apple's guys, then at least it could point to a proven winner.MySpace has to get this music service right. While Facebook has already elbowed past it as the world's largest social-networking site, one area where MySpace continues to dominate is music. The site has become the online equivalent of Soul Train or American Bandstand, a digital stage where musicians flock to showcase their talents.Music has helped MySpace stay relevant with younger audiences at a time when Facebook holds an edge in the cool factor.Meanwhile, Facebook hasn't shown a lot of interest in challenging MySpace in music. Other competitors have. Sites, such as iMeem, have attracted users by offering free streaming music for more than a year. So who is MySpace Music supposed to turn to for help?The company has already interviewed a slew of execs from both the digital side as well as music industry old timers. Andy Schuon, the former CEO of Universal Music Group's International Music Feed and past president of CBS Radio (CBS is parent company of CNET News.com), is being considered for the job along with a long list of others, said two music industry sources. Schuon could not be reached Wednesday. Hiring an old-school music suit to run a digital shop hasn't met with much success. But is MySpace supposed to hire some Silicon Valley guy with maybe a couple of so-so music start-ups under his belt? Who among that crowd has a winning record?The Deal reported last month that several execs with Internet experience were offered the job and turned it down, including former AOL executive Jim Bankoff, BigChampagne chief executive Eric Garland, and Benchmark Capital entrepreneur-in-residence Dave Goldberg, who also helped guide Yahoo Music. Tough jobThe delay in finding a chief executive also raised the question about whether running MySpace's music service is all that attractive. When it's fully operational, MySpace Music is expected to offer free streaming music, unprotected MP3 downloads, ringtones, and e-commerce offerings such as merchandise and ticket sales. The site is well heeled with backers that include Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., and the three largest recording companies. The new chief won't have to oversee a new download service as Amazon is expected to supply the infrastructure for that. But all that firepower may be part of the problem. Will the CEO be expected to answer to Universal Music Group, as well as to Murdoch? All of the stakeholders will hold a seat on the board, which met for the first time recently. Said one person who was interviewed for the job and turned it down; "It's a case where there might be too many masters." Perhaps, the least attractive part of the job is that whoever gets it will be charged with dethroning Apple CEO Steve Jobs as the grand poo-bah of digital music. Note to future MySpace Music CEO: Don't be frightened. Forget that MySpace has almost no experience in music retail or must compete against Apple's iPod without possessing any significant hardware partnership (that's a trick statement as there isn't any significant hardware in music besides the iPod). If you lose, the bright side is MySpace Music will join other marquee heads on Apple's trophy wall--right alongside Microsoft, MTV, Sony, Yahoo, RealNetworks, and Wal-Mart.
Beats Music isn't interested in freeloading listeners, CEO says
Beats Music isn't interested in freeloading listeners, CEO says
Beats Music, the streaming-music service launched earlier Tuesday, doesn't have a free ad-based option, and the company isn't interested in the kind of listener who wants it.Beats Music CEO Ian C. Rogers said in a blog post that anyone who is willing to pay about $1,000 a year on a cable subscription but balks at paying $100 a year on "a great music service" is somebody whose view of the world differs fundamentally from his own. Rogers wrote:If music, and a service that brings you great music experiences and playlists from everyone from Pitchfork to Downbeat to Mojo to Thrasher isn't worth $100/year to you I'm afraid we don't have much in common. Or put more specifically, if you are OK with the playlist below being interrupted by a loud insurance ad, music doesn't define the moments of your life the same way it does mine. The comment was followed by a screenshot of a Beats Music playlist.Beats Music is available for free for anybody with 7-day trial but afterward requires a $9.99-a-month subscription after that. It also offers a yearly subscription for about $120. He said the lack of a free, ad-backed version was a "thoughtful and conscious decision," and he acknowledged its omission has been the biggest criticism the fledgling service has received in recent weeks leading up to its rollout. AT&T customers can access unlimited song streaming and downloads for individuals across three devices for $10 a month, too, or for up to five family members across 10 devices for $15 a month. AT&T Family customers will receive a 90-day free trial, while individual AT&T wireless customers can get the first 30 days free. It will be part of an AT&T customer's regular bill.Striking a deal with AT&T, the country's second-biggest wireless carrier, gives Beats a huge pool of potential customers and a mega marketing machine at its very outset, but its entering a field already crowded with competitors. Not only is Beats going up against relative newcomers like Spotify, it will also face entrenched Internet radio service Pandora and offerings from huge tech companies such as Apple's iTunes Radio and Google's All Access. Beats is seeking to set itself apart by marrying algorithms with curated programming from taste-makers. Rogers calls it the difference between being a service and a server.Jimmy Iovine founded Beats with musician and producer Dr. Dre and bought MOG, an on-demand subscription service. The intent was to combine that technology and the Beats brand to create Beats Music, also known by its codename Daisy.
Beats Music, the streaming-music service launched earlier Tuesday, doesn't have a free ad-based option, and the company isn't interested in the kind of listener who wants it.Beats Music CEO Ian C. Rogers said in a blog post that anyone who is willing to pay about $1,000 a year on a cable subscription but balks at paying $100 a year on "a great music service" is somebody whose view of the world differs fundamentally from his own. Rogers wrote:If music, and a service that brings you great music experiences and playlists from everyone from Pitchfork to Downbeat to Mojo to Thrasher isn't worth $100/year to you I'm afraid we don't have much in common. Or put more specifically, if you are OK with the playlist below being interrupted by a loud insurance ad, music doesn't define the moments of your life the same way it does mine. The comment was followed by a screenshot of a Beats Music playlist.Beats Music is available for free for anybody with 7-day trial but afterward requires a $9.99-a-month subscription after that. It also offers a yearly subscription for about $120. He said the lack of a free, ad-backed version was a "thoughtful and conscious decision," and he acknowledged its omission has been the biggest criticism the fledgling service has received in recent weeks leading up to its rollout. AT&T customers can access unlimited song streaming and downloads for individuals across three devices for $10 a month, too, or for up to five family members across 10 devices for $15 a month. AT&T Family customers will receive a 90-day free trial, while individual AT&T wireless customers can get the first 30 days free. It will be part of an AT&T customer's regular bill.Striking a deal with AT&T, the country's second-biggest wireless carrier, gives Beats a huge pool of potential customers and a mega marketing machine at its very outset, but its entering a field already crowded with competitors. Not only is Beats going up against relative newcomers like Spotify, it will also face entrenched Internet radio service Pandora and offerings from huge tech companies such as Apple's iTunes Radio and Google's All Access. Beats is seeking to set itself apart by marrying algorithms with curated programming from taste-makers. Rogers calls it the difference between being a service and a server.Jimmy Iovine founded Beats with musician and producer Dr. Dre and bought MOG, an on-demand subscription service. The intent was to combine that technology and the Beats brand to create Beats Music, also known by its codename Daisy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)