iPod vs. Zune

Discussion in 'iPod' started by manram24, Oct 3, 2007.

?

Which portable audio player is better?

  1. iPod

    76 vote(s)
    87.4%
  2. Zune

    11 vote(s)
    12.6%
  1. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    #1
    zunes are a copy of the ipod line
    the 4/8 GB are the nanos at the same damn price while the 80 gb are the same as the classic
    the wifi is sweet though(wireless sharing) now thats an idea....NOT

    the zunes will never sell as many as the ipods will because the ipods have better reputation
     
  2. macrumors 603

    Markleshark

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Location:
    Carlisle, Up Norf!
    #2
    I can't see this ending well...
     
  3. macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #3
    this is iPod Touch board, to compare ZUNE 2 and iPod nano/classic, please post on iPod board.

    If you just want to throw a statement against ZUNE, you are probably 1 year late...

    PS. M$ updated ZUNE 1 to have all the new features of the ZUNE 2, at least apple should learn to treat their customers like that.
     
  4. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    #4
    The only real thing the new Zune has over the iPod touch is the fact that it can sync wirelessly.

    I currently own a Zune, but I can't stand the software compared to iTunes.
     
  5. macrumors 68000

    lofight

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    #5
    i still like the ipods more... they're better IMO, but it would be fantastic if apple would deliver it with better earbuds, but i'm actually impressed on the zune, it's not so bad, if they wouldn't be any ipods then i would buy a zune, but then it wouldn't work on my mac :( .
     
  6. macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #6
    so you do get all the new features of ZUNE 2?

    anyway, I think M$ doesn't believe iTouch is a pure iPod, and has no intention to compete with a crippled PDA.
     
  7. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    #7
    This post is like asking whether you think Chelsea is better than Manchester United. On a Chelsea fansite(and vice versa).

    Anyway, no Mac support is a real dealbraker for me.
     
  8. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Location:
    Perth, Australia.
    #8
    I don't think you can argue against the new 80GB Zune being better value than the 80GB Classic.
     
  9. Moderator

    OllyW

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2005
    Location:
    The Black Country, England
    #9
    I think you can if it won't work with your Mac ;)
     
  10. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    Toronto
    #10
    Back with the original Zune came out I was considering it, but just couldn't get myself to buy one as the style just didn't appeal to me. Glad I didn't give in, as I'm lovin the Touch! :D
     
  11. macrumors 601

    PowerFullMac

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    #11
    Microsoft are copying Apple, dont you think its ironic that the new Zunes come out a month after the new iPods? Also, iPods work with PCs and Zunes dont work with Macs so thats another way Micro$oft are trying to get more money (they will potentially lose customors, but I highly doubt anyone who uses a Mac wil ever buy a Zune anyway). The only think good about the new Zunes is the wireless syncing and the built in FM radio. But, really, Zunes suck.

    I think Apple should do what M$ done (never thought I would say that) with the software though and update old iPods with new features (search on my first gen Nano would be nice).
     
  12. macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #12
    copy is a word that I advise people to use carefully, what did M$ do to copy apple? producing a PMP?

    I don't think so.
     
  13. macrumors 601

    gloss

    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    Location:
    around/about
    #13
    Ditto. The Zune software is atrocious, and one of the main culprits in the Zune's current failure to compete. I'm really glad they seem to be fixing it for Zune 2.0.

    And yes, the upcoming software update is most welcome. Apple could learn a thing or two from M$.
     
  14. macrumors 6502a

    Vigilante

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Location:
    Florida.
    #14
    I remember some Microsoft guy saying that the Zune is inferior to the iPod... if their own creators admit it, it's bound to suck. There's a reason why they tried copying everything, down to the exact price of the iPod.

    What did he say? That the Zune is B- material?
     
  15. macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #15
    see, thats the thing, now even price tag is an evidence of "copy". what world are we in?
     
  16. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Location:
    Canada
    #16
  17. macrumors G5

    nagromme

    Joined:
    May 2, 2002
    #17
    Thanks, ShanePod.

    By volume, the big Zune is 30% larger than the new iPod Classic, and the little Zune is 24% larger than the Nano. Yet both Zunes have significantly lower battery life than the iPods.

    For screen size, the Nano has the advantage over the smaller Zune, while the bigger Zune has the advantage over the iPod Classic. (Of course the Touch has a bigger screen--and smaller body--than both.)
     
  18. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    #18
    You are posting this on a Mac site, you do know that. But they both have they're strengths and weakness. It basically comes down to personal preference.
     
  19. macrumors 68040

    synth3tik

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    #19
    I can't see the point of this poll. I said Zune, just to through a splash into it.
     
  20. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Location:
    Ballarat, Australia
    #20
    yeah same...i went for zune because it was just a stupid poll for the website it is on.
     
  21. macrumors P6

    twoodcc

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Location:
    Right side of wrong
    #21
    yeah i know. i wonder what the results will be....:rolleyes:
     
  22. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Location:
    Perth, Australia.
    #22
    It's such a breathe of fresh air to finally meet a free thinker, such as yourself.
     
  23. macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #23
    lol,
    30% large, mostly in thickness, right? looking at front side, it isn't that much larger, right?

    significantly lower battery life.
    you mean
    20hr music vs. 22hr music
    20hr music vs. 30 hr music
    5 hr video vs. 5 hr video
    4hr video vs. 5 hr video
    ??

    also, I guess you also noticed that
    ZUNE 80 needs 2.25 hrs to charge, while iPod classic 80G needs 4 hrs
    flash ZUNE needs 1.5 hr to charge, while iPod nano needs 2hrs?

    how classic style., you only pick the data you like...
    screen size

    flash zune, 1.8" iPod nano, 2.0" both at 320x240


    Im sure you also noticed ZUNE 2 plays more type of video, has wireless syncing, and FM tuner?
     

Share This Page