Microsoft Announces 2nd Generation Zune Music Player

[GSV]

Here's what Bill Gates has to say on the subject of how awesome the new Zune is:

Q: What's the coolest thing about the upgraded Zune?

A: Look at this thing! (Holds up a Zune 8) Three or four years ago there was nothing like this. This is cool as heck. I'm finding music I haven't seen in 20 years. Hey, the Lovin' Spoonful? They're in this thing. I find one of their songs. I send it to friends I had an apartment with, it was actually 30 years ago. I can send it out to them and say, "Remember when we listened to this?" It's amazing.

Link to rest of interview: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techinvestor/corporatenews/2007-10-03-bill-gates_N.htm

 

[nagromme]

Here's what Bill Gates has to say on the subject of how awesome the new Zune is:

Three or four years ago there was nothing like this.

He's actually half-right. Three years ago there WAS something like this (iPod Mini) but four years ago there was only the regular iPod

Although if he means a color screen flash player, the iPod Nano was only available 2 years ago

As for sharing music with friends, iTunes has been doing that in various forms for years. But--it's fun to have new ways too!

 

[nagromme]

Ah - finally found some (possibly preliminary?) specs/dimensions.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/zune-vs-ipod-specification-smackdown/

The Zune 80 has a larger screen, but remains physically bulkier too--30% larger than the iPod Classic 80--and yet gets 2/3 the battery life. (But it's not heavier--the advantage of a plastic shell, or just the smaller battery?) Battery life is measured with WiFi OFF, which is fair.

Compared to the iPod Touch, the Zune is 65% bulkier. (The Touch has a larger screen and double the resolution obviously, but also better battery life--and a browser so you can actually DO something with that WiFi )

The Zune 4 and 8 (to give them catchier names than they really have) is 24% larger than an iPod Nano--but has a smaller screen than a nano, and again, 4 hours less battery life (audio) or 1 hour less (video). Hard to imagine choosing a Zune for best ultra-portable video.

And since the new Zune flash players really are more comparable to the older Nanos that were just discontinued, I checked that comparison too, courtesy of everymac.com: the new Zunes are 30% larger than the old Nanos. (And the new large-screen Nanos are physically 5% larger than the old.)

The Zunes apparently still have no Audible support (audiobooks). I wonder--have Zunes gained the ability to play Microsoft PlaysForSure music yet?

(Thanks for the link, ShanePod)

 

[iMikeT]

Welcome to yesterday's technology.


Now really, Microsoft has obviously copied the design of the iPod, yada yada yada... Did they even have to copy the way the highlight falls on the product in the photo?

 

[bloodycape]

are we on PDA again?

No this is the beautifully designed Samsung P2 DAP. I don't think Samsung makes non PDA phones any more.

 

[bloodycape]

link? looks interesting

That is the iRiver clix2. You can either make it use MTP or UMS. And it only uses a 2.2in screen which some find it small when compared to some of the 2.5in flash devices out on the market like the Cowon D2 or the Creative Zen. You don't see any ads(tv at least, they use to have print ads for their first PMP device they made with that famous female porn star in it). Then again they do have like over 50% share of the Korean mp3 and e-dictionary market(loyalist to companies from Korea). Better yet just got to dapreview.net. They got a database of most of the major mp3 players listed and got reviews.

 

[ryanchandl]

how about the sound quality?i got an ipod nano, its sound quality is juz ok,i wan something with better bass response and 80gb hard drive. I heard tat ipod classic doesn't sound as good as previous generation. It seems like apple doesn't wan to improve anything other than design.

 

[Scottgfx]

I asked how you got FM on your iPod, not if it has it or not. I am guessing you are using an external adapter. I'm guessing you have something goofy like this to get FM on it. Zune comes with FM built in.

It's lame that you have to buy so many things to get the iPod to do what the Zune can do out of the box.

I work for a company with several FM radio stations. They are all lame, which begs the question why you would want an FM tuner.

Since Apple is offering an FM tuner as an option, I'm sure that they have a pretty strong idea of the demand for that feature. If they haven't folded it into the iPod yet, I would take that as a sign that it's not a "must have" feature.

Now there are some broadcasters that are trying "HD" radio which is a digital signal, piggybacked onto the analog carrier. If that's truly the future of terrestrial radio, does Zune support that? If not, why not?

Finally, in my Great Aunt's house, the toilets were the same green color as the new Zune. It was also a very popular color for appliances in the late `60's and `70's. I'm pretty sure we'll be seeing a "Harvest Yellow" Zune soon too!

I'm holding any judgement on the Zune itself. But my benchmark for what makes a portable player starts with the 2nd gen. iPod (Which I sold to a friend and is still working) and is currently have a 4th gen. iPod, 1st gen. Nano and iPhone. I've only played briefly with the Zune 1 in a store and wasn't wowed by it. It works ok, I'm sure, but the first thing I tried to do is scroll through a list like I would have on an iPod. That is poor interface design. Don't make something look like a scroll wheel and then expect me treat it as a set of buttons. (See Mattel Intellivision)

I recommend a book on human interface design called "The Design of Everyday Things" by Donald A. Norman.

 

[nagromme]

how about the sound quality?i got an ipod nano, its sound quality is juz ok,i wan something with better bass response and 80gb hard drive. I heard tat ipod classic doesn't sound as good as previous generation. It seems like apple doesn't wan to improve anything other than design.

I'd choose good earphones for starters. (I like my Sennheiser PX 100s. Cheap but sound good within my budget. Compact but sturdy.)

 

[Evangelion]

The Zune seems to be improving, but the gap between the Zune and the ipod seems to be getting larger.

It is? It seems to me that while previous Zune was generally hated, this time there are lots of people saying "you know, it's not that bad....". Would I buy a Zune instead of iPod? Hell no! But they ARE catching up to Apple. Apple needs to get their act in to gear. While touch is kick-ass, classic is less so. iPod classic has "complacency" written all over it.

Will it only play mp3 or will it support multiple file formats like the iPod?

Five seconds of research would give you an answer to this question. I know the answer, but I'm not going to spoon-feed you.

 

[Scottgfx]

how about the sound quality?i got an ipod nano, its sound quality is juz ok,i wan something with better bass response and 80gb hard drive. I heard tat ipod classic doesn't sound as good as previous generation. It seems like apple doesn't wan to improve anything other than design.

Care to cite a source? I would imagine that your earbuds are the greatest limiting factor of base response. Also, your listening to highly compressed digital audio. There must be a ton of roll-off there.

 

[Scottgfx]

It is? It seems to me that while previous Zune was generally hated, this time there are lots of people saying "you know, it's not that bad....".

The Zune 2 isn't out until November. There's nobody with any hands-on experience yet. The main thing that strikes me as being odd right now is the touch pad on the Zune. It appears that it sticks out from the body of the player and has a soft, rubber-like texture to it. It might be tough to get out of your pocket. I'm going to call it a "giant nubbin".

 

[Evangelion]

a 160GB iPod is a disappointment?

Yes it is. I HAVE held one in hand, and it feels really good in your hand, like all Apple-products do. And of course it's an improvement when compared to the previous model. But really, what has changed?

- They made it a bit smaller
- They added storage
- They added gimmicky UI
- They changed the case from plastic to metal

5th gen iPod was released in late 2005. Year later it was refreshed with minor updates. So they had two years to improve the device. And the classic is what they came up with. The improvements the classic got were largely due to progress made by other parties. HD's got more storage-space, so they could put a bigger HD in there. Batteries were improved and chips were condensed, so they could make the device a bit smaller. What improvements were directly contributed by Apple? The new case and the new UI. And it took them two years to come up with those? Call me underwhelmed.

It's a product that knows what it is, nothing more.

And it's competitors are starting to offer more for the same price. And how do you explain the new features iPod got in the past? It got photo-support. It got video-support. It got games. iPod "knows what it is" until it gets new functionality. And this time it did not get any.

I have a classic and it acts like every other iPod I've ever owned

Yes, it acts like every other iPod before it. But we are talking about different things here: Familiarity, progress and capabilities. Of course it's a good thing that the device is familiar. Like how it's a good thing that cars have similar user interfaces. But is it a good thing when as far as capabilities are concerned, it's basically standing still? Apple is coasting on the progress made by HD- and chip-manufacturers. It's pretty obvious that they invested minimium of effort on the classic.

I would HARDLY call that a disappointment for those of us who have one.

That's like saying "Those of us who like Rammstein do not think that Rammstein sucks!". Well duh!

 

[Evangelion]

I rest my case...

I hope so.

The two new models of Zune portable media players feature the new "Zune Pad," a squarish circle, or "squircle" button for navigating the device, as well as wireless sync, which allows Zune devices to automatically sync over the device owner’s home wireless network when it is connected to an AC adaptor, in a dock or speaker dock accessory.

So? You still didn't provide any rationale why it shouldn't be done. And you STILL haven't explained accessories like Apple iPod HiFi, if (as you say) "iPod is not meant for your home, it's meant to be a mobile device"?

 

[Scottgfx]

The new case and the new UI. And it took them two years to come up with those? Call me underwhelmed.

Well, until the next "it" thing comes about, I'm sure the Classic iPod fills a niche. Lets make a comparison shall we?...

In 1963, Philips introduces the "Compact Cassette" audio recorder. For the next 30 or more years there are refinements like the addition of stereo, metal and high-bias tape formulations, dolby noise reduction and more. There were players ranging from hi-fi sets to Sony's Walkman (I had the one that was about the same size as a cassette case). There will be small refinements of DAPs for some time to come, but don't expect every new one to offer a paradigm shift in thinking.

Heck, it took 20 years to get away from "piano keys" for tape machines. I'm not saying the next big thing will take 20 years, but look at the classic as a transition. The Touch is probably where Apple is headed.

 

[Evangelion]

Well, until the next "it" thing comes about, I'm sure the Classic iPod fills a niche.

Many people would say that "it" has already arrived: internet and WiFi.

And even if we disregard major things like that, how about wireless headphones? They still wouldn't change what the iPod is in any shape or form, it would just help it do what it does a bit better.

Heck, it took 20 years to get away from "piano keys" for tape machines. I'm not saying the next big thing will take 20 years, but look at the classic as a transition. The Touch is probably where Apple is headed.

I have no question in my mind that touch represents the future of iPod. But fact remains that classic is underwhelming. They had two years to improve it, and they came up with minor improvements.

 

[Scottgfx]

Many people would say that "it" has already arrived: internet and WiFi.

And even if we disregard major things like that, how about wireless headphones? They still wouldn't change what the iPod is in any shape or form, it would just help it do what it does a bit better.

These are things that require certain tradeoffs. Until there is a new advancement in battery technology they are cool, but probably not practical for a mass-market item. I've had a couple of different Bluetooth sets for my Razor and iPhone. I find it tough to keep the things charged all the time. I do like the freedom though. In 10 or 15 years we'll look back and marvel at how far we've come. Until then, we are probably mostly constrained by battery technology. I think it was Sony that made the last big stride with LiOn technology. (At least I think it was them)

Edit: I didn't address the Internet and WiFi. In the iPhone, these things are already there and I enjoy them now. Again, these require more battery power for all of that wireless interaction. In an iPod Classic, I don't think people are expecting these things. In fact I'm considering a "classic" to replace my 4th gen. iPod. That still doesn't replace my iPhone. I use them for different purposes. My regular iPod holds my entire music collection, but also transports project files between home and work.

 

[nagromme]

While touch is kick-ass, classic is less so. iPod classic has "complacency" written all over it.

That's why the Classic is called Classic. It has a whole new OS and UI, but it's the same iPod people know and find so useful, now with more storage for less money.

There's nothing "complacent" about it, since as you have noted, the iPod Touch is the future. But a big screen plus big storage means a big device plus a big price tag. So--for now--you can choose mass storage OR touch control. The two will merge, but in the meantime, both have their market, and both surpass the competition.

 

[Evangelion]

These are things that require certain tradeoffs.

Not any more than video does for example. Video consumes batteries as well, and if you are concerned about battery-life, you can always choose not to use that feature.

Until there is a new advancement in battery technology they are cool, but probably not practical for a mass-market item.

Well, I would say that iPod touch, Zune, iPhone etc. are all mass-market items.

 

[Evangelion]

That's why the Classic is called Classic. It has a whole new OS and UI, but it's the same iPod people know and find so useful, now with more storage for less money.

There's nothing "complacent" about it, since as you have noted, the iPod Touch is the future.

Until iPod touch is ready to replace iPod classic, Apple needs to be competetive with the classic as well. And yes, the classic IS a sign of complacency. They had two years to improve the product. And in that time they did next to nothing. The tangible improvements in the product, like increased storage-space, were not due to R&D-efforts by Apple, they were due to R&D-efforts by Hitachi (who makes the HD). Apple just coasted along with minimium of effort. The things that Apple did was the new case and the new UI. The UI seems like a gimmick, and the new case-material does not take two years of R&D to implement.

Seriously: What has Apple been doing for the last two years as far as the classic is concerned?

But a big screen plus big storage means a big device plus a big price tag.

Zune has bigger screen, same storage and WiFi, yet it's priced similarly.

 

[Scottgfx]

Well, I would say that iPod touch, Zune, iPhone etc. are all mass-market items.

Well that goes without saying, but there are still tradeoffs.

Not any more than video does for example. Video consumes batteries as well, and if you are concerned about battery-life, you can always choose not to use that feature.

A lot of times you leave WiFi and Bluetooth on and they are a constant drain on battery power. With Video, you are engaged with the playback and you are usually cognizant of the effects on the battery. With the Wireless stuff, I personally tend to forget about it. Thankfully, I don't really call anyone except my brothers and it's about once a week.

With wireless stereo sets: I know that there are some already out there, how long do they last on a charge?

There are some new technologies I've read about lately that may be a replacement for batteries. "Super Capacitors". Not sure about that one though.

One last thought: Apple really doesn't have any advantage over Microsoft in the realm of technology. They really only have their ideas. Apple in my opinion has the better ideas for interaction. Microsoft brought forth WiFi on a DMP before Apple but didn't really have a clear idea of what to do with it. Apple has made the same step into WiFi but had a different take on what it should be for. I don't think Microsoft's idea of "squirting" music is necessarily bad, it was just ill-conceived from the standpoint that there would be so few of those sets out there that you would have little chance of ever running into another Zune user. Had Microsoft thought more logically about the marketplace and built a WiFi music store last year, they might have had a greater impact. I just imagine someone selling Bill Gates on the idea of tens of millions of Zunes sold where hoards of users would be "squirting" songs left and right. (Kind of sounds dirty when I write it out like that.)

 

[nagromme]

Seriously: What has Apple been doing for the last two years as far as the classic is concerned?

Developing a new OS, shared with the Nano, evolving iTunes (the other half of the iPod system)--and not much else. What did they have to do? Nothing. Nobody will catch up with the Classic because the Classic will go away leaving something better in its place. The Touch.

Meanwhile, an iPod Classic + iTunes is still an easy-to-use system, still ahead of the Zune, which has a bit bigger screen (which is no real innovation, I'm sure you'd agree). And which has FM (?) and WiFi--but nothing useful to DO with WiFi (unlike the iPod Touch with a browser and WiFi shopping).

So... why would Apple have to make the Classic even better than it already is? Sure--that would be cool--but I don't see it as some sign of Apple's lack of innovation. That would be like complaining that the CRT eMac didn't see a redesign, when in fact it was the end of a long line, and the innovation was now happening with flat iMacs. The eMac, like the Classic, existed because customers demanded it. And like the Classic, it wasn't going to be around forever.

Not EVERY Apple product has to be a revolution compared to past Apple products. It's enough that SOME of them are, and the rest are still better than the competition.

Zune has bigger screen, same storage and WiFi, yet it's priced similarly.

When I mentioned the Touch's "big screen" adding cost, I was referring to something considerably above the Zune: a much larger screen than the Zune, with double the res, tilt sensor, and most importantly, multitouch. So the Zune's price doesn't make an 80 GB Touch any more of an affordable prospect.

And the Zune is still bulkier and has worse battery life than the iPod Classic. The same cannot be said for the Touch--but if you added a hard disk to the Touch it would be a different story. (Maybe THAT'S what Apple has been doing for two years: getting better battery life out of thinner devices--from laptops to phones to players--than the competition, even Microsoft, can manage.)

The two (mass storage and multitouch) WILL combine, just not quite yet. Flash will get cheaper and/or HDs will get smaller.

 

[Scottgfx]

Zune has bigger screen, same storage and WiFi, yet it's priced similarly.

Like I said before, I've only played with a first gen. Zune. Yes, the screen is larger, but it's not of a higher resolution. (i.e. lower screen dpi.)

I've just written about how I think Zune's WiFi missed the mark in the First Gen. in my previous post.

 

[Evangelion]

Developing a new OS, shared with the Nano

And what benefit does that give me? A gimmicky UI, and that's about it.

evolving iTunes (the other half of the iPod system)--and not much else.

There haven't really been any that big new features in iTunes recently.

What did they have to do? Nothing.

I beg to differ.

Nobody will catch up with the Classic because the Classic will go away leaving something better in its place. The Touch.

It seems to me that the classic is not going anywhere. And it will take few years before flash-memory can reach capacities of HD's.

Meanwhile, an iPod Classic + iTunes is still an easy-to-use system, still ahead of the Zune, which has a bit bigger screen (which is no real innovation, I'm sure you'd agree).

Nope, it's not an innovation. I agree with you there.

And which has FM (?) and WiFi--but nothing useful to DO with WiFi (unlike the iPod Touch with a browser and WiFi shopping).

Well, the WiFi on the Zune is infinitely more useful than the WiFi on the classic is...

So... why would Apple have to make the Classic even better than it already is?

Are you SERIOUSLY asking me that question? I'm supposed to tell you why Apple should make their products better? Do I need to answer that?

Sure--that would be cool--but I don't see it as some sign of Apple's lack of innovation.

As far as classic goes, that is exactly what we are saying. Apple is just coasting along.

That would be like complaining that the CRT eMac didn't see a redesign, when in fact it was the end of a long line, and the innovation was now happening with flat iMacs.

Apple still had two years to improve their product, and they did practically nothing. Their competitors did not stand still, but Apple did.

Not EVERY Apple product has to be a revolution compared to past Apple products.

I'm not asking for the classic to be "revolutionary". What I AM asking is for Apple to NOT sit on their hands for two years straight. But that is EXACTLY what they did with the classic. Anyone who compares the classic with 5G will notice the lack of effort in the device. They had two years to work on the device. Did we get WiFi? No. Did we get Bluetooth? No. Did we get remote-control? No. Did we get radio? No. Did we get bigger screen? No. What did we get? Well, the battery-manufacturer had introduced better batteries, and Hitachi introduced HD's with more capacity, and Apple just slapped those in and called it done.

Notice that I'm NOT complaining about the nano. The reason being that the new nano offers some real tangible benefits when compared to it's predecessor. Apple did NOT just coast along with the nano.

 

[Scottgfx]

Well, the WiFi on the Zune is infinitely more useful than the WiFi on the classic is...

Only if you can find another Zune.