Microsoft Announces 2nd Generation Zune Music Player

[Blue Velvet]

Not even user-definable EQ either... the iPod Classic — with its too-large capacity for most people — is obviously a fringe item now and I expect to see little, if any more, development on it regardless of UI changes and capacity increases.

Look at the iPod touch and the Nano; that's where things are going.

 

[nagromme]

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.

You seem to have picked a list of improvements that YOU feel matter, ignoring other improvements Apple has made that OTHER people feel matter. You've glossed over features from the past two years that many people find to be of FAR more value than the Zune's WiFi-without-a-cause. (My pet feature: the new 480p component video output.)

That is a very valid opinion. But the next step--that the iPod has stagnated for two years--is an exaggeration.

I hope one day you get your innovative iPod with FM radio or whatever specific things make the Classic such a poor music player for your needs

Your complaint seems to boil down to the fact that Classic is not the same as the Touch. I won't argue there. It's not. You can pick one--or if the Zune's shortcomings and accompanying software are acceptable, you can use one of those. To each his own.

EDIT: If you're right that the Touch and Classic won't merge for a long time, then there's hope that the Classic will keep improving. I still feel the Classic will soon be hanging on only for a small minority--and then will be gone entirely. It's great right now, but it won't always be needed.

 

[Scottgfx]

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

Ah, can I get a "WE"!!!!

Who is this "we"?

I'm starting to feel as if you are not so much evangelical about the iPod as you are about the Zune. That's OK. I've tried to be respectful. (your name is Evangelion, I assume you are behind something) I think the iPod needs some competition, but I haven't seen it yet. Like I said, there are still physical and technological limitations to be overcome to make WiFi and Bluetooth a everymans item. We are seeing a battle of ideas and wits.

 

[Scottgfx]

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

This is anecdotal evidence, but I think is rather telling... Someone at work placed a note on the workplace message-board a couple of months back trying to sell their Zune. Though I didn't know who the person was, it was the first person I knew of that ever bought a Zune. I watched the ad for a few weeks. The price kept dropping every week. I think the last price I saw was between 60 or 80 dollars. I don't know if it ever sold, the posting just went away.

 

[Scottgfx]

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.

Let's look at the first gen. Zune. Microsoft "just slapped" their name on a Toshiba Gigabeat and "called it done".

Since Microsoft and Toshiba are also joined at the HD-DVD ankle, I wouldn't doubt that Toshiba technology isn't somewhere inside the Zune 2.

 

[Evangelion]

It seems that I ruffled some feathers

Only if you can find another Zune.

Well, there is wireless syncing as well.

You seem to have picked a list of improvements that YOU feel matter, ignoring other improvements Apple has made that OTHER people feel matter.

I picked improvements that would have been substantial, easy to implement or otherwise obvious. And what improvement did Apple make? Like I said, the improvement we got were made by other parties, they were not due to R&D-efforts made by Apple.

That is a very valid opinion. But the next step--that the iPod has stagnated for two years--is an exaggeration.

No it is not. Look how much nano progressed in just a year. A whole new form-factor, new and improved screen, video-playback, more storage and new UI. Then compare how much classic progressed in _two_ years: New UI, new case-material, more storage. Nano represents a tangible R&D-effor from Apple, classic does not.

Your complaint seems to boil down to the fact that Classic is not the same as the Touch.

No. My argument boils down to the fact that classic is not really any different from it's two-year old predecessor.

EDIT: If you're right that the Touch and Classic won't merge for a long time, then there's hope that the Classic will keep improving.

If the last two years are of any indication, it wont.

I'm starting to feel as if you are not so much evangelical about the iPod as you are about the Zune.

I'm not "evangelical" about the Zune. I'm not telling people to go out and buy a Zune. Hell, I'm not going to buy a Zune, I'm getting an iPod touch.

What I AM saying is the thing that is obvious as hell to just about everyone who bothers to look at the issue: iPod classic is a non-effort product from Apple. They had two years to improve the product, and we got superficial improvements and improvements made by third-parties. Apple's R&D on the classic is minimal at best.

That's OK. I've tried to be respectful. (your name is Evangelion, I assume you are behind something) I think the iPod needs some competition, but I haven't seen it yet. Like I said, there are still physical and technological limitations to be overcome to make WiFi and Bluetooth a everymans item. We are seeing a battle of ideas and wits.

We already have both WiFi and BT in "everymans items", so I fail to see the problem here.

Let's look at the first gen. Zune. Microsoft "just slapped" their name on a Toshiba Gigabeat and "called it done".

Yep they did.

 

[Scottgfx]

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

This got me thinking about the PC/DOS users back in day when they were moaning about the Macintosh's GUI.

Here's my take on what a Microsoft Digital Music Player could have been like without the "gimmicky UI". It would look something like a Smart Phone with the full keyboard. You could type things into it like...

C:\ play -s \\albums\beatles\abbyroad\something.mp3

Of course, the -s switch is so you can listen to the file in stereo.

Or perhaps a music player based on Digital Research GEM. That might be interesting.

 

[Scottgfx]

It seems that I ruffled some feathers

Naaaah, I'm just having fun picking apart your arguments before I go to bed.

 

[Scottgfx]

Well, there is wireless syncing as well.

Only on the one you can't buy yet.

 

[fiftydollarshoe]

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.)

That’s a good post; It wouldn't surprise me if there was a classic or touch in the Apple labs that uses Wi-Fi to sync. However they tested themselves and tested with a sample group of users under NDA it and noted that it doesn't speed up sync time and is fraught with checksum issues, drains batteries and is initiated when the user doesn't expect it. This is why I like Apple and the products they release...... I don't want GPS or Wi-Fi sync-ing if its half arsed..... and Wi-Fi syncing is a good idea but I don't want it if I have my touch plugged into the wall or into my Bose sound-dock.... those actions are not mutual.... Wi-Fi and buying songs from iTunes is mutual.... Microsoft miss this.... Wi-Fi and sharing songs is not mutual.... electronic devices like phones are personal.... I don’t want people having access to it to my device...... in addition zuebns have headphones…… how is that social ? how is sharing music in that context social ? that I don’t understand…….. photos and sharing is mutual hence why facebook works so well…….. I read a long time ago in a book about the mac about the amount of research Apple do into human behaviour in terms of how the interact together and with machines….. the multi-touch dictionary is a great example of this……

 

[Scottgfx]

I'm not "evangelical" about the Zune. I'm not telling people to go out and buy a Zune. Hell, I'm not going to buy a Zune, I'm getting an iPod touch. We already have both WiFi and BT in "everymans items", so I fail to see the problem here.

So why do you keep harping on the Classic? You conceed that it's not what you want and that you're getting a Touch. Do you complain about Ford selling the Fusion when it's really the Tarus (Five Hundred) that you really want? Apple is playing the field here. A Touch with a HD would be too bulky and energy hungry so it's flash memo only. The Classic targets those who were happy with the old iPods and just needs more storage. (like me, I already have an iPhone)

I have money invested in both Microsoft and Apple, so I'd like both to do well. It's just that Apple has done so much better for me in the last few years. Perhaps after Balmer and Gates leave, Microsoft can get down to business.

 

[Evangelion]

Naaaah, I'm just having fun picking apart your arguments before I go to bed.

Well, you didn't

Only on the one you can't buy yet.

Well, that's the Zune I have been talking about. The original Zune? It was crap, and it's still crap.

So why do you keep harping on the Classic?

Because classic is still needed. Flash can't replace HD just yet, and if Apple wants to sell an iPod with lots of storage-space, they need the classic.

And the other reason I'm harping on the classic is because I hate the idea that Apple does not do everything they can to make a good product, rather they just coast along.

You conceed that it's not what you want and that you're getting a Touch. Do you complain about Ford selling the Fusion when it's really the Tarus (Five Hundred) that you really want?

What I want or am planning to get is 100% besides the point. If I'm going to get the touch does not change the fact that classic was a non-effort from Apple. What I'm arguing against is the sense of complacency that plagues Apple, and classic is a perfect example of that.

Hell, most people on these forums bitch about Windows, even though they have no intention of using it!

Apple is playing the field here. A Touch with a HD would be too bulky and energy hungry so it's flash memo only.

I'm not asking for a touch with HD. I have argued against people who wanted a touch with HD, telling them that it would be pointless. But what this has to do with the classic and it's features is beyond me.

The Classic targets those who were happy with the old iPods and just needs more storage.

So, you basically feel that Apple should not improve the classic at all, besides adding more storage-space? Well, that IS complacency. A non-complacent company would do their best to create the best product possible, as opposed to just adding some storage to existing product.

 

[Scottgfx]

...Microsoft miss this.... Wi-Fi and sharing songs is not mutual.... electronic devices like phones are personal.... I don’t want people having access to it to my device...... in addition zuebns have headphones…… how is that social ? how is sharing music in that context social ? that I don’t understand…

I put a lot of thought into this when the Zune was first introduced. WiFi at the outset sounds cool; it sounds like the future. I took me a little time to realize that your chances of running into another Zune user in the short term would be almost nill. But what if that is all the incentive people need to buy? There are still all sorts of other hurdles like the music store and the computer interface to overcome. I became less worried over time.

Apple already had iTunes before the iPod. They then grafted the music store onto that.

In contrast, Microsoft built several music stores with different partners and then jilted them all with Zune. Talk about your mixed messages.

I work with a number of high school and college students. I still have yet to see someone with a Zune.

 

[Scottgfx]

Well, you didn't

Oy vey!

So, you basically feel that Apple should not improve the classic at all, besides adding more storage-space? Well, that IS complacency. A non-complacent company would do their best to create the best product possible, as opposed to just adding some storage to existing product.

When Apple released the iPod Photo, it really wasn't that much different than the 4th gen. iPod that I still own. Eventually, the features of the iPod Photo just became known simply as the iPod.

Also, Apple just made a huge change, across the board that affects the entire line. Apple switched from Portal Player to their own OSX based system. While the machine still does the sundry task of playing music, there's now 3D interaction and images of album covers being composited with alphas in real-time! Yeah it's not necessary to accomplish the basic task of playing music, but neither was the GUI necessary to make the computer useful for balancing a checkbook or playing a video game. It's more than glitz. It's feedback for the user in another more subtle way that supports the basic text that's always been there.

OK, it's been fun debating you. G-Night!!!!

 

[Evangelion]

When Apple released the iPod Photo, it really wasn't that much different than the 4th gen.

That's because iPod Photo was 4G iPod. Complaining that there's no much difference between 4G iPod and iPod photo is like saying there is not much difference between 4GB and 8GB nano.

Also, Apple just made a huge change, across the board that affects the entire line. Apple switched from Portal Player to their own OSX based system.

Classic does not run OS X.

While the machine still does the sundry task of playing music, there's now 3D interaction and images of album covers being composited with alphas in real-time!

Yes, the gimmick-UI that does not provide any tangible benefit to the user. The new UI seems like a kind of feature that they can point and say "look, we did SOMETHING".

Seriously: After two years of R&D, what does Apple have to show?

 

[clevin]

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?

now let me conclude the stuff M$'s ZUNE2 allegedly (by people on this forum) "copied" from apple.

1. price tag. how can you price it at the same one as iPod!! I guess superTarget can't label their tomatoes same price as walmart as well.

2. Design, how come everybody bashing ZUNE2 being ugly, at the same time, its design is copied from iPod, is iPod ugly too?

3. A PMP, only apple allowed to make PMP! There should be no competition in any field where apple is in!

 

[DMann]

MicroClone

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?

"If it works for Apple, it works for us" -- Steve Ballmer CEO MicroClone

 

[72930]

I think with this one, MS has moved further from "Apple copied" and closer to "Apple inspired"...fine in my book

 

[uv23]

Smirk all you like. I find it preposterous that I still need to physically connect my new iPod to my computer to sync music, instead of doing it wirelessly. This is a major convenience advantage of the Zune that Apple needs to get a grip on.

 

[Schtumple]

That green looks like that garbage monster off of sesame street....

I still prefer the iPod, the control pad at the bottom just doesn't look right to me...

 

[milo]

If the Zune was compatible with OS X, then I would definitely get one over the iPod classic/nano. People keep saying the zune sucks, but you know what? My iPods suck. They lock up all the time, they lag like hell when switching songs, and the user interface isn't as nice.

And you're going to assume that Zunes don't lock up or have laggy interface without even trying out the new ones?

SMART.

I own a Nano 2G, iPod 5G 30GB and an iPhone 8GB but even I don't bash something until I've tried it.

Some of you people on here are the definition of Apple fanboy, grow up.

I agree with you to a degree...but a number of things are known about the product already, and it doesn't need to be tried to know that. The PC press is commenting on these already, and they haven't all tried it. Personally, I find the "landscape" orientation and bigger screen on the nano more appealing. I think the bigger screen on the 30 gig model is nice, although I'm still waiting on the rest of the specs.

Will it only play mp3 or will it support multiple file formats like the iPod? This is important to many users who do not like mp3 codecs and also like aiff or lossless files.

The ORIGINAL zune supported multiple formats including uncompressed ones.

Classic does not run OS X.

Source?

Seriously: After two years of R&D, what does Apple have to show?

The touch. I don't know why you can't understand that.

Smirk all you like. I find it preposterous that I still need to physically connect my new iPod to my computer to sync music, instead of doing it wirelessly. This is a major convenience advantage of the Zune that Apple needs to get a grip on.

It seems to me that it would be much more convenient if you could do wireless charging as well. I'm always going to run out of juice before I run out of content, so I don't see what's inconvenient about syncing at the same time I do an unavoidable charge.

 

[clevin]

Source?

Its so interesting, if you think iPod classic is running OSX, then the "OSX" is crappy as hell. even if its derived from same source, when you reduce it to a degree that its next to nothing, better don't use same term.

The touch. I don't know why you can't understand that.

is there anybody sincerely believe M$ is putting Zune 80 up against iPT?

It seems to me that it would be much more convenient if you could do wireless charging as well. I'm always going to run out of juice before I run out of content, so I don't see what's inconvenient about syncing at the same time I do an unavoidable charge.

Its the same argument 6 years back when wireless technology getting pushed, people ask, if I own a desktop, why the hell do I need wireless?, or, If I work with my laptop in office all day, since Im not moving it all the time, why do I need wireless?

You can argue its not useful to you, but it is a leap forward, for most people.

 

[Consultant]

With each new generation, Microsoft's vegetable colors are becoming less digested. From a completely-digested waste product in generation 1, to partially-digested waste in generation 2. Generation 3 will feature a slightly-foamy half-chewed sort of green, and generation 4's green will be crisp and fresh.

LOL, nice insight.

 

[milo]

Its so interesting, if you think iPod classic is running OSX, then the "OSX" is crappy as hell. even if its derived from same source, when you reduce it to a degree that its next to nothing, better don't use same term.

I just asked for a source clarifying the OS it runs on. Do you have one or not?

is there anybody sincerely believe M$ is putting Zune 80 up against iPT?

What does that have to do with apple putting their R&D into the touch instead of replacing the classic with a more advanced model?

Its the same argument 6 years back when wireless technology getting pushed, people ask, if I own a desktop, why the hell do I need wireless?, or, If I work with my laptop in office all day, since Im not moving it all the time, why do I need wireless?

You can argue its not useful to you, but it is a leap forward, for most people.

So how is it a leap forward to be able to sync wirelessly but still have to plug in to charge it?

 

[phytonix]

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.

Exactly. iPod classic is a 100% shame on Apple. Also the new Nano sorta, fat, and polished for scratches. And that's when Apple knows people hate scratches.