Slashdot Mirror
Critical Review of the Zune
ceallaigh writes "Andy Ihnatko of the Chicago Sun-Times has a critical review of the Zune. "Avoid," is my general message. The Zune is a square wheel, a product that's so absurd and so obviously immune to success that it evokes something akin to a sense of pity."
Never mind that Andy is usually an advocate for Apple's products, however, as he is often, Andy is right on and I agree with his sentiments. In addition to his comments, I got to spend a little time with a Zune and initially liked the large screen until I actually turned the device on. I found it to be clunky, awkward, irritating, non-intuitive, completely incompatible with previous Microsoft music standards, and has none of the features that make the iPod so completely useful (ability to hold various media and data, even allowing you to boot from Firewire iPods). And forcing users to rely on the Zune application to move data onto or off the device is infuriating (kind of like the Creative devices. Is it possible to "open" a Creative media player and put data onto it without having to use the Creative application?).
I simply cannot believe that Microsoft *ever* asked itself how users might interface with such a device and it's obsequious pandering to the music industry in an effort to out-compete Apple in this space rather than putting the effort into making a better product to the iPod quite simply offends. Hey Microsoft, how much did you spend coming up with this marketing, because I am simply stunned at how bad this is. If Microsoft *really* was interested in making a better product and not acting as a pimp for the record industry, they would also not have relied on "Zune Points" to purchase music. As anybody who has ever taken Marketing101 knows, you should always facilitate the process of getting people to spend money on your products and anything that steps in-between or slows this process down had better have a damn good reason for existing. Why do I have to buy "Zune Points" to then make music purchases? It's just stupid.
Oh, and Microsoft..... Just a suggestion: Very few end users want their products to "squirt" anything at them. That is just bad marketing.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
I'm not saying that the Zune is good by any means nor have I had a chance to play around with one. Which is why I read this review--I was hoping for a good review on this new MP3 player.
But I found this to be a particularly bad review. Perhaps I don't read a lot of reviews but I prefer them to be thorough. One thing that stuck out about this review is that it didn't even have room for something nice to say about the Zune. Not one thing. I'm sure a high school student could write me a review with a PROS/CONS table that would be more informative than this. I find it very hard to believe that this reviewer managed to not find anything good about the Zune.
Here's a simple question I didn't see answered anywhere, "Did it work?" If it did what was its sound quality like? Is it durable? How heavy/large is it? Every point of this article a mark against the Zune. I think that a 'review' entitles you to be subjective & look at it from all angles then weigh in at the end about whether or not you would recommend it. Instead this review starts off with the quote, "Yes, Microsoft's new Zune digital music player is just plain dreadful. I've spent a week setting this thing up and using it, and the overall experience is about as pleasant as having an airbag deploy in your face. 'Avoid,' is my general message. The Zune is a square wheel, a product that's so absurd and so obviously immune to success that it evokes something akin to a sense of pity." Why should I even finish reading your review if that's the first thing you say?
And then Apple enters your review. I can understand a comparison to other competitive MP3 players but you just start using the brand name Apple. Why? Why not give me a rundown of this versus iRiver or Creative's MP3 players? So the Toshiba MP3 player is $40 cheaper, doesn't tell me much if it sucks even more. Are they also compatible with podcasts and WMA codecs?
Reading this review causes me to question Andy Ihnatko's motive. Is he reviewing the Zune, grinding an ax or trying to get me to buy an iPod? I know the thing sucks but at least be fair if you're going to write a review for the masses.
My work here is dung.
It's not so much a review as a rant. Hardly any info is given about how the thing works. The software didn't install? Big deal! When I updated the firmware on my brand-new iPod 3 years ago, it bricked it. Most of the other complaints also apply to the iPod - works only with supplied software (theoretically, both players have workarounds), not compatible with other on-line stores, DRM, yada yada yada. Since most people don't actually buy from the store and rip their own CD's, maybe he could have talked about how that works for a bit. Or sound quality, or battery life, or how the UI works. But no, it's more fun and easier just to rip out a bash. Yay lazy journalists!
The Zune can be an incredibly cool and useable device as soon as the hackers get into it and create a differen Firmware/OS for it like they did with the ipod,iriver,creative and other popular mp3 players.
Sounds interesting, but it seems to me Andy's job is to review products as they are now, as shipped by the OEM. His reading audience isn't out to pimp their ride; they're out to get a device that does great stuff right out of the box.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Remember Robert X Cringely's dictum about Microsoft - the third product is always the real one. The first two are just to scope out the market.
In every single black friday ad I got in the mail and paper and went through, Best Buy, Circuit City, Walmart, etc, not one bothered to even mention the Zune for my local stores. Most of them had the iPod on page one or two or in the hot gifts section. Their displays are kind of sad little things next to the area full of iPod gear and accessories and of course the iPod itself. One of the stores had more space for Sandisk players than the Zune. It would seem even some retailers know this is probably just going to be an expensive side shelf paperweight.
As for the iPod, the local grocery store now carries the iPod and accessories back in the TV and Game aisle and the corner gas station had shuffles for sale next to the compact flash cards, aimed at travelers and vacationers. You just don't get more pervasive than that. Until the Zune can even near this and can branch out into other small flash based devices as well, Microsoft just isn't going anywhere with it.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
He could be using a Mac. On my Windows laptop, my iPod Nano is visible as USB storage. On my Mac Mini, it is only accessible by using iTunes.
You're right, the Zune won't be gone in 6 months, but for the completely wrong reasons.
Zune isn't about a drive into the living room. Portable music players like the Zune aren't meant for the living room, and never have been.
The reason it won't be gone in 6 months is that Microsoft doesn't come up with new things to get instant profit, and they don't make their choice whether or not to kill a product based on immediate consumer reaction. The company doesn't make decisions to only improve next quarter's profits, and it's idea of a long-term goal isn't 1 year away - and both of those are in constrast to 99% of corporate America. The company thinks much further ahead than that.
What's funny is the way that people here bash other companies for only thinking about the next quarter or the next year. Then Microsoft comes along and does things with 3 year, 5 year, or even longer-term plans, and then they get bashed for the long term thinking.
Oh, and here's a hint - the points model for payment matches up with the Xbox Live Arcade and Video marketplaces. You dump $20 worth of points into your account, and you can use those points to buy songs, buy games, and buy/rent videos. And as the points have worked so well on the Xbox, why not try them out for the Zune too? I really bet the bashing of the usage of points is more just an excuse than a real complaint.
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
I'm aware that Apple is not the best offering in the industry, but whether we like it or not their product is so ubiquitous that the average reader in fact expects such a comparison to be made. Most people will hear about the Zune and think, "Is it better than iPod?"
Whoever wrote the column is also very aware that his readership is thinking along these lines, so it comes as no surprise whatsoever that Apple was thrown onto the table. It's also no secret that Microsoft's Zune has been regarded as a challenge to Apple long before it was even released--they're even designed similarly.
No one has mentioned the feature that lost Zune to me: the video plays in horizontal format, but all the media listings are vertical. So you keep having to turn it 90 degrees. That sucks. How about an option to do all the listings horizontally?
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
Hate to say this, but why not an iPod? It supports Audible out of the box.
Only from the standpoint of people receiving one who really wanted an iPod. :-)
Trust me, the Zune won't put a dent in Apple's Christmas season iPod sales. This is not hubris talking, it's a plain fact. The thing has gotten almost uniformly bad reviews and has even been soundly mocked on CNN. Zune 1.0 is nothing for Apple to worry about. By the time Microsoft gets a worthy competitor to the current iPod out the door (if history is any guide it will be their 3rd generation Zune), Apple will have advanced the iPod further, still leaving MS at a disadvantage.
The network effect of the iPod is probably just too great for Microsoft to ever overcome-- there are already thousands upon thousands of iPod accessories out there, and the majority of new cars now offer iPod connectivity as an option. Furthermore, it's doubtful many companies will jump to make Zune accessories in any great hurry, seeing how willing Microsoft is to abandon things at the drop of a hat when they decide what they're doing isn't working out. In short, by going up against the iPod Microsoft is learning what it's like to be a competitor to Windows, where they are the ones enjoying the network effect.
~Philly
The purpose of the review is not to give geeks a rundown of every single feature and whether it performs as expected. The purpose is to inform the reader about whether this is even a worthwhile product, given all the hype that surrounds it.
Speaking of which, I'm still appalled at the number of "geeks" on Slashdot who:
-Still think the iPod DRMs everything.
-Conveniently forget about the fact that Microsoft has promised to DRM everything.
-Have little, if no idea about the particular features of the most popular mp3 players.
Every iPod thread I read, someone posts about the "iPod's DRM" - which is actually iTunes Music Store DRM. Every time I read an article about the Zune (which always mention the iPod), the flocks of people who have been waiting for something which will make their irrational Apple hatred seem warranted flock in to trumpet the Zune, despite the fact that this is the only player that applies DRM to your files without your permission.
If we're all so up in arms about DRM, let's put our Apple/Microsoft biases aside and look at which manufacturer treats users with more respect. Does respect come from a manufacturer whose player can apply DRM to your files and whose profit margins include payments to music companies whose products you may never have purchased and may never be interested in?
As a bit of comfort, I'm the anti-you in technology preferences, and I have trouble finding a nice mp3 player that supports the Ogg files that make up almost my entire music collection...
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
Have you considered that releasing products that dont work isnt the right thing to do? Because of the press influence that M$ can exert, innocent buyers get crap - thats WRONG. Secondly, did it ever cross your mind that the phrase 'iPod killer' is idiotic? This is NOT about proper analysis but more about SPIN - the jury has returned and delivered its verdict - the zune isnt a very good product, brings NOTHING new to the game, and has some serious software problems. There is no 'killer' - just a cascade of products over time, hopefully getting better. The zune will be judged over time and by its functionality at all levels. So far, its not doing too well, and to suggest that M$ is using it as a beta test is reason enough NOT to buy one. Furthermore, Microsoft is a badly managed company that has been boosted by the bandwagon of IT 'specialists' who love the fact that Windows has never worked properly - they make a lot of money by convincing the public that screwed-up systems are normal - and then charging them for repair. MS is a BAD example of how to live and work in a decent society - do you wonder that the zune isnt doing so well?
Q. Can I remove U3 technology from my USB drive?
A. Yes. To remove the U3 technology from the drive, simply go to the U3 Launchpad and, under Settings, select U3 Launchpad settings and click Uninstall. This will completely remove the U3 Launchpad from the drive.
I still won't buy a flash drive with this auto-run crap on it, simply because I don't trust them not to stealth install some spyware or rootkit or something (yea Sony, I'm looking at you) - but according to Sandisk it can be removed from the drive.
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
It amazes me that every review of the Zune has completely missed the point:
In today's day and age, with always-on devices with mandatory updates, DRM, and proprietary file formats, who you buy from and trust with your memories, pictures of family and friends, music collections, videos, pictures, letters, etc., is a very, very important decision.
Will you be able to look at the digital pictures of your child 30 years from now? Yes, we have entered that age.
The fundamental problem with the Zune is Microsoft's lack of integrity. Not the Zune's design. Not the Zune's user interface, or anything else. The problem is the lack of character of the company behind the product.
The Zune showed that Microsoft is more than willing to leave good, paying customers who bought 'Plays for Sure' music high-and-dry with a bleak future. And the killer is there is no practical reason for this other than to be sure they copy Apple identically and make people pay twice for the same music.
What's worse, what happens when the whole Zune thing (inevitably) fails? Then what? Customers should expect, based on current behavior, that MS will change the format again and make you re-buy your music. How could a logical, sane person assume otherwise?
(I know a guy, who despite my advice, bought about 2 grand of Plays for Sure music because "MIcrosoft is going to be around forever and they support their stuff." Needless to say, when he learned his music collection didn't work with his new Zune, he was at the Apple store a day later dropping 6 grand on a MBP, 30" display, nano and 5G iPod and tons of iPod accessories. Yes, one guy voting with his wallet--a fat one at that--but this guy is another data point on the tsunami that is building of CIO's, consumers, SMB customers, etc., who are sick of MS' lack of business ethics and their silly, silly games.)
That, for me, is the kiss of death for the Zune. And it should be for all people. For it demonstrated all the lipstick Steve "We need to act like Industry Leaders" Balmer is putting on the Microsoft pig hasn't changed it's DNA. Microsoft is, and always will be, a monopolist protecting its Windows and Office franchise. At any and all costs.
(Full disclosure: Never used Linux in my life. Nor Open Office. Use MS products daily. Don't "hate" Microsoft.
But I can tell a person/company lacking morals and character when I see one. And I know a doomed product when I see one.)
How about the iRiver IHP series? The Cowon A2? The Apple iPod? Would you not comment on those first efforts? They're quite good. Seems like MS (and Creative?) is the only one getting it wrong...
It was obviously never intended to be an iPod killer
Then why close down MSNMusic and create a new Zune-only store, and shit on your PlaysForSure partners? If they were just throwing out a first effort, why go through all that trouble and pissing off of partners?
Your first mistake was nailing your flag to the DRM flag at all. Now you've got a significant amount of music that you don't want to abandon, and it's like a millstone round your neck, dictating to you which machines you can consider buying. And that's after a fairly short space of time. Imagine if you'd spent ten years building your whole record collection out of this shite. You'd be baying for blood.
I just don't get why people buy downloaded music at all, especially not DRM'd stuff. For a marginally higher cost, a CD gives you your music in an uncompressed format and leaves it up to you how you want to encode it. And it's got pretty packaging too. Until music downloads are losslessly encoded, DRM-free, and allow me to send for the cover art at no additional charge, I'm not buying.
So that'd be "never", then.
Fuck 'em. Don't give them your money. Keep buying CDs until they come back with the online music stores we want, rather than the ones they see fit to give us.
Uh, you don't buy music from the RIAA. They're just a representative lobby group for record labels. Second, artists willingly sign contracts with record labels, and they even hire entertainment lawyers to make sure they have favorable contracts. Pirating music just makes sure that artists don't get paid.
"Striking back" at the RIAA by pirating an artists' music is stupid, and it's just a justification used by pirates to make themselves not feel guilty for it. Whenever the artists are mentioned, the conversation always steers back to the RIAA--you just did it in your post. The reason for this is that pirates scapegoat the RIAA to make someone else the bad guy and try to distract from the fact that what they're doing is wrong. So, whenever someone mentions the artists, pirates scramble to make the RIAA the bad guy again and forget about the artists, because it's the artists they're screwing over, not the RIAA.
"Sufferin' succotash."
As I said, I have years worth of WMA and WMV files.
Not meant as a troll or a flamebait, but you're one stupid sonofabitch. Why did you get married to a proprietary (and inferior) format invented with the sole purpose of DRM and vendor lock-in? You could have just as easily gone with standard formats like MP3 and use whatever player/platform you wanted.
I must say, friend, you really did drink the Kool-Aid. And I'm going to sit in the corner and laugh my ass off.
for information ... the iPod DOES support OGG (iPodLinux)
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
"I have years of files integrated into WMP"
The WMA format was designed with one goal, to lock you into WMP.
It was a very obvious trap but you fell for it.
Don't expect any sympathy...
No sig today...
From your own spew; "why doesn't the iPod use standard headphone jacks?".
You claim to own an iPod, but yet you make a statement that is complete rubbish. To answer your question, the iPod "does" use a standard headphone jack. So are you lying about owning one?
People like you scare me. You're willing to wade in shit, just because it's not Apple. Being blind is one thing, recognizing a good product is another. Fortunately the iPod is the rare exception that quality beat out cheap mediocricy, something MS is trying to force back upon the market. MS's player is deserving of a quick death, nothing more, nothing less. The iPod already has good competion from other players, which are also a much better alternative to the Zune.
BTW, that cheap-bloated-FM tuner fits the Zune nicely.
"Most however are young kids who can't afford to buy the music in the first place... so they're not screwing the artist..."
Now THAT'S just another rationalization. When I was a kid music was important to me, and somehow my friends and I always managed to find the money needed to get the music we wanted. We might not have been able to afford everything we WANTED, but we did manage to buy the stuff that was important to us, using money from jobs, allowances, and so on.
Today, too many kids make the same rationalization that you just did... and then go spend the money they "didn't have" on clothes or other things they can't rip off quite so easily.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
I assume you mean "wma". WMA provides a higher quality sound at a lower file size/bit rate. This means more songs per player and if you happen to pay per MB downloaded it means more music for your money. Of course you can't use an iPod for most of your music which pretty much sucks.
Ditto. And as mentioned above, using "audiophile" and "portable music player" in the same sentence is a bit absurd. Too many of us listen to music on such devices on the street, in a car, on the subway, at the gym, or at any number of other places where the ambient noise levels are going to drown out any perceived "superiority" in sound quality anyway.
So unless you're going to record totally loseless and listen with $300 headphones in a quiet room... don't bother.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
There's a difference between music connoisseurs and audiophiles. Many Audiophiles I know take pride in only listening to the quality of the recording (not even the balance of the production), the quality of the music totally goes out the window. Seriously, I can listen to the crappiest audio production, if the composition and musicality is solid. Obviously, I'd prefer great production... and as someone who has a degree in audio production and electronic composition, it means a lot to me. But so many people go overboard. My feeling is that if audio quality hinders your ability to listen to good music, then you've got your priorities messed up. I think it's along the lines of being a wine-connoisseur, but refusing to drink out of anything but the finest crystal, you're bound to miss a lot of great wines that way.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
No, Microsoft is his religion, you can't question person's beliefs.
Indeed, the fact that some MP3 players try to even obscure the files (MY files) that I put on them made me return more than one... For example the Apple Ipod. Nice player but it drove me nuts. Although I could drag and drop files to it and use it as a nice 30GB external disk, these files would not be recognized by the player itself! I could not read text files, I could not play drm-free mp3's, I could not see jpg's, I could not play mp4 videos (MY VIDEOS, not drm'd ones). The only way for this silly device to see them was to import then into itunes, which would simply scramble the file names and put the files in a hidden folder, and then I could not transfer the files to another computer in an easy way. What a stupid device. These are MY FILES and I want to use the device MY WAY. So after 6 days I simply returned the Ipod to the place I bought it (I assume at a loss to apple...). Oh, well... sad devices, indeed!
I assume you mean "wma". WMA provides a higher quality sound at a lower file size/bit rate.
Bullshit.
Both Apple *and* MS would love for you to believe that their codecs can sound twice as good as mp3 at half the bit rate, but unfortunately for them it just isn't true and that double-blind listening test proved it some time ago. Statistically, the difference is not all that great, but in absolute terms, mp3 actually sounds *better* than wma even at the *same* bit rate. You can forget about trying to get wma to sound anywhere near as good as mp3 at a lower bit rate. (Apple's AAC fares a bit better, but not a whole lot.)
There is simply no compelling reason to use anything other than either Vorbis (if you want the absolute best lossy compression at the expense of compatibility) or mp3 (if you want the best lossy compression with the most compatibility). You're a fool to lock yourself into one company's products by using an inferior compression algorithm.
If someone steals a leather jacket they'll be charged with a crime relative to the value of that jacket (say a couple of hundred dollars). If they steal a BMW they'll be charged with a much more serious crime because the value of that item is much greater (tens of thousands of dollars). In both cases the theft has prevented the rightful owner of that property from enjoying the benefits of their property and in both those cases the punishment for the crime will be in direct relation to the value of the item(s) stolen.
Now compare that to "stealing" in the music industry's world. Even though they have lost no use of their "property" and even though the "theft" it hasn't cost them a single cent, they'll sue you in civil court and they'll demand damages far in excess of the average retail price of their "property". If the music industry was willing to behave like any other industry when it came to "theft" I might be inclined to believe the "stealing" angle, but you know that no normal retailer or manufacturer could demand thouands of dollars in reparations for items that cost $0.99 on iTunes. Major media producers plays by their own rules (the are designed to benefit ONLY them) and I refuse to go along with their opportunistic whining.
Personally I enjoy seeing people like you blindly buying into the music industry's propoganda so fully. They tell you that it's stealing and they tell you it's like stealing a car and you buy it. Nevermind that the actual term is copyright infringement or that copyright was never intended to be wielded like a mighty stick against the consumer, THEY told you what's what and that's as far as you go in your thought process.
Nevermind that companies like Sony put rootkits on their CDs, nevermind that movie studios have arbitrarily decided to undermine established legal precedent (the Betamax case), nevermind that software companies decide how long you can use software you "bought", the media companies have spoke and you fall into line like a good obedient consumer. Good job.
Stop calling it "stealing" and stop using the same tired and idiotic comparisons to stealing tangible goods and then maybe we can have a useful discussion about what is and is not fair use and just what rights media companies should have over the products that they release into the world.