ZOMG New Zunes

BarlowBrad writes "From PC World: "Microsoft announced a new slate of Wi-Fi-equipped Zune players today, including $150 4GB and $200 8GB flash-based players, and a $250 80GB model that's slimmer than the original Zune. All of the new models feature touch-sensitive controls and wireless syncing with your PC, a much-demanded feature that Microsoft will also make available on the original 30GB Zune when the new models debut in mid November." Wireless. More space than a Nomad. But draw your own conclusions."

Comments

Congratulations Microsoft...

[PortHaven]

In other words...

"Microsoft releases iPod killer. However, the new Zune was designed to kill the last generation of iPods - not the currently released iPods."

Microsostrich

[Space cowboy]

It seems Microsoft's answer to the ipod Touch and the iphone interface id to ignore it completely. And whereas the improvements to the Zune (V1, I suppose) are welcome and useful, I don't really see how it is supposed to beat out an ipod any time soon. What people will do is compare the Touch to the Zune (no matter how unfair that comparison is), conclude that the touch is better, and then buy an ipod if they can't afford the Touch. Yes, people are weird that way - having the market-leader, even if it's not generally affordable, is a big push for sales across the board.

Also, it's not the player - I still can't believe people are missing this. It's the synergy of the player, the music, the store, the industrial design, the marketing and the ubiquity. MS have just changed maybe 2 of these (the design looks to be better). That's not sufficient.

If you saw any of the zune V1 adverts, I think you'll agree they were just plain weird - Apple's promotion of (ahem) a *music* player was to show people enjoying their music. Microsoft's approach should be a case-study in how not to market stuff -

• "the social" is a term of derision for unemployment benefit,
• "squirting" music. Really ? That was really what you came up with ?
  
• brown. Enough said. (although some will like it, it's not the #1 choice of everyone, is it?)
  
• Complete disconnect from the product when marketing it. What ???
  
• I could go on... the problems were legion
  

Let's see if they do better this time around. I think they will, marginally. I still don't think they have a world-changer on their hands, and that's what they need - in the same way as Apple need a world-changer to upset the MS hegemony in the PC sphere; even with steadily increasing monthly saled percentages (far better than the zune is doing), a Mac is still very much a second-tier choice.

So - nice try MS. Must do better.

Simon

I've never got the point of wireless synching...

[Goth Biker Babe]

You still have to charge the thing. How difficult is it to plug your player in before you go to bed and in the morning it's charged and synched.

Re:what about the DRM "feature"?

[BlueHands]

So, i was reading a number of the comments that said basically the same thing - it might not be good, but it is better than nothing. Obviously some people feel it is NOT better than nothing, myself included and I wasn't sure why. So, I started thinking about it, trying to understand why I felt the way I did.

I think part of it is a feeling of MS being dishonest. It feels like they are trying to "cheat" the users, to cheat me. "Here is what you want, but not really, so why don't you buy our crippled product."

It ALSO feels like it carries a certain mental baggage. By accepting that someone else can only play it 3 times, I am buying into a system that thinks DRM is a good thing in a very obvious way. With the iTunes/iPod connection, DRM is still there but it is not nearly as blatant. Basically, Apple doesn't get the same grief because the are better at seduction then MS. Apple is the smooth talker that just says, "hey baby, marriage just is not for my thing. Maybe it will be someday." While MS says, "I could give you what you want but I am not going to. Deal."

It is a strange situation. We geeks often hate MS and love Apple. Both are not giving us what we clearly want, but one is more upfront and honest about it. You could also say blunt even. Which, if either, is better? Personal choice I think. Some of us prefer the pleasant lie, some prefer to take whatever we can get right now.