"So you're saying that a Microsoft product that doesn't install properly on Windows and requires a FAQ that includes instructions on how to reinstall a.DLL to make it work on windows something that has nothing to do with ease of use? Seriously? That's really a pretty dumb thing to say."
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
"...you're going to try to prove your point no matter how dumb it makes you sound."
It only sounds dumb to you because you refuse to consider that I may be right. Yes, claiming that the iPod is hard to use *because* I own an unsupported platform WOULD BE stupid. You seem to have gotten my point yet not made the connection.
"Now, lets look at facts here:"
Just where are you getting your facts? Apparently the installation fails on many PCs? Who says?
"Take off your "I need to be right" blinders and look at the reality here."
I would say the same to you. The reality is that an install failure has nothing to do with "ease of use" since "use" doesn't exist yet. It's like saying that a car is slow because the battery is dead.
"How can Apple code better software for Windows than Microsoft? That's a much better question."
Who says they do? iTunes runs poorly on Windows and it's installer fails frequently for me. iTunes frequently wants to upgrade QT and the QT installer frequently fails out. If I don't close any apps that might be running QT then I can count on failure yet I don't claim that the iPod is hard to use or that Apple can't write software. That's an Apple fanboy tactic, not mine.
"I mean, how long have people been asking for WiFi in the iPod? Since it's been released I think."
I sync to my library rarely but I charge all the time. I could care less if I have to connect a cable or use a dock in order to sync. Just because people ask for it doesn't make it a good idea. So far, Apple agrees.
I've owned phones with both bluetooth and WiFi yet I don't sync wirelessly there either. Why? Because I need to charge anyway.
Far more useful to me would be a wireless car interface. That could possibly be a bluetooth feature. If so, I'd much prefer bluetooth to WiFi because of battery life.
I'm not. It's not clear that the software is hard to install. What's clear is that the author's install failed. Why it failed may have nothing to do with how hard the install process is.
It's possible that a failure of a simple install process is hard to overcome. It's also possible that fixing that problem results in a product that's easy to use.
Frankly, I found the 1G iPod hard to use with my PC since Apple didn't support Windows at the time. Claiming that the 1G Pod was hard to use would be inaccurate, however. Of course, we know that the author in this case has no problem with being inaccurate.
As I said in another post, you could also argue that the Zune's sound quality and battery life are diminished if the software fails to install. Would you argue that as well?
Sure, but the iPod is no different. Windows users have to install iTunes and I've personally had the iTunes installer fail on more than one occasion. I would never claim that the iPod was hard to use because of that, however.
Having PC software (or just the installer) fail reflects negatively on the product but it is not an "ease of use" issue. I think if it were an iPod rather than a Zune then everyone here would understand that.
When an iPod fan touts it's ease of use, are they describing iTunes and the iTunes installer? Of course not. They're praising the scroll wheel and the menu system. I've experienced iTunes installer failures because of the bundled QT installer. How many people here would be outraged at the suggestion that the iPod were hard to use because the QT upgrade failed? It's the same thing.
Zune is an electronic gadget. The install process is part of support software that runs on the PC. You could just as well argue that the install failure means "poor sound quality" since without it you can't load music on the player.
If the reviewer said that the out-of-box experience with Zune was poor then that would be justified. Claiming ease-of-use is bad because of the out-of-box experience is a deliberate misrepresentation.
"The existing iPod is not a WiFi device and I seriously doubt anyone expected the Zune to link up with it."
Yes, I think everyone realizes that. I had assumed that at the time.
It is beyond me why people want wireless sync when they need to charge their devices regularly. I charge my iPod much, much more often than I sync it. Wireless sync is totally useless to me.
I'm sure my version was clear to all but the most argumentative, especially considering that the Zune has no way of distinguishing what content is protected by copyright.
I think that the capability would be terribly crippled anyway by a UI that is totally ill-suited for that task.
If MS did implement it (which is conceivable for future releases) I would expect it to be limited to an MS portal or to the music store site. If that were so, I would expect everyone here to hate it anyway.
My Sonos system uses WiFi transparently to implement its capabilities while "artificially crippling it" by not allowing connections to or from its WiFi. Instead, it requires a wired ethernet connection to a LAN. It does this to ensure performance and simplify setup. While some would see it as a technical copout, it's in reality a very sound design decision (IMO). It works flawlessly.
I seriously question whether anyone who criticises the Zune here would consider the device more desirable if it were to connect to WiFi APs. I doubt it.
I would agree that bluetooth features might be compelling, but Zune has chosen not to include bluetooth. Without it, the only feature you are requesting is WiFi sync.
I've had phones that offered WiFi but no WiFi sync capability. I wouldn't use it (or bluetooth) because I also need battery charging through the dock. Until the iPod/Zune offers vastly better battery life, I really don't get why WiFi sync would be desirable. Most want WiFi internet browsing but, considering the almost total lack of input capability, I don't get why people think that would work well. Imagine cell phone web browsing without any keypad...
"Considering I have a 1G iPod sitting right next to me that has always worked with Windows..."
Haha. So what you are saying is that the 1G iPod shipped with Windows software?...and you say I'm full of shit.
I also had a 1G iPod that I used with Windows through 3rd party software. Apple actively discourages such use claiming that the iPod was reserved strictly for the superior mac-user experience.
So it appears everyone here criticises Zune for not being able to download music without using PC software. I wonder if the non-geek "consumers" that the article targets could possibly understand or use such a feature. I notice Apple doesn't offer it.
Oddly enough, iPod fans consistently say that one of the strengths of the iPod is its iTunes integration. Why is it that Zune is criticised for requiring dedicated software to sync with while the iPod is praised for it?
How easy do you think the UI will be for a Zune that browses the internet in order to download music online? Think of the difficulties of simply getting the Zune to use the AP. People talk like this is a natural expectation but it's not. Microsoft may well have been better off not claiming that WiFi is used at all (much like Sonos uses WiFi to implement a closed peer network that no computer can connect to).
OK, and what would it do with those connections? Share music like it does with other Zunes? What user that doesn't own a Zune will be running software on a PC that could share music from a Zune? Who would use the Zune store without a player?
I have bluetooth and WiFi phones and I never sync wirelessly. I need to charge the devices as well.
So you are suggesting that if Zune's sharing features were extended to PCs running Zune's music software that Zune would be more compelling than it is now? Somehow I doubt that.
It's been well documented that Zune's WiFi can't be used for an internet connection. It is strictly for sharing.
No, I'm not new and I haven't missed any of that. That is precisely my point.
Apparently, the predestined failure of any product offered by Microsoft is not only declared here, but when those failures supposedly occur they are "inexcusable".
What was difficult to get working was the PC software, not the Zune itself. No, the install process has nothing to do with the ease-of-use of the Zune itself.
"If consumers can't get the Zune working, and they can get an iPod working, in their minds, it's the Zune's fault..."
Yes, but it's not a reflection on "ease of use".
Frankly, I don't think the column was aimed at consumers. It was a wholesale rant aimed at Microsoft.
The author's credibility is definitely called into question when he says he has to "create" a dll. It doesn't matter who your audience is, you should never be blatantly incorrect in what you write. Since he rants against the Zune, though, his glaring faults are given a pass here.
"If you don't like it, you can always start your own site to cheer on closed source software and Microsoft."
I didn't realize "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters." meant "pro-Unixey/open source" and anti-Microsoft. Perhaps you think too highly of your own opinions.
I agree and, frankly, it took Apple longer than that. The 1G iPod was only 5GB and mac-only. The 2G added Windows support but the solid-state click wheel made the battery life go to hell. There wasn't a compelling iPod IMO until the nano. If the Zune has a cheering section as loud as the iPod while waiting for the device to get its shit together, then it will be fine.
"If the reviewer had to manualy rig up a dll, it isn't easy to use."
Zune shipped with an installer that has problems. That says nothing about the ease of use of the product itself. What it says is that the product was rushed to market.
"...you would expect it to work seamlessly with windows and the media player that windows comes with, it doesn't."
See point above.
"It has wifi it should be able to link up with other wifi devices and move data around, it doesn't."
I don't expect it to. Why do you? What WiFi devices should it "link up" with that it doesn't? iPods?
"The music share feature is so limited as to be useless."
So says you. I don't want it either but that doesn't mean it's useless. Unlimited sharing would clearly be illegal.
"The Zune would be disapointing if some third party built it, but coming from ms it is inexcusable."
Why is that? Everyone here seems to think everything MS does is a sure failure. Judging by that, it should be expected, not "inexcusable".
"...completely incompatible with previous Microsoft music standards..."
Actually, incompatible with only one.
"...has none of the features that make the iPod so completely useful..."
None? It doesn't play music or video? I think that's what people buy iPods for, not the stupid organizer or firewire boot. Ever boot a windows machine off an iPod? How does firewire boot work on current iPods that don't support firewire?
"...forcing users to rely on the Zune application to move data onto or off the device is infuriating..."
You mean just like the iPod requires iTunes?
"...and it's obsequious pandering to the music industry..."
How is Microsoft pandering to the music industry any more than Apple does?
"...rather than putting the effort into making a better product to the iPod quite simply offends."
It quite offends you that Microsoft would implement DRM just as Apple does in order to gain support from the music industry? Does Apple "quite offend" you equally?
"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."
What does Zune points have to do with the music industry? Nothing.
"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."
So your argument boils down to an absurd rant about MS's dumb but ultimately unimportant Zune currency? For those who don't want to purchase DRM'ed music, Zune points aren't involved at all. If you were so concerned with pandering to the interests of the music industry, you wouldn't care one bit about how music you'll never buy is purchased.
"Oh, and Microsoft..... Just a suggestion: Very few end users want their products to "squirt" anything at them. That is just bad marketing."
Somehow I doubt you're intent on offering Microsoft any useful advice.
"How do you "aquire a patent"? Yo have to INVENT SOMETHING."
No, inventing something is a necessary part of the creation of a patent. To acquire one, you could simply buy one or employ people to develop one for you. Patents may be bought and sold like any other property (since that's what they are).
Slashdot Mirror
"So you're saying that a Microsoft product that doesn't install properly on Windows and requires a FAQ that includes instructions on how to reinstall a .DLL to make it work on windows something that has nothing to do with ease of use? Seriously? That's really a pretty dumb thing to say."
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
"...you're going to try to prove your point no matter how dumb it makes you sound."
It only sounds dumb to you because you refuse to consider that I may be right. Yes, claiming that the iPod is hard to use *because* I own an unsupported platform WOULD BE stupid. You seem to have gotten my point yet not made the connection.
"Now, lets look at facts here:"
Just where are you getting your facts? Apparently the installation fails on many PCs? Who says?
"Take off your "I need to be right" blinders and look at the reality here."
I would say the same to you. The reality is that an install failure has nothing to do with "ease of use" since "use" doesn't exist yet. It's like saying that a car is slow because the battery is dead.
"How can Apple code better software for Windows than Microsoft? That's a much better question."
Who says they do? iTunes runs poorly on Windows and it's installer fails frequently for me. iTunes frequently wants to upgrade QT and the QT installer frequently fails out. If I don't close any apps that might be running QT then I can count on failure yet I don't claim that the iPod is hard to use or that Apple can't write software. That's an Apple fanboy tactic, not mine.
"I mean, how long have people been asking for WiFi in the iPod? Since it's been released I think."
I sync to my library rarely but I charge all the time. I could care less if I have to connect a cable or use a dock in order to sync. Just because people ask for it doesn't make it a good idea. So far, Apple agrees.
I've owned phones with both bluetooth and WiFi yet I don't sync wirelessly there either. Why? Because I need to charge anyway.
Far more useful to me would be a wireless car interface. That could possibly be a bluetooth feature. If so, I'd much prefer bluetooth to WiFi because of battery life.
I'm not. It's not clear that the software is hard to install. What's clear is that the author's install failed. Why it failed may have nothing to do with how hard the install process is.
It's possible that a failure of a simple install process is hard to overcome. It's also possible that fixing that problem results in a product that's easy to use.
Frankly, I found the 1G iPod hard to use with my PC since Apple didn't support Windows at the time. Claiming that the 1G Pod was hard to use would be inaccurate, however. Of course, we know that the author in this case has no problem with being inaccurate.
As I said in another post, you could also argue that the Zune's sound quality and battery life are diminished if the software fails to install. Would you argue that as well?
Sure, but the iPod is no different. Windows users have to install iTunes and I've personally had the iTunes installer fail on more than one occasion. I would never claim that the iPod was hard to use because of that, however.
Having PC software (or just the installer) fail reflects negatively on the product but it is not an "ease of use" issue. I think if it were an iPod rather than a Zune then everyone here would understand that.
When an iPod fan touts it's ease of use, are they describing iTunes and the iTunes installer? Of course not. They're praising the scroll wheel and the menu system. I've experienced iTunes installer failures because of the bundled QT installer. How many people here would be outraged at the suggestion that the iPod were hard to use because the QT upgrade failed? It's the same thing.
Zune is an electronic gadget. The install process is part of support software that runs on the PC. You could just as well argue that the install failure means "poor sound quality" since without it you can't load music on the player.
If the reviewer said that the out-of-box experience with Zune was poor then that would be justified. Claiming ease-of-use is bad because of the out-of-box experience is a deliberate misrepresentation.
"I own a copy of The Missing Sync and it works fine. I don't know what you are bitching about. But it certainly does install."
It may for you, but it doesn't for everyone (just like the Zune install works for some people but not everyone).
I'm bitching about it not working after the install process. That has been my experience twice with the product.
What's the difference between an install process that fails and one that appears to work but doesn't?
"The existing iPod is not a WiFi device and I seriously doubt anyone expected the Zune to link up with it."
Yes, I think everyone realizes that. I had assumed that at the time.
It is beyond me why people want wireless sync when they need to charge their devices regularly. I charge my iPod much, much more often than I sync it. Wireless sync is totally useless to me.
I'm sure my version was clear to all but the most argumentative, especially considering that the Zune has no way of distinguishing what content is protected by copyright.
I think that the capability would be terribly crippled anyway by a UI that is totally ill-suited for that task.
If MS did implement it (which is conceivable for future releases) I would expect it to be limited to an MS portal or to the music store site. If that were so, I would expect everyone here to hate it anyway.
My Sonos system uses WiFi transparently to implement its capabilities while "artificially crippling it" by not allowing connections to or from its WiFi. Instead, it requires a wired ethernet connection to a LAN. It does this to ensure performance and simplify setup. While some would see it as a technical copout, it's in reality a very sound design decision (IMO). It works flawlessly.
I seriously question whether anyone who criticises the Zune here would consider the device more desirable if it were to connect to WiFi APs. I doubt it.
I would agree that bluetooth features might be compelling, but Zune has chosen not to include bluetooth. Without it, the only feature you are requesting is WiFi sync.
I've had phones that offered WiFi but no WiFi sync capability. I wouldn't use it (or bluetooth) because I also need battery charging through the dock. Until the iPod/Zune offers vastly better battery life, I really don't get why WiFi sync would be desirable. Most want WiFi internet browsing but, considering the almost total lack of input capability, I don't get why people think that would work well. Imagine cell phone web browsing without any keypad...
Perhaps you replied to the wrong post, but I was agreeing with you.
"Considering I have a 1G iPod sitting right next to me that has always worked with Windows..."
...and you say I'm full of shit.
Haha. So what you are saying is that the 1G iPod shipped with Windows software?
I also had a 1G iPod that I used with Windows through 3rd party software. Apple actively discourages such use claiming that the iPod was reserved strictly for the superior mac-user experience.
So it appears everyone here criticises Zune for not being able to download music without using PC software. I wonder if the non-geek "consumers" that the article targets could possibly understand or use such a feature. I notice Apple doesn't offer it.
Oddly enough, iPod fans consistently say that one of the strengths of the iPod is its iTunes integration. Why is it that Zune is criticised for requiring dedicated software to sync with while the iPod is praised for it?
How easy do you think the UI will be for a Zune that browses the internet in order to download music online? Think of the difficulties of simply getting the Zune to use the AP. People talk like this is a natural expectation but it's not. Microsoft may well have been better off not claiming that WiFi is used at all (much like Sonos uses WiFi to implement a closed peer network that no computer can connect to).
OK, and what would it do with those connections? Share music like it does with other Zunes? What user that doesn't own a Zune will be running software on a PC that could share music from a Zune? Who would use the Zune store without a player?
I have bluetooth and WiFi phones and I never sync wirelessly. I need to charge the devices as well.
So you are suggesting that if Zune's sharing features were extended to PCs running Zune's music software that Zune would be more compelling than it is now? Somehow I doubt that.
It's been well documented that Zune's WiFi can't be used for an internet connection. It is strictly for sharing.
No, I'm not new and I haven't missed any of that. That is precisely my point.
Apparently, the predestined failure of any product offered by Microsoft is not only declared here, but when those failures supposedly occur they are "inexcusable".
I'm glad you agree that the article was not aimed at consumers. It was a hit piece by a well-known, biased mac promoter.
What was difficult to get working was the PC software, not the Zune itself. No, the install process has nothing to do with the ease-of-use of the Zune itself.
"If consumers can't get the Zune working, and they can get an iPod working, in their minds, it's the Zune's fault..."
Yes, but it's not a reflection on "ease of use".
Frankly, I don't think the column was aimed at consumers. It was a wholesale rant aimed at Microsoft.
The author's credibility is definitely called into question when he says he has to "create" a dll. It doesn't matter who your audience is, you should never be blatantly incorrect in what you write. Since he rants against the Zune, though, his glaring faults are given a pass here.
"If you don't like it, you can always start your own site to cheer on closed source software and Microsoft."
I didn't realize "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters." meant "pro-Unixey/open source" and anti-Microsoft. Perhaps you think too highly of your own opinions.
"Mac users won't tolerate software that doesn't install and Andy is a long time Mac columnist."
Haha. Tell that to Mark/Space customers. Mac users tolerate a lot. They also pretend problems don't exist.
"they'll get it right on the third version..."
I agree and, frankly, it took Apple longer than that. The 1G iPod was only 5GB and mac-only. The 2G added Windows support but the solid-state click wheel made the battery life go to hell. There wasn't a compelling iPod IMO until the nano. If the Zune has a cheering section as loud as the iPod while waiting for the device to get its shit together, then it will be fine.
"If the reviewer had to manualy rig up a dll, it isn't easy to use."
Zune shipped with an installer that has problems. That says nothing about the ease of use of the product itself. What it says is that the product was rushed to market.
"...you would expect it to work seamlessly with windows and the media player that windows comes with, it doesn't."
See point above.
"It has wifi it should be able to link up with other wifi devices and move data around, it doesn't."
I don't expect it to. Why do you? What WiFi devices should it "link up" with that it doesn't? iPods?
"The music share feature is so limited as to be useless."
So says you. I don't want it either but that doesn't mean it's useless. Unlimited sharing would clearly be illegal.
"The Zune would be disapointing if some third party built it, but coming from ms it is inexcusable."
Why is that? Everyone here seems to think everything MS does is a sure failure. Judging by that, it should be expected, not "inexcusable".
"...completely incompatible with previous Microsoft music standards..."
Actually, incompatible with only one.
"...has none of the features that make the iPod so completely useful..."
None? It doesn't play music or video? I think that's what people buy iPods for, not the stupid organizer or firewire boot. Ever boot a windows machine off an iPod? How does firewire boot work on current iPods that don't support firewire?
"...forcing users to rely on the Zune application to move data onto or off the device is infuriating..."
You mean just like the iPod requires iTunes?
"...and it's obsequious pandering to the music industry..."
How is Microsoft pandering to the music industry any more than Apple does?
"...rather than putting the effort into making a better product to the iPod quite simply offends."
It quite offends you that Microsoft would implement DRM just as Apple does in order to gain support from the music industry? Does Apple "quite offend" you equally?
"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."
What does Zune points have to do with the music industry? Nothing.
"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."
So your argument boils down to an absurd rant about MS's dumb but ultimately unimportant Zune currency? For those who don't want to purchase DRM'ed music, Zune points aren't involved at all. If you were so concerned with pandering to the interests of the music industry, you wouldn't care one bit about how music you'll never buy is purchased.
"Oh, and Microsoft..... Just a suggestion: Very few end users want their products to "squirt" anything at them. That is just bad marketing."
Somehow I doubt you're intent on offering Microsoft any useful advice.
"How do you "aquire a patent"? Yo have to INVENT SOMETHING."
No, inventing something is a necessary part of the creation of a patent. To acquire one, you could simply buy one or employ people to develop one for you. Patents may be bought and sold like any other property (since that's what they are).