Talk:Zune

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Zune article.
To-do list for Zune: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Clean-up introduction
  • Write Features properly
  • Decide on appropriate external links (see External links discussion)
  • Label the size comparison picture with a more detailed description (Which version of the ipod is shown?)


Contents

[edit] Finished Merge

Ok, I finished the merging of the articles and updated the info. The thing is that people keep on vandalizing the page. How do I lock or request ip's for bannage? --Darkskedar 20:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I know I'm not really involved with this article, but it seemed logical to remove the notification that the Zune article was requested to move to Zune, so it's gone. FuzzyOnion 02:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article merge

Yeah merge it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.9.69.138 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

To where? Dancter 14:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Promotional external links

How do we come to a conclusion on the use of external links on this page? It appears to me in all fairness the best choice is to not have external links on this commercial product to anything but official sites. I think if a site is unable to provide value to the page content as a cited reference then is doesn't make the cut. Anyone agree? 69.19.14.34 08:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering the dearth of "official" information about the Zune, I recommend that at least one of the blogs dedicated to speculation be kept in the External Links section at least for now. They can be removed once more data is made publically available and this article is no longer a stub. VoiceOfReason 04:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

My stance is that if a site is good, it will be added by a user who can be seen to have contributed to the actual content of Wikipedia articles, and not just adding links. Dancter 06:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are some blogs/info sites being allowed while some are not? Who is controlling this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coops8D (talk • contribs) 13:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure about control, but I don't think ANY should be allowed. I think there should be the viral marketing link, and links to well-known blog posts, like Engadget. Does anyone agree? Once we come to a consensus, we can remove the article's protection. --Mambo Jambo 13:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Ryan from Engadget here. I think most of the external reference links are good, but I do feel a bit slighted how this post has gone. Almost all the substantive information on Zune was first leaked through Engadget (including the logo and product image -- which we chose not to watermark out of respect for our readers). Some of the external links are other people reblogging our content (i.e. zuneinfo, who has spammed Engadget). I added attribution for the image yesterday, but I'm not going to further edit this page... just thought you people would like to know that if you look closely most of what's out there originated from our site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ryanblock (talk • contribs) 09:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Do not lie Ryan, ZuneInfo.com has not spammed engadget in any way shape or form. I would actually like to know what you think it is that makes you think zuneinfo spammed you... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coops8D (talk • contribs) 05:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Coops8D, you're right, my apologies. There are a number of sites out right now with similar names to zuneinfo that are spamming us, but that does not, in fact, include you. Again, sorry for the mixup. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ryanblock (talk • contribs) 06:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a very important issue on Wikipedia's Zune article. However, I believe some links should stay on the external links page. The reason being, that, like myself, other people who visit Wikipedia articles definitely do so a good amount of the time to also find out related websites and blogs for the article subject they are viewing. Currently, there are ZuneInsider and ZuneUser links which are both sufficient sources (one being from Microsoft staff, and the other a news and info blog). If there are to be more links added, there should be maybe one or two more maximum, but at least a couple fansites/blogs should be present in the External Links because that's what many coming to Wikipedia articles are also looking for. --Omershahab 19:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I think when it comes to external links there should be links to other sites and blogs that are dedicated to the topic(zune), Now blogs like engadget can be linked with the proper tag (zune). But the for the simple fact this is called external links - it should allow users to add external links as long as it is a valid and useful site.--Amjoe 00:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, there is no reason to choose one blog over another. Simply let every blog that is focused on Zune to be linked in the external links section. It is irrelevant if there are 50 million dedicated blogs. If there are 5000 then there are 5000, etc. Basically if you don't allow everyone then Wikipedia is not an accurate source representing the Internet but a closed system only representing early bloggers. Wikipedia should be about openness and not closed systems. - LPH (Tux Reports Network)

Amjoe and Lph2006: You're misunderstanding the purpocse of External links on Wikipedia. Read that whole page very carefully, and you'll understand why we don't do things the way you think they should be done. The short answer is this: we're an encyclopedia, not a link farm. We don't link to blogs operated by random, non-notable people who decided to set up Wordpress for the purpose of regurgitating everything that's already been reported on a notable site like Engadget with a mix of personal opinion. It doesn't lend anything substantial to this project. -/- Warren 23:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Well as for I know, Microsoft Zune (hype/rumor) has been around for say little over a month! So how are the External links listed on this page choosen?? Have they been around before 2 months? Does those sites listed here run by notable people? (Well may be one - So will I be notable if I work for say Apple?)I don't understand. Sites like Engadget does a great job of posting gadget news (every other gaddget and more) - So if there is a site that is dedicated only and only for Zune stuff & useful- Why not?--Amjoe 00:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
By what metric are you using to determine if the site is regurgitating?

What is the wiki policy about external links to pages that are covered with ads? (like zuneinfo) Does wiki get a kickback on that revenue? How can this be allowed? Wiki is not a shopping mall or coupon book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.182.193.30 (talk • contribs) .

The policy is to not allow them, which is why I've removed several instances of advertising or personal blogs or whatever from the list of external links. Wikipedia:External links covers this in detail. And no, Wikipedia doesn't "get a kickback"; the vast majority of Wikipedia's funds come from donations. -/- Warren 23:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Then do what you say and say what you do. Keep the revenue generating sites off. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sirisaacnewton (talk • contribs) .

As I stated earlier, like myself, other people who visit Wikipedia articles definitely do so a good amount of the time to also find out related websites and blogs for the article subject they are viewing. The sites should be allowed as long as they are not generating revenue. ZuneUser.com was one which has no advertisements of any sort and does not generate revenue. --Omershahab 15:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the external links should provide some additional value to the users and that Wikipedia is not a link farm. The problem with allowing external links on a commercial product is of course most of these sites will be commercial as well. It is my opinion that if a site wants to be listed on the Zune page then the site needs to offer something to the development of the page. I think all external links should be banned on a commercial product and the only links should be cites ore references to relevant content providers. Linking to every Zune blog that pops up is not the solution but allowing registered users to sign in and provide real value to the page should never be stopped. --Psycler

After reading all this I can see why you zapped the links I had added. I totally agree on one but think the other was not badly out of line. With all the Zune hype going on it is understandable that some strict standards must be set so I bow to your judgment. I am one of those who often uses Wikipedia as a source to information by checking out linked sites. In many instances it is quicker and better than the SE's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skeezik (talk • contribs) .

•Why not categorize the external links section? Official links can have their own category, and unofficial their own. Official links will stand out for those looking for accurate information, but the others will be best for those looking for rumors... Problem solved? I think so. Duffy 01:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Duffy, that is a good solution.
Again, someone has removed external links for good non-revenue-generating Zune sites, without a comment trail explaining why. I've re-added a couple that are useful. I left in the revenue-generating sites that are already there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hchute (talk • contribs) 23:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
From what I can tell, the "couple" sites you've added is only Zunerama, which clearly features a Zune Store with affiliate links for Amazon. Not exactly "non-revenue-generating". Dancter 00:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I was thinking of Google Ads, but you are correct about the Amazon links in Zunerama. If you're going to remove a site for being revenue-generating, be consistent and remove all revenue-generating sites. Hchute 01:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Further information on external links: before re-adding the link, I read the Wikipedia guidelines for external links at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links. I submit that Zunerama is an accceptable and appropriate external link in that it is accessible, proper (useful, tasteful, etc.), entered correctly, and is likely to have substantive longevity. It has a user forum, Zune specifications table, iPod feature comparisons, a Zune documentation library, and daily news articles. The site had over 6,000 unique visitors today. It is also an established top Zune site according to the five "top zune" rating sites. Finally: please note that I, as Zunerama webmaster, did *not* add Zunerama as an external link; some other person did that. I have, though, re-added the site as an external link when others have deleted it without justification. - Harvey, Zunerama webmaster. Hchute 01:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I didn't remove your site. I haven't touched the external links in nearly a month. I've decided to let everyone decide among themselves the few unofficial sites that deserve to be listed. To your credit, you are one of the first, if not the first to cite policy, and make a specific case for your site. Dancter 01:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dancter. It seems someone else ("Warrens") removed the Zune External link without adding to the External Links discussion here. He removed the existing Zunerama link, while leaving ZuneInfo and ZuneUser in. Warrens, if you've been to all three sites, and are using impartial reasoning in your site edits... please explain your rationale for removing Zunerama in these discussion pages. In the meantime, I've (sigh) re-added Zunerama as an external link. Please see justification above. Hchute 10:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Corrected spelling of David Caulton's name. Hchute 11:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As requested in the note in the external links section, I'm posting regarding a link I've added (Zunely - http://www.zunely.com) to the external links section. The purpose of the site is solely to provide a Zune user community to discuss common technical problems they are experiencing with their Zune. The site is not highly commercial or covered with ads as discussed above and provides a valid service related to the Zune. Zunely has also contributed unique content (reference 15) to the site. As far as the external links section is concerned, I agree with Hchute that as long as the sites are useful and are not a giant advertisement, they should be allowed in the external links. Dan.Kennedy 19:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to collect a list of these sites. We are an encyclopedia, not an advertising service or repository of external links. This is stated in Wikipedia:External links. Zunely is a message board; forums are normally avoided as external links, unless the article is -about- the forum. That's also in WP:EL.
Further, since zunely.com is your web site, you also fall afoul of the External links guideline that states that you shouldn't add your own web site, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. Tut tut.
Anyhow -- Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is official policy. It's not something a couple of editors who've done nothing on Wikipedia except attempt to add external sites are going to be able to get around. I'm not making this stuff up; this is how Wikipedia has worked for a long time, and we all have to go along with it. Them's the rules. Your help with writing a better encyclopedia would be well-appreciated. -/- Warren 01:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Right, most of which has has been gone over above. But it should be an all or none situation, if you are going to have an external links section, it's going to be an ongoing battle of people adding their own sites and users of those sites adding them, and then discussing the same points over and over. The decision has to be made as to if ANY of the Zune news/forum sites will be allowed, because discussing each one is a waste of time. Many Zune sites on the net have contributed valuable information, so how do you decide which particular ones should be allowed? Dan.Kennedy 13:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hype Campaign

I wonder if comingzune.com is actually owned by Microsoft.

Here's the WHOIS result: Domain Name: COMINGZUNE.COM Registrar: GO DADDY SOFTWARE, INC. Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com Name Server: PARK27.SECURESERVER.NET Name Server: PARK28.SECURESERVER.NET Status: REGISTRAR-LOCK Updated Date: 13-jul-2006 Creation Date: 13-jul-2006 Expiration Date: 13-jul-2007

Microsoft usually use its own name server (MSFT.NET), instead of the ones provided by the registrar. MS also use TUCOWS Inc. as their registrar. (Jim Liu 08:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC))

OurColony is registered through GoDaddy. ilovebees is registered through Names Direct. The fact that comingzune.com is registered by Domains by Proxy (an anonymizing service) is strange but not conclusive. The page links to very long legalese with Microsoft's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. If it's not in fact a Microsoft site, whoever owns it is guilty of massive trademark infringement. VoiceOfReason 19:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you (didn't notice the ToU before). I guess MS registers by proxy for promotional domain names. (Jim Liu 09:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC))

I am not sure the website comingzune.com is linked anyway to microsoft an whois lookup shows godaddy. Am sure odds are microsoft will not add an add campaign through godaddy. My take is it is a spam site feeding of users from wiki. Requesting someone here to check the veracity of the link comingzune.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.147.16.197 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The xBoxLiveDiamond.com Privacy Statement is identical to Zune's (except the names)...

One thing worth noting is that, on signing up, the email says it's "Recieved" "from mail pickup service by inviso2 with Microsoft SMTPSVC;". Assumedly then, it is legitimate. Both in that it mentions InVisio (as is mentioned on the privacy policy) and that it mentions Microsofts's SMTP service. --A Shade of Grey 18:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This link needs to be deleted, its a fake link, Micrsoft has nothing to do with it at all: http://zuneinfo.com/24/microsoft-zune/digging-into-comingzunecom/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coops8D (talk • contribs) 01:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's a a fake link, it's a fake link that has taken in many of the same sources we are relying on for much of the other information in the article. A self-published article in which you yourself state that it is opinion and could be wrong probably doesn't count as a reliable source. If anything, I feel it carries no more weight than some of the comments in this section. Is there anything in reliable third-party sources that question comingzune.com? Dancter 01:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Have we all agreed it's not a fake link yet? Psycler

[edit] Zune trademark

Note: Microsof's use of the name Zune is in volation of the Terms and Conditions of the GPL licence agreement.... They can not use the name Zune anymore then they can use the name Linux. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.104.82.24 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Is Zune a registered trademark? If so, by whom? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Well on the bottom of the www.comingzune.com Terms Of Service they have the following listed:
Microsoft, Zune and the Zune logo are trademarks, or registered trademarks, of Microsoft Corporation in the US and/or other countries.
I say that would allow them use of the name Zune. Please drop this issue, a company that big doesn't launch a product with a name without doing it's homework. The name stands whether you disagree or not 12.104.82.24. Zujik 15:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
----
If it were that simple, then you'd not have Linus Torvalds going around and claiming that Linux is his own trademark, even if it's not registered everywhere, as explained on this site.
Um, "Trademark Number US 021 023 026 036 038 is for use in a variety of Goods and Services including "multimedia player, entertainment and communications devices; peripherals and accessories for use with multimedia player entertainment and communications device" amongst other things." - Does that mean it is now illegal to use the Zune GUI toolkit which is an accessory to a multimedia player that is AROS based?
I quote:
"How can Linus Torvalds or LMI have existing rights over the word Linux if it's not registered here?
Because there is such a thing as an unregistered or "common law" trade mark whereby a person acquires rights in a name just by using it."
--Bafio 14:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
If the trademark issue is truly a problem, I expect we'll see it in the news soon enough. Dancter 15:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but that is no excuse for users such as 216.152.184.9/Fatman2021 and 216.152.178.160 to try and strongarm changes to the Zune and Vista Wikipedia pages. An Amiga software tool isn't a prominent-enough use of the word "Vista" to displace a page disambiguating all uses for the word. It is possible that the Microsoft media platform content may need to be moved to a page other than this one, but that needs to be discussed here. Unless it is unrelated to the aims of improving the article, content on the talk pages should not be deleted. Dancter 14:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft has made some pretty dumb mistakes over the years but if someone thinks they are dumb enough to get caught in a trademark dispute over a new product line you are just as dumb as you think they are. Microsoft has filed for a trademark on the term in Germany on July 7th http://www.markenbusiness.com/en/news.php?newsid=4015 and will inturn use this to file for protection under the WIPO.org Psycler 18:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zune

I don't understand... I was looking for information about Amiga MUI clone, and Wikipedia tells me that Zune is MP3 player... Event though the MUI article links here... WTF? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.14.55.98 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This has definitely been an issue as of late. There used to be no article here, and the link in the MUI article was dead. But then came the news of a Microsoft product of the same name, which caused a bit of a problem. A couple editors took it upon themselves to completely overwrite the Microsoft stuff with info on the MUI clone (I don't know why they waited until now to do so), which wasn't the best of solutions. As a temporary measure, I've adjusted the disambiguation link at the top of the page to link to the Wikibooks article. If this continues to be a serious issue, perhaps a discussion should be initiated on the possibility of a stronger disambiguation. Dancter 20:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems that the article has changed without reaching a consensus. As of writing, the media player is located at Microsoft Zune, with the toolkit at Zune. Due to the upcoming popularity of the media player's article, I believe "Zune" should be kept for this product. There was nothing wrong with the previous situation, as a disambiguation notice was given. Even if the article name cannot be "zune", it should not technically be called "microsoft zune". It is inappropriate to change such a significant thing without permission from others. This needs sorting, desperately. --Mambo Jambo 23:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong with the stub that was there referring AROS's Zune to the correct page and Microsoft's Zune to the Microsoft Zune page? That way Microsoft's later use of the name does not cause confusion to the people who couldn't care less for their product. It also isn't fair to redirect the term to one or the other, so the dual meaning should be kept with a reference to the details of both. If the detail must exist on the Zune page, then the first use of it would be more relavent. Also note that any linking to this stub from other articles ideally shouldn't be broken - so the dual purpose stub might be the best option here. --ZhuLien 10:25, 23 July 2006 (GMT+10)
What's wrong is that you didn't discuss this rename with anyone before going ahead and doing it; Wikipedia encourages us to be bold, yes, but when working on heavily-trafficked articles, consensus-building discussion always needs to come first. This is really important. Not doing things this way results in edit wars, disruption in article development, and tehnical messes like what Akhristov is now trying to clean up. -/- Warren 00:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Given that it's less likely anyone would visit this page to find something about Microsoft Zune, the Zune Toolkit which has been around for ages and mentioned in several places on Wiki is very relavent. There has obviously been edit wars on this article in the past. I was hoping that the stub would remove the need for the edit wars (so far you have proved this isn't the case). The Vista article on Wiki is a good example of what this page should be like.--ZhuLien 10:52, 23 July 2006 (GMT+10)
The Amiga Zune article was just being started after the MS Zune article. If the Amiga Zune article would have been started earlier, it would have been bigger and maybe more important, but not necesarily recieving more traffic. But the Amiga Zune article is very small, so it can't possibly be more important. This was a small issue, and maybe no issue at all, but was made into a big mess. — Alex (T|C|E) 01:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The disambiguation page is definately the way to go. Something stuffed up at the top of this discussion page though, whenever article is clicked on instead of going back to the disambiguation page, it goes to the non-usefule Microsoft Zune page.--ZhuLien 13:03, 23 July 2006 (GMT+10)
The disambiguation page is definately the way to go.--Psycler

The Ipod click wheel is not patented by Apple, and is believed to be owned by Microsoft. Apple was beaten to the punch when it tried to patent the click wheel. How or 'if' this patent is actually owned by microsoft is speculative. Does anyone have any references that confirms whether microsoft actually owns or is able to use the click wheel? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.56.5.23 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

—

Who the hell deleted the disambiguation page? AROS' Zune has existed YEARS before Microsoft's one. There exists a concept named "Common law" or "de facto" trademark, which AROS' Zune is entitled to. MS Zune came later, it has to adapt, not the other way around.

Where has AROS' Zune article gone anyway?

I'm going to put things back at their proper place, unless someone gives a pretty damn good reasn NOT TO. Bafio 18:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music Download Service?

Wouldn't Zune most likely use Microsoft's Urge download service in Windows Media Player 11, instead of a Zune download service? Superway25 00:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

URGE is actually owned and operated by MTV. WMP 11 included tons of music download services, and URGE is just the newest one. I believe Microsoft would launch their own music download service (MSN Music perhaps?) when Zune is official. (Jim Liu 09:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC))
Actually, I vaguely remember reading that the Zune would have its own software seperate from WMP11.. but it's almost 6 in the morning and I haven't gone to sleep yet, so I'll probably dig around for the article later. Might be worth editing if I can find a confirmation other than my sometimes-inaccurate memory, heh. We do know for sure that Zune doesn't use PlaysForSure though, and URGE definitely uses PlaysForSure... MSN Music uses PlaysForSure too. And has been doing rather poorly lately, so I think Microsoft might axe that or fold it into URGE or something. We'll see. Underthefade 10:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Messy...

Well, this thing is a huge mess now, and no admins seem to be willing to help clean up. — Alex (T|C|E) 03:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

OMG, what's the point of someone redirecting the ambiguity to the Microsoft Zune page? It then breaks all non-Microsoft Zune links that go to the Zune page. --ZhuLien 14:13 July 2006 (GMT+10)

[edit] Status of Merge

For more information about what's going on (particularly why the main article currently has "temp" in its name), see Talk:Microsoft Zune/merge. The latest situation is that there don't seem to be any administrators on to fix it. Ardric47 03:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I will take responsibility for causing a delay that allowed a nontrivial edit to be made at the intended home of this article. Ardric47 03:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Great Zunes, what a mess. This is worse than the last edit maelstrom. I wouldn't sweat any mistakes you may have made; I think there's plenty of blame to go around. I'm thinking at this point, though, an administrator needs to at least semi-protect these pages (if not fully protect them) until everything can be sorted out. We need to stop the bleeding. Some newbies are trying to be helpful, but are just making things more difficult. Dancter 04:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully fixed now, both talk and article pages. Honestly I've no idea what you guys were trying to do. =.= Kimchi.sg 07:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thanks Kimchi, everything seems to be sorted. Even the redundant "Zune (toolkit)" page has been deleted. --Mambo Jambo 10:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename Microsoft Zune article

Now that all articles have been sorted in regards to actually getting to the pages (What a mess, it was), we can start focusing on normal Wikipedia concerns. Are there any suggestions for the name of this Microsoft Zune article? I do not think it should be left alone, because it's not technically called "Microsoft Zune", Microsoft is only running the project. I think it should be either "Zune (Media device)" or "Zune (Media product)". Bear in mind that Zune is all three things: a player (like iPod), a service (like iTunes Music Store) and the software (like iTunes). --Mambo Jambo 10:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't put to much effort into the name until Microsoft releases a press kit with an official name. For now, Microsoft Zune will do. — Alex (T|C|E) 13:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I suppose you're right, actually. Yeah, everything's good then. --Mambo Jambo 14:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where's the graphics info gone?

I read an interesting tidbit that the Zune will use a 400Mhz processor. Although I marked it as "Citation needed", it's gone now! Wouldn't this be good to mark under rumors, because does a rumor need to be cited? PureLegend 17:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

A rumor needs to be cited as much, if not more than an actual fact. Because of Wikipedia's high visibility, the potential for spreading misinformation is that much greater when it is assumed that rumors don't have to be sourced. Dancter 18:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Look in the history someone removed and was really rude about it. I think wikipedia should list romours!! It is intresting!--Jimmy93211 18:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
If you want rumours, go to a web site that specialises in it. This is an encyclopedia, not an outlet for bored bloggers. -/- Warren 18:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed it. Whether they turn out to be true or not, uncited rumours have no place on Wikipedia, period. If they were, people could start writing things like "Microsoft will include a pony and free bacon bits with every Zune[citation needed]!" and that'd somehow be okay. -/- Warren 18:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Your very closed minded. This is a future product so new infomation is coming out all the time. So I think we should list rumours that are backed up but sstate they are rumours, nothing wrong with that. --Jimmy93211 21:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe the discussion is concerning uncited rumors. I don't think there is any dispute over whether a rumor can be included that has a valid reference. But rumors that aren't "backed up" do not belong. And please do not vandalize the talk page comments of other users. Dancter 22:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Theres no need to be so rude to Jimmy, with an attitude like that its a wonder anyone contributes at all for fear of getting flamed. pjcard 15:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't write Wikipedia policy, so don't waste time pointing fingers at me if you don't like it. Okay? You should review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not -- which is official Wikipedia policy, and as such, you and I are both expected to follow it -- especially where it states that Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. Start a blog if you want to extrapolate and speculate, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. If you don't like that... well... tough titties. -/- Warren 22:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I still belive I am right about listing rumours but stated they are rumours is just fine. It is infomation.
Well, you're not going to see that change. It's as simple as that, really. Uncyclopedia is for unsubstantiated rumour, go there if you want that kind of thing, but leave us out of it. -/- Warren 17:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

And please do not vandalize the talk page comments of other users. Whats that suposed to mean. --Jimmy93211 09:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's supposed to mean that in your edit of 21:47 23 July 2006, you removed the linked word "encyclopedia" from Warren's earlier comment. I assume this was probably unintentional, but please make sure you click "Show changes" before saving to avoid this kind of mistake in the future. VoiceOfReason 12:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
lol did I I just copy and pasted it but I must have cut it instead. --Jimmy93211 16:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] iRiver Partnership

I was of the belief this player would be made in a partnership with iRiver, am I wrong? Are they just going to licence the tech to iRiver? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.194.13.101 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The announcement today that Toshiba is manufacturing the Zune player should lay this one to rest. psycler 20:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] comingzune.com

This site should be removed, it is a fake and been talked about all over net. Microsoft has nothing to do with it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coops8D (talk • contribs) 01:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could provide references stating it's a fake (other than your site). Dancter 02:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
http://www.namepros.com/1377226-post370.html and just do a whois look up, its simple and right there —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coops8D (talk • contribs) 02:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The forum post seems to have merit, but the whois argument is not conclusive, as has been discussed above, where I moved your initial comment. I have added your article as a reference, though I'm a little uncomfortable with it. Ongoing issues with both The Inquirer and The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess articles have made me very wary when it comes to editors handling sites and news they are personally involved in with objectivity. Hopefully someone can find a more appropriate source. Dancter 02:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well If you look at the terms of service on the site (comingzune.com) it states that this is a site that is owned and operated by Microsoft - so what's wrong with it? The COPYRIGHT NOTICE says "Copyright � 2006 Microsoft Corporation, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, Washington 98052-6399 U.S.A. All rights reserved." and the Provacy Policy states - "Microsoft is committed to protecting your privacy..." So is it like someone is just pasting stuff from Microsoft's Privacy Policy? --Amjoe 00:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Zune Insider, which is pretty definitely official, links to it in one of their first posts. They don't say whether it's official or not, but I think if it wasn't official, they would have said so specifically. Tophtucker 00:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hows is it official? cause he said I work for Microsoft? So if i say I work for google is that official as well? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coops8D (talk • contribs) 02:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

In any case, both sides of the issue are addressed in the article. Considering how prominent the site is in the reported news, leaving out the info entirely as you've suggested, true or not, is not a fair representation. If you still have concerns with how comingzune.com is characterized, please voice them here. And also, please do not change the content of other users' comments. Dancter 04:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that Microsoft doesn't maintain a complete list of official bloggers, as far as I know. But several are pretty well known. Major Nelson's blog, for example, is often the first to break Xbox news. (Xbox.com links to his podcasts, but not his blog. I know this seems unrelated, but stick with me here...) Major Nelson has linked to the Gamerscore Blog several times, most recently when they posted the official press release announcing Fuzion Frenzy 2. Here he calls it a "Highly staffed blog from the Xbox and Games for Windows PR and Marketing team." Now look at this entry from the Gamerscore Blog: [1]. See? It says Cesar Menendez is moving to the Zune project, and with it a new blog: http://www.zuneinsider.com/. So either MajorNelson.com and Gamerscoreblog.com are total fakes and have managed to fool thousands without attracting MS' attention, or ZuneInsider.com is official. (Now you know why I didn't get into it before... :p) Tophtucker 23:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming of the MS product

What should be in (IMHO) as an interesting bit of trivia is that "zune" apparently sounds like Hebrew for "fuck" or "screw". It's bound to have an impact on marketing and on the introduction campaigns these days, though they won't rename the product since MS is essentially setting up everything for release. For sourcing, just try Google or whatever searching for zune and hebrew. Dysmorodrepanis 17:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is as relevant as "Vista" meaning "hen" in Latvian. — Alex (T|C|E) 14:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Or "Sega" means "masturbate" in Italian.

I am french-canadian and I never heard of a so-called zune word meaning penis, there's zizi and dine but zune? nope. Lotheric 01:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is Zune PlaysForSure?

Is it? PureLegend 15:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No. -/- Warren 19:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zune different models?

Will Zune offer 60GB or possibly more models? 24.200.123.174 21:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


SHould add info from this http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/top/exclusive-microsoft-zune-details-194957.php

thanks

[edit] My bad, guys

I moved the article to Toshiba 1089, and I realized after the move that I should've just left it alone and started a new article on the device, and leave the "Zune" article to talk about the project on a whole. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CanesOL79 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem, though I'd be careful about starting a new article, especially when this one is thin as it is. Dancter 18:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If we're leaving my bads then my apologies for leaving my addition regarding the User Generate Content Sales so much like an advert. I guess I should have proofread it better and from a more objective viewpoint. My bad for getting a little too excited about the feature and not on focusing more on the development of a neutral Wiki. I'll be much more careful in future additions. psycler 20:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Under production?

"The Zune is currently under production at the Microsoft headquarters in Redmond, Washington."

Uhhh, considering the device is being built by Toshiba, I find this statement to be very difficult to believe. Yes, I am aware that the MS blogger made this claim, but I think it's basically untrue. Yes/no? Maury 20:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Software portion is most definitely under production at Redmond, right? Duffy 01:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
A more accurate description would be that it's under development. Technology products undergo development. Production is the manufacturing part... and they definitely don't manufacture these babies in Redmond. 11:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

Anybody have a clue on how this is pronounced? I mean, since Microsofts marketing dept. have ran Coming Zune, I suppose it would be pronounced like "Soon" but with a Z sound instead. Anyone else?(Cloud02 17:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

Listen to any recent podcast from a gadget blog and you'll be able to hear it mentioned at least once.. your assumption was correct, it's "Zoon" 11:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USB Host

Will the Zune support USB host as the Gigabeat does?

[edit] Requested Move

Move article to plain Zune. Overwhelming majory of readers will be looking for the music player, once it's released by a factor of millions to one I'd guess. GUI toolkit can be disambiged at top of Zune page without harm to anyone. It is of very limited interest compared to the music player. This has been a matter of contention since July at least.Fourdee 03:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Support. After thinking about it, sure, why not? The GUI toolkit article doesn't get much traffic anyway. — Alex (T|C|E) 04:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reason Virtual Console (Wii) wasn't moved to Virtual Console: Microsoft Zune isn't out yet and Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Maybe in the future. TJ Spyke 04:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support, a user is more likely to search for "Zune" than "Microsoft Zune". Zune is a trademarked word by Microsoft (see trademark 78953571). Virtual Console (Wii) can't be moved to Virtual Console because the term Virtual console is much more used as a computer term than a Wii term. However, this poll should be in Zune, not here, otherwise people that could explain the importance of the toolkit will never know about it. -- ReyBrujo 18:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, Users will search for Zune, and not Microsoft Zune. I say that Zune should redirect here, and have a small note in the top that refers to the GUI. (Cloud02 10:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC))
  • Strongly Oppose: Zune toolkit predates Microsoft's Zune by years. Moreover, the trademark hasn't been granted yet, neither in US nor in EU, and AROS' people can still oppose to its registration and are in the process of doing so, in fact.

    The USPTO entry for Zune has this to say about the current state of the application: "Current Status: A non-final action has been mailed. This is a letter from the examining attorney requesting additional information and/or making an initial refusal. However, no final determination as to the registrability of the mark has been made."

    Given that there exists such a thing as Common Law trade mark, and given that AROS' Zune is entitled to it, and given that Microsoft hasn't yet been granted the trade mark for Zune, any objection to the use of the Zune name for the GUI toolkit based upon the trade mark argument is flawed from the beginning. --Bafio 20:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

  • I do see where you are coming from regarding its unreleased nature, hadn't really looked at it that way. Seems very unlikely that it will not be released though, in light of the official announcement by Microsoft and the fact that it's already being manufactured. If by same rather bizarre turn of events it were not released or were released under a different name we could always move it again... Dunno. I notice that Microsoft Zune is article number 860 out of all of Wikipedia according to WikiCharts. Where's the toolkit ranked? Fourdee 17:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Has anybody noticed the amount of vandalism going on here by mac fanboys?--Darkskedar 20:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This morning at 9:37am an anonymous user deleted the external references from the site. The references as they stood were a good, short selection of Zune news sites and blogs; all non-revenue generating. Please re-add the external references. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.191.212.111 (talk • contribs) .
Me smell the putrid stench of iSheep ;-) 86.7.208.240 00:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I just wish people would stop being so partisan-like about their OS choices... Go start your own topic and vandalize it yourself! Duffy 01:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
By partisan, do you mean "effusively pro Microsoft?" This is one of few Wikipedia articles with absolutely no criticism, when the Zune has been widely critisized technically and strategically. This article fails to present the product fairly as a product, and sounds like a gushing product brochure. Contrast that to the iPod article, which recounts every suggestion of critisism the device has ever generated. This is a total puff piece written by fans.
Yeah I came here and noticed a really rude comment about how iPod users wouldn't make the switch. And I'm not an iPod basher or anything.. I have two iPods ahaha. Fortunately, someone must've seen the rude comment the same time as me and removed it before I could click the edit link :) Remember, kids, Wikipedia tastes best without bias. Underthefade 11:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverted to previous version cuz of vandalism, somebody post this Overview

Microsoft has finally introduced zune, which is expected to be the leading competitor with trojan condoms this holiday season. Zune, will have lubrication included. ENJOY! --200.119.40.58 14:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creative Commons Criticism

Since the author of the source listed for this criticism later retracted his claim I am removing this comment from the article. 24.17.165.124 02:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


Also, in the same section:

"This however may be merged and existing users of PlaysForSure will be given vouchers to use in the Zune store."

This sentence is unclear--and unsubstantiated as far as I can tell--and ought to be reworked or removed. Suggestions? 24.17.165.124 02:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Zunes Suck, there but there should not be vandalism.--Alex 04:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DRM

Digital Rights Management will definately not hold for long at all. I am buying one when this comes out, I hope I will be able to use music from my cd's etc without stupid anti-piracy protection. Anyways, even if the drm does stop you from using p2p music, it will be cracked/homebrewed fast. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.49.202.50 (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC).

There are very few programs that DRM songs you rip from CDs. Windows Media Player doesn't, and I seriously doubt they'll start now. Also, please sign your posts (--~~~~) in future. Thanks :-). —JeremyBanks Talk 22:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible connections with Sirius?

So does anyone think there might be a connection with Sirus, or is this picture just edited?

http://i18.ebayimg.com/01/i/08/3f/a6/70_1.JPG

I'm 99% sure it's a fake... both from a graphic designer's viewpoint and from what I know of Zune and Sirius. I believe this was discussed on Engadget... there are always rumored talks about satellite radio providers and portable media players getting in bed together. Sirius has their own line of licensed players... and there's definitely nowhere in the Zune (at least this generation) to fit such functionality. But hey, I could be wrong... take such pictures with a grain of salt though. Underthefade 11:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And What About...?

So I live in South-Africa. Now what? All these services are nice and whatsoever, but hey, what about all these nice foreign countrys doesn't get a single service. All we have is a random website with a 20 kB/s download speed with a database of aprox. 100 000 songs. Now iPod users, like me, (and future Zone users) must go and buy a CD, then rip it and then you are able to play it.

Whether it is South-Africa or Apple or Microsoft, it really SUCKS to not have a service like that... -"a Random MP3 lovin' South-African" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.232.75.208 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Pre-loaded content

First a question: is there an article out there on the permissions Microsoft had to get for this content?

And secondly (and unofficially): hasn't Microsoft gotten in hot water for pre-loaded content on PC's? (Yeah, it was software, but it still makes me smile). Scoutersig 14:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I put a note on the page about Microsoft's preloaded content. Every once in a while it is removed. The note I put is true. If the preloaded content is removed upon sync, by accident or you choose to remove it... it's gone. My pre-loaded content was gone after about 4 days of using the software, unintentionally. I called MS Zune support, was dinked around for 2 days. The first day they said they'd find a solution. The second day, they said tough luck after talking to several reps and being escalated up and down their support chain of command. Some said you could back it up. I had to call them back to confirm that no, the pre-loaded content could not be backed up. If you bought a new XBox and lets say it was the "Gears of War" edition that came with no CD, just a pre-load on the drive... you played a few of your own games and Gears of War disappears... Don't you think people would complain? Especially if there is nothing in the help file about the pre-load content not being able to be backed up or re-instated? I didn't buy a blank Apple iPod, I bought a MS Zune that came with pre-loaded content: http://www.zune.net/en-us/meetzune/preload.htm Why can't I listen to my new songs? If I'm ducked, why doesn't MS at least warn people? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.21.140.15 (talk • contribs).

[edit] 3-Day, 3-Play Rule for Shared Songs

For the record, the "3-Day, 3-Play" rule applies to ALL wirelessly-shared music files, whether or not they are wrapped in DRM protection. The limitation is built into the software of the device itself, and doesn't physically (or digitally) change anything in the music files. There has been a lot of confusion on this issue, because some critics claim Microsoft is adding DRM to files, while Microsoft has defended itself by (truthfully) claiming that the music files remain intact and unaltered. But the end result is the same: DRM-free music is still subject to the "3-Day, 3-Play" rule. BJ Nemeth 01:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty sure you are incorrect and that mp3's will remain unprotected. You are right that Microsoft has done an astonishingly poor job of clarifying this issue. I will try to find the citation.

You are technically correct. That is, non-DRM MP3 files remain "unprotected." HOWEVER, the 3-day, 3-play rule doesn't rely on any protection of the file itself. The rule is enforced by the software running on the Zune device itself. If someone wirelessly transfers a song to you, the Zune doesn't do anything to that file. But after the Zune shows that 3 days have expired or it has been played 3 times, the music file (regardless of DRM) will "expire" and be unplayable. BJ Nemeth 20:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
So if I send an MP3 file to someone and it remains unchanged, can't I open the file from the drive and copy it to my computer then copy it to the Zune Browser? Utils 04:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WiFi and sharing?

There's been a lot of hype around the fact that Zunes can share songs via WiFi. But here's something I don't get. How do they do it? I thought, with WiFi, you couldn't do anything without a wireless network of some sort, administered by a wireless router/switch. IOW, if I have a Zune and I want to share a song with someone but we're not near a wireless network to go through, I couldn't do it. I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that you can't do direct device-to-device connections via WiFi—only something proprietary or Bluetooth. 205.157.110.11 21:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a direct device-to-device connection. If two Zune users are within close range, they can "create" a wireless network between the two devices, and their Zunes can "see" each other. In other words, two people can't wirelessly transfer songs if they are several miles away (or farther), even if they both have wireless internet access. BJ Nemeth 03:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
To the original poster - your information is patently false. Wi-Fi inherently supports an "Ad Hoc" mode which allows a network to form without the need for any infrastructure. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_ad-hoc_network . It is always better to rely on factual information than on "impressions".
That's why I was looking for factual information. :p 205.157.110.11 02:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DefectiveByDesign.org Vandalism

In the specs area, a reference to the DefectiveByDesign.org campaign was there ("Enhanced Defective by Design") so I have changed it to the more correct "Support for DRM".

Timothyrogers 18:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested Changes to This Article on Nov. 14

When the Zune is officially released on Tuesday, November 14th, this article will quickly go through a lot of changes. I thought it might be helpful to prepare a list of suggestions in advance.

  • Obviously, all uses of the future tense ("The Zune WILL be released on ...") should be changed to the past tense ("The Zune WAS released on ...").
  • That would be a good time to separate this article into several separate articles. One should definitely be created for the "Zune Marketplace." It might be worthwhile to create separate articles for "Zune (Device)" and "Zune (System)" as well. One would cover Microsoft's entire Zune operation (including the player, software, and marketplace), while the other would just cover the physical product itself. This is made more confusing by the fact that Microsoft is using "Zune" to mean different things.
  • I think rumors about future features should be dropped from the article as the product becomes public. There are some things that rise above rumor status, however. When one of the Zune engineers specifically stated that podcast support was coming soon, that should be included in the article. But an offhand comment about a Zune phone coming "someday" doesn't seem appropriate.

Those are my thoughts on this article as we approach the release date. Any other comments? BJ Nemeth 04:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The Overview section should be rewritten, with much of it going into a "History" section. Once the product is officially released, the story behind its development and release becomes secondary. BJ Nemeth 19:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of the name "Zune"

That whole section, why does it matter to me, the common reader? That section gives absolutely nothing to the article other than someone trying to find criticism. Those two sources, perhaps the Infoworld article, but not the SND article, are totally respectable. Either way, I think it's honestly a stupid section that could rather be expanded on criticism of the actual product, not an obscure reference to a similarity in a foreign language. Instead, it would be better to find criticism on how it doesn't attempt to bridge music networks or something. --MPD01605 (T / C) 02:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I find the criticisms of the name to be pretty silly (and irrelevant) as well. And we certainly shouldn't have to dig for criticism, especially regarding the 3-days or 3-plays rule, which has ruffled a lot of people's feathers. BJ Nemeth 15:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I went into a little detail regarding the Wi-Fi song sharing feature and the fact that it can not be used as an external Hard Drive. At this point, the DRM, lack of external hard drive usage and the Wi-Fi seem to be the only relevant criticisms regarding the player. I don't see how the licensing deal effects how the Zune operates. TheSniperZERO 16:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The licensing deal with Universal is definitely relevant, because this article is about the entire Zune ecosystem. Once we break this article up into multiple articles (it's inevitable), it should be incorporated into the general Zune article, rather than the article about this first generation Zune product. 68.218.103.10 19:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Relevant to the 'Zune Ecosystem'? Yes. But, I don't understand how the licensing deal falls under the criticism category. Licensing deals are not uncommon. All we know about it is that they are paying money, yet a downside is not listed or spoken about. How is it a good or bad thing?70.18.46.234 20:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be wise on my part to point out that when I posted this section, the title of the Criticism section was "Criticism of the name "Zune"", not just "Criticism", and only talked about the far-flung coincidence that it sounded like a naughty word in Hebrew. That's what I was griping about. But the section has expanded (fortunately), and the part about the naming criticism still remains. If there's no objection, I'm going to remove those parts since they are barely sourced and IMHO, quite irrelevant. --MPD01605 (T / C) 21:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the name criticism is so minor that it doesn't deserve mention in this article. If the Zune succeeds for the most part, but fails in certain foreign markets, and legitimate analysts cite this as a possible reason, then the name criticism becomes relevant. BJ Nemeth 01:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

HEY!!!: How is it possible to have a section called "Criticism",.. without a single citation of a "critic" ... criticizing the zune?!! I added one such citation, and now it's been deleted?? If you guys really fancy yourselves as the Wikicops,.. (you know who you are... check for cornflakes crumbs on you pajama's at 2:30pm)... how is this not a topic of hot debate?

David Pouge of the New York Times is a well-known technology critic and has been cited a few times in the article.TheSniperZERO 01:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The licensing deal is relevant because it represents a new direction for the deals between content companies (Universal) and hardware/software companies (Microsoft). This is a landmark deal that implies that content companies are owed a piece of hardware sales. By the same logic, this "tax" should be also be applied to TVs, radios, computers, cellphones, and anything else that plays music or videos. There have already been several articles written about this deal in a negative way (which makes it "Criticism"), and when I have the time, I'll add them as sources. BJ Nemeth 01:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly biased and full of error

here is the paragrah I speak of...

"System requirements (1.5GHZ processor, WinXP SP2 only, 64MB VRam) cannot be used without service paks or on Windows 2000. Software needs to connect to Zune market place during installation, does not play well with antivirus software. AntiSpyware programs are very problematic, zune installation can take multiple attempts before successful loading, system needs to be restarted after and occasionally during installation. Does not function properly on Vista Beta2, saying you must connect to MS update server for device drivers. Syncing software works with device, but is prone to crashing when device not recognised by windows plug and play. Test Systems: Desktop ( 2.93GHZ Core2Duo "conroe", 2048MB RAM, nVidia quadro FX 256MB graphics card, WindowsXP SP2/Vista Beta2 and Notebook (2.0GHZ Core2Duo "merom", 2048MB RAM, nVidia GoForce 128MB , Windows XP SP2)."

First of all this article sounds biased. I so far can not find the system requirements for the Zune, but doubt that it is, "1.5GHZ processor, WinXP SP2 only, 64MB VRam." As microsofts next OS Vista only needs a 800mrz processor, and most games still dont need more than 1.5ghrz. Many people disaprove of Microsft and this seams to read that way, reasons why I dont just delete it are one, it may be true, and two I am, persay, not the best person in the world at grammer. Just looking it over, and thinking of it as if all the facts were correct; it is full of gramatic and spelling erros. I will leave everyone else to decide what you wnat to do with it, because I am not knowlageable to know if it right or wrong my self.

Thnaks everyone!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikipedi (talk • contribs).

[edit] Request for protection

Due to the recent vandalism, I think that this page deserves to be protected from the continuous of vandals.Samsoncity 15:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


I don't know if you guys realize it or not, but it is STILL extremely Biased.


[edit] Video Codecs

Recent reviews from sites, like Engadget, indicate that the Zune does NOT, in fact, accept DivX/XviD or H.264 codecs and that the software transcodes video from whichever format you're using into WMV (@320x240). http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/15/zune-review/ Kakomu 22:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV in Criticism section

I added numerous requests for citations in the criticism sections. Who is making these criticisms? I removed one altogether that stated that even though the Zune has wireless capabilities, it cannot arbitrarily download music from hot-spots (a technological claim that doesn't even make sense). Criticisms should only be listed if they are accompanied by reputable citations. It seems as though an iPod fan has simply vented his frustrations in the Criticism section. I also removed a remark about the Zune not being compatible with Windows Vista even though Vista had been released to corporate customers prior to the Zune's release. This statement is undeniably false (Vista: late November (i.e. not yet released) ; Zune: November 14).

I think I may compile some links to substantiate the claims that have been made, as I've seen them on more than a few mainstream sites. Though I'm curious as to why this section is tagged NPOV. Is your contention that all criticism is inherently biased, or are you okay with removing the tag(s) once the citations have been added?
Additionally, it has been reported that the Zune doesn't work with Vista, and although it hasn't been released yet to volume license customers, it isn't unreasonable to believe that a fix may not be available in the next two weeks. Perhaps more importantly though, it does not work with the current beta iterations of Vista. The release date of software does not indicate whether or not the software itself exists. Kevin 07:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Considering that all software that runs on Windows XP runs also on Windows Vista by default (most of them is running, who doesn't run is an exception), I believe that it is indeed very relevant to mention the incompabibility. Marian 17 Nov 2006

The criticism regarding the WiFi and the talk about the lack of an external HD capability both been given citations. They shouldn't be viewed as 'vandalism from an iPod fan'. It might look that way when comparing the 2 brands. They appear to be solid criticisms. TheSniperZERO 01:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and decided to substantiate everything, to satiate anyone concerned about iPod fanatics floating false information about. I also cleaned up some of the phrasing, and removed the NPOV and weasel tags, as everything in that section is now substantiated. Kevin 07:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've never commented before, so excuse me if I do this wrong--but I think there is a large imbalance of citations in the criticism section (citations 3-25 out of 29). For an informational article, less weight should be put on an informational article. The iPod article has citations 11-33 out of 73 that are criticisms; less than half of all citations are used for criticisms, and furthermore, there are only a few double citations for each point, while there are many points with 4 citations--overkill, in my opinion.WasAPasserBy 04:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is supposed to be informative, correct? Though the criticisms are valid, shouldn't there be some opinion for the Zune under a different section?Two articles at least under makeyougohmm.com are in favor of, and include valid arguments for the Zune. Some info can be drawn from these, and it could help the NPOV. Rochelle CMN 16:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with having a criticism section; it is definitely needed for a topic like this. However having quadruple citations just seems to scream bias.WasAPasserBy 02:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 400MHZ Procesor?

So that means its faster then the PSP and iPod right? So we could be seeing games on it? --Elven6 02:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

There's a few things I was wondering that the article hadn't really answered for me (or maybe I missed it) and was wondering if there were answers to. If there are, it'd be nice to add in! Particularly, I am wondering:

1) I thought I remember reading that you could stream music to other Zune users. I don't know if this has any relationship to the 3play/day thing (or if particular streams would also be restricted from DRM). This August article mentions the streaming capability though (apparently to a max of 4 other Zune users). I don't see this mentioned in the current Wiki... but things may have changed...

2) What is the proximity one has to be within for his/her Zune to sense another Zune?

3) I'm not too tech-savvy... but could updatable firmware mean that it may allow the Zune to eventually upgrade itself to allow wifi-with-computer, and changes to its 3play/day feature? (As opposed to buying a new Zune) Maybe this isn't answerable at this point, but would be cool to eventually find out anyway.

Thanks! -- Shadowolf 10:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

(1) The DJ/streaming feature was proposed during development (and mentioned to the media), but it is not in the version 1 product that hit stores this week. My suspicion is that Microsoft is giving in to all of the demands of the record labels (Microsoft has zero leverage in this market), and the labels were uncomfortable with that feature. It's also possible that Microsoft couldn't get it working reliably enough, in which case it might show up as a future feature. (2) I've read that the max distance for Zunes to communicate to each other is about 50 feet. (We should confirm this and add it to the article.) (3) Updateable firmware really isn't that special -- the iPod has it too. The features you mention are possible through firmware updates, but there are no promises from Microsoft about specific features. (Although they have explicitly stated that podcast support is coming eventually.) If I were you, I wouldn't make a purchase based on "potential" future features. When you buy a product like this, make your decision based on what's available NOW. If other features are added to your device in the future, consider that a bonus. BJ Nemeth 03:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks alot for answering my questions, and for the suggestion. That was extremely helpful! =) -- Shadowolf 05:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Zune picture

It'd be great if a Wikipedian who has a Zune can photograph the device (preferably on a white background) and use it in place of the current promotional image. That way, we can avoid using the fair-use image, and just rely on one done in house. What do other people think? –- kungming·2 (Talk) 04:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That is of course, assuming someone bought a Zune. And judging from the sales of the device at my local retailers (almost zero sold, I think), I think it's going to be hard. –- kungming·2 (Talk) 04:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
There are already free images available, and one has even been uploaded to Commons already. Dancter 21:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this picture would be good for the purpose of this article. –- kungming·2 (Talk) 22:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Except that the image may not actually be free, in which case it isn't much better than the image that is currently up. There's no source information for the image. It even looks suspiciously like the promotional image, but with the screen image edited out. Dancter 22:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
That's true. I could edit the other picture so that it works for the article. (Zune iPod,jpg) –- kungming·2 (Talk) 01:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xbox Stratagy

There is a rumor going around that Microsoft is taking the same stratagy with Zune as it did with Xbox- infiltrate the market, and then grab a larger share each generation. I'm not sure if this is a realistic position yet, but we should be on the look out for facts that could validate this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.39.132.78 (talk • contribs) .

It's not a rumor; it's true, as reported by MSNBC : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15934322/page/2/ (7th paragraph down). Anyone think we should add this in somewhere?WasAPasserBy 03:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It still sounds like a rumour in the MSNBC article. MSNBC could be assuming what Microsoft is doing, they don't source the paragraph, and I don't think Microsoft would admit to it. I bought an Xbox for reasons, and I'd still buy an iPod. The Zune's confusing. I don't think we should put it in the article unless it becomes apparent that that's what MS's strategy/hope is. --MPD01605 (T / C) 04:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it will ever be apparent (not for a few years or until the next-gen Zune) what MS's strategy is. While the paragraph, taken as an entity, does sound like speculation, when taken in context (with the plain factual interview w/ J), it comes out sounding pretty factual. Also, MSNBC rarely will specifically source one paragraph. However, I will concede to waiting for further references before adding this piece of information. Cheers! WasAPasserBy 00:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Backup of DRM music

Anybody could comment to what happens to your purchased DRM music if your Zune dies? Is there a database that remembers what you owned and allow you to download the music again, freely, on a new Zune device, or must you repurchase your whole library?

Or can you backup your DRM music on a PC?

What about upgrades? If you purchase 3 years from now a new version of the Zune, how do you transfer your DRM music to the new device? Is this possible? --Deragon 14:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a Zune Pass (unlimited music) and I had the same questions, so I called Zune support and asked, what they said is: 1. If you lose the files, you can redownload a certain number of time if you bought them individually using restore library in account management. 2. If you have a zune pass, you can do the same thing - on up to 3 computers. Or you can transfer the files and back them up yourself 3. If you buy your music, you can use an unlimited number of Zunes 4. If you lease it, you can use two at a time - you can call them and they will disallow one if you want to add another. I also read in help that you can do it by just selecting "Do not Automatically Sync" on the Zune that you want to remove, but I don't know if that works.

Hope that helps. Arcaynn 17:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox improvement

I'm thinking the infobox would be a great place to mention which formats the Zune can play. This is a major deciding factor between the Zune and something like the iPod. - JustinWick 03:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who moved it to Zune (Microsoft's products and services)?

And why? PureLegend 20:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This stuff needs to stop moving when I'm trying to comment.
User:Bafio made the move. His reasoning was posted under the Talk:Zune#Zune section (end of the section). For the record, I disagree with the move. --MPD01605 (T / C) 20:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Astroturfing allegations

Although I consider the article in question, overall, quite crap, that does not mean it can be dismissed. The section it is in is one for criticism made by the industry and/or community - it doesn't have to be right, so long as we point that out, it just has to be encyclopaedic. The allegations are serious and from a notable enough source, and being so deserve a mention. --Tom Edwards 19:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it is notable. Briefing the article referenced they provide no evidence of the practice in regards to the zune and only seem to assume it is taking place based on historic practices. Are accusations of "astroturfing" from one websource encyclopaedic?--24.69.227.10 09:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
If this were coming out of the blue, probably not. But the article also points us towards a well-documented history of similar astroturfing; and if anyone wants to WHOIS some of the community sites (eg Zune Scene) we could verify his claims that they were registered before anyone knew the thing's name ourselves. --Tom Edwards 09:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
When was Zune announced? http://whois.domaintools.com/zunescene.com reports that the creation date was July 15th 2006 --BenBurch 17:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
14th September. Looks like RDM is right! --Tom Edwards 20:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC) See below --Tom Edwards 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Some more links:
Having done some background checks on RDM itself, it's clearly not a respectable source. But the issues it raises still seem relevant to me, and links from the original article, where the thing has them, are generally to reputable sources. --Tom Edwards 09:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sites weren't registered before the name was known

The official announcement was on September 14, but the name was in fact leaked/revealed on June 11. None of the sites I've seen looked up were registered before then. --Tom Edwards 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... That's July 11th. Same day as many of these registrations. --BenBurch 00:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] software and hacks

So with the Zune is it possible that you can (now or in the future) install different software for it (ala lunix on the ipod)? It seems like the hardware is pretty good and has some clever ideas, but the DRM just makes it unusable to me. --Xercessthegreat 19:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No clue yet. You might head over to http://www.slashdot.org/ and post an "Ask Slashdot" item on this. --BenBurch 00:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../z/u/n/Talk%7EZune_b7c1.html"