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.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
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] Too much grammar mistakes

Please note the grammar in this page is not professional quality. There are references to subjects that the average reader or techie doesn't know about so please link the information properly with a wikilink. Proof read it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Getonyourfeet (talk • contribs) 11:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

"Too much grammar mistakes" is itself gramatically incorrect. The proper way of expressing it is "too many".

This is because whomever is writing/editing the article is comparing it to the iPod or similar produc. There are many, "It cannot even do this," througout the entry.


[edit] Either remove or edit criticism

Having continuous entries that begin by "The Zune cannot..." is not proactive or subjective and imply very negative qualities of the Zune over the "alternative." Though the entries are so-called thoroughly researched. They are only presented in 'cases against' owning a Zune, whereas similar products do not. Whoever is presenting these criticism should also thoroughly research the positive aspects of the Zune.

Most of these criticsms detract from the purpose of product and/or are issues/features have not been addressed or released by Microsoft.

The Zune is a Microsoft, Hard drive based portable media station. Criticism should be directed to how it fails to be a media station instead of how its details or 'features' do not satisify the single critic.

Note: I just previewed several of the "sources" many of them are just blogs of non industry or non-accredited individuals. (~~Uberpesh 022607~~)

The revised criticism section seems really amateur and hard to read. "Doesn't support non-English characters" seems to be a lot more informative than "Michael Kaplan ....... claims". "Power users" doesn't seem to me to uniquely define people who would be running non-XPSP2 English systems... it just seems a throwaway remark that doesn't belong. Maybe this is how the New Improved Wiki Criticism Sections are supposed to read, but I think the writing quality, readibility, and accuracy took a nosedive with this latest round of edits. I would suggest tightening this, removing the bias, and making it criticism-centered as opposed to critic-centered. But that's just my opinion. Preppy 03:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Well Wikipedia admin Maury at the bottom of the page claims the Zune page is "terrible article" because many of contributions appear to be listed based and breaks Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout. Many of the paragraphs by previous contributers before my edits were very short usually one-to-two sentences long and were piecemeal information, which really would put it no higher than the B-scale Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Everyone worked off the broken style guide and it kept getting worst overtime. To address these issues, I started to consolidate the information in paragraph form in the criticism section. Having visited the iPod page and several articles, then generalizing what I saw... many of the pages are paragraphed based but minimize listing. Also, criticism pages in some Wikipedia divide the sections covering aspects of the criticism help the reader. Like the audiophile page divides it into subjectivist and objectivist criticisms. The iPod page divides the sections into topical format. I tried to logically divide the sections in topical order. The criticism by its nature is biased if you remove the criticisms like Dpbsmith said before it defeats the purpose of criticisms and softens it to the point it becomes meaningless. Rather try to present the fact of Zune does not support x,y,z feature repeatedly as fact, I tried to tie it to prominent people as suggested by Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements so that biased statement becomes NPOV. When I added Michael Kaplan, I did it according to Wikipedia recommendations. Also in writing when you do this it build credibility because this person is a professional of handling international language on computer rather than reduce it to down to Zune only supports English text which doesn't add to credibility. I also tried to grouped up these scattered criticisms and integrate them under a constituency so that new readers understand who would make those criticisms. Also Maury believes there is too much minutia, or highly detailed info which may not be interesting for non-technical non sophisticated reader, which should either be integrated in paragraph form like the PSP article or removed all together. If Maury didn't stop by, I wouldn't be making these edits because I too felt PRRfan edits where great edits but what he said was shocking to me.Getonyourfeet 06:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page needs to communicate thoughts neutral point of view of computing information systems

I feel this page needs to step back and rewrite some of these in a neutral point of view and more balanced. Many of you write the page under the assumption that you are a Windows XP user which is fine but fail to provide balance/neutrality. If your gonna promote Microsoft provide balance with alternatives. For example, the the accessory section gives almost a fair balance by considering other companies but fails to provide alternatives products which make Microsoft products stand out more because you guys fail to provide examples of their offerings. Also the operating system section of support was misrepresented because you didn't consider the gamut of other operating systems and projects and provided a poor link to OLD Macintosh but not the latest Apple had to offer MacOS X. Please, reconsider these thoughts when continue editing this wiki and make yourself better writers. Also it is not ethical to place blinders on wikipedian visitors by using censorship by promoting only Microsoft only products. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Getonyourfeet (talk • contribs) 09:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Too Much Advertising of a company

...especially with references to Microsoft.

Please make this page more company neutral. I have to point that there should be more cleaning up of the page between Microsoft and Zune or else the page becomes too wordy and becomes a waste of time for the public to scan and comprehend the information. Also, I feel that if there needs to be a link to companies product and a company name it should only be referenced no more than once per paragraph or mentioned at least once. Also there should be more focus on the product "Zune" rather than "Microsoft's Zune." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Getonyourfeet (talk • contribs) 06:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Also products advertised related to Microsoft should not inadvertantly overly emphasize or it's competitors be censored to meet the wikipedia standard of neutrality.

[edit] Embedded advertising removal needs to be considered

I feel it is sometimes necessary to decouple company qualification to its product. The benefits of decoupling branding from the product are ease of reading, speedy reading, getting straight to the points, etc. However, there are cases where such decoupling cannot be made because it is needed to distinguish it from others or to preserve the value or credibility. For example Microsoft Points. Points isn't a satisfactory qualification. What points? Dragon Point Kill Points? Points of Interest? These are better replaced with a pronoun or acronym. Imagine that we qualified every single reference to Zune with "Microsoft Zune." Or every Microsoft product beginning with Microsoft or every product mention in this article with their respective company name. Some if you wouldn't reach the end of the page. I myself get turned off with large blocks of text. That's not friendly reading. Also when you do this, you are advertising unintentionally. It's like the in the movie Hellboy and the guy drinks slowly to Red Bull. Not only that... they place Red Bull and advertising all over the scenes. In some shows they mask product names with tape because they didn't get paid to advertise the product or to keep your attention on the act. I do this fairly with every company name I see not just Microsoft but with constraint. All I'm interested in is the Zune and what it can do no more or less, not who where involved with every part associated in making this product.Getonyourfeet 01:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zune and Zen

For the Criticism section...

...hasn't anybody in the trade press taken Microsoft to task for calling their player "Zune" when Creative has been calling theirs "Zen" for something like, is it four years now? Same consonants, different vowels... if it were Hebrew they'd be the same word.

Of course a sensible person would say these names are not similar enough to constitute trademark infringment. I'm not saying it is. I'm just saying it seems lazy and unsporting and, well, just generally tacky.

I mean, after all this is the company that sued Michael Robertson for calling a product LindowsOS.

Microsoft deserves criticism for sharp practice and stunning lack of originality... didn't they get any? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not like they called it Wen or something. MarkKB 03:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Or sued the student Mike Rowe for his sofware web site MikeRoweSoft.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.213.187.32 (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Relevance of "Speculation and rumors" content

Is the first half of this section, mentioning debunked rumors, still relevant to the current state of the device? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tywillis (talk • contribs) 05:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Hacks

If unsupported hacks for adding functionality to the Zune are to be included, they should be in a separate section, because they do not describe the Zune as such, they are describing something that can be made from a Zune.

In response to criticism of what the Zune is, it is not appropriate to say "but someday maybe it will be better than it is now," or to say "but it is possible to turn a Zune into something better."

It is accurate to say pigs cannot fly.

It is accurate to say pigs can be shipped as air cargo. (Well, I think it is).

It is not accurate to say pigs fly. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

P. S. I don't think hacks should be in the article at all, but if people want to include them, this is my draft for a proposed "hacks" section, to follow the "criticism" section.

I think some kind of disclaimer is appropriate. I have strong reservations about each of the hacks on its own merits. With regard to upgrading the internal drive, I can see this as recreation for someone who enjoys tinkering, but the practical merits of spending the money for a 40 gig drive and taking the risk of performing home surgery on a Zune in order to increase the capacity by 10 gig escape me utterly.

As for the hard drive hack, well, I think it is irresponsible to promote this unless one has good evidence of the reason why Microsoft didn't provide this functionality themselves. It's so easy and so obvious that an explanation is really required. One hopes that it's something like "because it enables some method for getting around the DRM." But it is at least possible that Microsoft knows some valid reason why this is not a good idea. Perhaps these drives are not designed for heavy use and could overheat under worst-case disk access scenarios, and that the Zune software babies the drive. Yes, that's just speculation on my part, although I've read warnings against using iPods as Mac OS X system drives (as well as articles telling you how to do this). Dpbsmith (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hack content elevated content quality suggestion

Hack section shouldn't be included because it is not professional grade and will not hold the test of years and does not conform to Wikipedia standards and content conformity. If one wants to provide these hacks then there should be a more elevated standard that benefit both sides can agree as backlinking to Wikipedia pages to provide proof to further the knowledge base of wikipedia. However, there is room for places to insert these a hint of hack could exist like the criticism page and additional section. If one hints of a hack it should be emphasized "it is not supported offically from Microsoft". A hack or modification of this device may be supported by legal corporate solution and may add further neutrality value to the content of this page, the benefit of allowing for this content. However, if the Zune support capabilities of lets say expansion, this should be made fact but by serendipitous nature of the device because it was based on its predecessor Gigabeat S which allowed for room for such expansion which microsoft modified and rebranded under its logo. Also censoring this information is not fair because it already happened in real life. You are contradicting yourself and isn't fair to wikipedia viewers. It is biased and contradicts the intent of Wikipedia remain netural. Wikipedia is not supposed to be biased towards Microsoft's view or any entity even opensource. Such censorship or omitting legal hacks goes against core Wikipedia values... openness.

[edit] Hacks [proposed draft]

Sources on the Web have posted hacks that, according to their authors, add functionality to the Zune.

  • To use the Zune as an external hard drive, the Zuneboard website and Zunescenes websites have suggested editing the Windows registry. These articles do not speculate as to whether Microsoft might have had valid reasons for not providing this functionality themselves.[1][2]
  • To open the Zune and replace the 30GB drive with a 40GB drive, the Ipodmods website has suggested the following procedure. The article does not indicate whether attempting this modification could have any undesirable consequences.[3]
  1. ^ zachman123, Phaleux, Phunkmaster, lpxfaintxx (2006-11-23). Use your Zune as an external hard drive and add files. Retrieved on 2006-01-09.
  2. ^ http://www.zunescene.com/zune-mass-storage-mod/
  3. ^ Zune repair guides. IPODMODS. Retrieved on 2006-01-09.

[edit] Locking the Page to prevent Vandalism

These vandals are not going to leave the page alone. I'm tired of trying to edit something and it gets cancelled because someone else edits it and puts Apple Fanboyism stuff in there. Shintsu (talk) 03:14, 9 January, 2007 (UTC)


I agree... "iPhone - Zune Killer" and a pic of an iPhone, arg... --LuisLJ403 03:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


Sadly, they can't even get the international launch dates for the thing right.


Waaay too much fanboyism going on on the Apple side. Definitely calls for a lock in my book.Velorium 00:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Zune Marketplace doesn't even take real money..."

This is legitimate criticism and should not have been removed, certainly not with the edit comment "Criticism - Fixes" that did not mention that criticism had been removed. It is appropriate for these reasons:

  • It is properly sourced to a columnist in a major newspaper.
  • Microsoft itself says that the word Zune comprises a "digital media player and music service," so criticism of Zune properly includes criticism of Zune Marketplace.
  • This criticism is not limited to a single columnist, but has been levelled against Zune Marketplace by numerous critics. Walter Mossberg in the Wall Street Journal, for examples, makes the point that "Songs are priced at 79 points, which some people might think means 79 cents."

Dpbsmith (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe reedit it to be non-POV? "doesn't even", "real money", "confusing", and "complex" all seem POV. I have no position on this, but I can see why it would be removed as it seems highly out of place in an encyclopedic write-up. Preppy 03:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the criticism is relevant and expressed by several influential sources, both neutral (eg. Walt Mossberg/Wall Street Journal) and more or less Pro-Microsoft (Paul Thurrot/Winsupersite). I've added the following write-up expanding the existing stub: ""The Zune Marketplace doesn't even take real money," using a confusing and complex system of "points" instead.[17] The system in which a song costs 79 Microsoft points (corresponding to 99 dollar cents) is deemed deceiving by some as it gives the impression that songs only costs 79 cents. Moreover, "Microsoft Points" can only be bought in blocks of at least 400 points, leading to possible over-purchasing and rest points.", including references to both the WSJ and Winsupersite. I hope this is acceptable and NPOV. Open to suggestions :) 80.212.56.218 11:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the points system from a global perspective, the idea that a "Microsoft Point" should correspond to the value of US cent becomes debatable. As it happens, the rate between a "Microsoft Point" and US cent is approx. 1.25. Interestingly enough, this is roughly the exchange rate between the USD and EUR :) 88.115.113.120 15:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
To Preppy: of course Ihnatko is expressing a point of view. Including it in his own words is no more "unencyclopedic" than quoting, say Winston Churchill's words "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." One wouldn't remove that as being Churchill's opinion, or replace it with a toned-down paraphrase.
Ihnatko's phrase is a) a direct quotation, b) sourced, c) to a columnist in a mainstream newspaper. Or it was a quotation, before someone replaced it with an inaccurate paraphrase that blurs what the columnist was saying. neutrality policy does not mean that opinions, or opinions expressed in punch language, or biassed opinions. are prohibited. "Facts about opinions" are fine. "Facts about opinions" means that a source must be cited--it can't be "Wikipedia," or an individual Wikipedia editor, that is expressing the opinion. This opinion, for example, was expressed by Andy Ihnatko, Chicago Sun-Times columnist.
Neutrality means the opinions must be reasonably representative of a reasonable number of people, i.e. it represents a relevant fact regarding opinions about the Zune. This one is.
It can't be presented as the truth: it needs to be labelled as being opinion; this one is, simply by being in a "criticisms" section.
And it needs to be balanced by other widely-held opinions, to whatever extent is necessary. If necessary, this is done by adding relevant opinions from other sources, not by removing or softening or distorting the opinion that is already there. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


I see why it should be kept in the criticism but it's not all bad. It's a good thing for those who already use Microsoft Points via Xbox 360. It would make it easier for them to buy the music without setting up another account for the Zune Marketplace. I like to see the glass as half full with this. :) Tom F 03:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Of course opinions are going to differ on this. And of course it's not all bad. (I'd add, too, that if course if Microsoft were sincerely doing this to aid customers, obviously, what would be most convenient for customers would be for Zune Marketplace to accept both direct credit card purchases and Microsoft points... just as the iTunes Music Store accepts direct credit card purchases and iTunes gift cards. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gaming Functionality on the Way

Under "Speculation and Rumors" I added the news about gaming functionality. It's more like "Plans for the Future" since it came straight from Microsoft. Anyway, thought maybe we should make a "Games" or "Gaming" section somewhere? What does everyone think? It could get big enough to have its own section soon, if not some sister pages ie: "Games for the Zune" etc. Any thoughts ideas? Thanks all!!! --Scottymoze 15:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding a gaming section at what could possibly be a year ahead of the release would make no sense. I say either make a "Future Plans" section or leave it as is. Velorium 00:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Descriptions of criticism can include emphasis in the service of clarity

People keep removing emphasis from certain descriptions in the criticism section, with comments about it being unencyclopedic or non-neutral. The passages in question are:

  • Songs wirelessly transferred from one Zune to another can only be played three times. While this is understandable for a protected song for which the recipient has not paid, this limitation is applied even if the song was purchased through the Zune store and the recipient has paid for a Zune Pass. It is also applied even for material that is self-recorded, or copyright-free and unprotected by DRM.
  • Although the Zune can pick up FM programs on its built-in tuner, and although it can record voice, it cannot record from the radio.

Here's why this emphasis is perfectly appropriate.

First, emphasis is a legitimate part of English typography that can be used to clarify meaning.

Second, this part of the article describes criticism. Criticism is by definition a point of view. A description of criticism, if reasonably widely held and properly sourced, represents "facts about opinion," which is allowed under the neutrality policy. Including criticism in an article is only non-neutral if presented as truth or as the only point of view, which is not the case here.

When presenting a statement of what the criticism consists of, it is beneficial if the statement is clear and succinct.

In these two cases, the emphasis clarifies what is being criticized. Microsoft is not being criticized for applying DRM restrictions. You'd expect that. What is unexpected is that Microsoft also applies the same restrictions on material that ought not to be restricted, either because the purchaser has already paid the Zune store for the right to listen to the material, or because the material isn't protected by DRM. Microsoft is being criticized for applying restrictions inappropriately.

In the second case, the emphasis again clarifies what is being criticized. Given that the Zune can receive FM radio, and that the Zune can record audio, it seems technically trivial for the Zune to record FM radio. The criticism is not that the Zune cannot record FM. The criticism is that the Zune is obviously technologically capable of recording FM, and Microsoft is artificially withholding the capability.

Italicizing the surprising fact, the fact which is the target of the criticism, is one way to write a clear and succinct statement of the criticism. Removing the italics makes it unclear what is being criticized. I personally can't think of a simple way to reword the criticism to be just as short and just as clear without using emphasis, and I don't see any particular reason to do so.

Emphasis is being used to convey a point of view, yes. There's nothing wrong with that if it is a point of view that is appropriate for inclusion in the article, per WP:NPOV.

Now, if these criticisms were, let us say, promotional statements from Microsoft that had had emphasis added to turn them into criticism that would be inappropriate. If they were direct quotes from a critic who had not used emphasis, applied in such a way as to distort the critic's tenor or tone, that would be inappropriate. That's not the case here. The statements are not quotations that are being distorted by selective emphasis. They are accurate short summaries of reasonably widely held criticism. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems that other people continually disagree with your view here. Assuming good faith, I think you're potentially in the minority. The additional emphasis does not seem really necessary to ensure comprehension of the criticism. I think you prefer your criticism presented differently than I do - I find that third party non-opinionated restatements are more intellectually compelling, while you've tended to prefer direct quotes and emphasis. In this case, it appears to simply be perceived as over-clarification. The criticism is understandable as-is (without emphasis), I would think. If it's not, perhaps a compromise between the two POVs would be to rewrite it for clarity without emphasis... ? I'll likely not touch it, but I do feel strongly that it's much more compelling without the italics. Preppy 00:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cost

"The unlimited "Zune Pass" costs US$14.99 per month or $44.97 for three months."

This is the same price. Is there any particular reason it's expressed like that? Ironcorona 11:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  • It's listed that way because those are the only two options from Microsoft when purchasing the Zune Pass -- one month for $14.99, or three months for $44.97. There is no 6-month subscription or 1-year subscription, and as you can see, there is no discount for purchasing additional months in advance. Why did Microsoft create two choices that are effectively the same? Who knows. But when it comes to pricing at the Zune Marketplace (79 points = 99 cents, purchase 400 points at a time), it's best to leave logic at the door. BJ Nemeth 19:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does the Zune record audio?

Although I put it there in the first place, I'm now removing this criticism:

  • Although the Zune can receive FM programs on its built-in tuner, and can record audio, it cannot record from the radio.[4]

pending discussion. If the Zune can, in fact, record audio from sources other than the built-in FM tuner, then its being unable to record FM from the tuner is a significant criticism. But if, in fact, it does not have any audio recording capability, then its inability to record FM is hardly surprising and not a very important criticism.

I've been Googling like mad and have gotten snippets of conflicting information about this. But since the official Zune fact sheet [1] says nothing about being able to record anything, I conclude that it doesn't record, period. In which case, saying it can't record FM is like criticizing it because it can't make telephone calls. Apologies for my role in inserting what is apparently misinformation. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I completely agree with your reasoning, and support the idea that the inability to record from the radio should NOT be listed as a criticism. BJ Nemeth 19:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sales

I updated sales so that it refocuses from the initial sales to more recent sales of Zune. It would be better to have more recent data, but initial sales (in my mind) was more apropos before Zune had been on the market for a while. 70.17.92.51 21:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two criticisms: are they really widely held?

I reworded this; the comment that a future patch might fix this is irrelevant crystal gazing, as the cricitism is of the Zune as it exists and future patches might do almost anything. It now reads:

  • "The Zune only speaks English;" i.e. the Zune as launched lacks native language support (NLS) or handling unicode metadata found in file container formats that support this feature[citation needed]

The reason I marked it as needing a citation is: is this, in fact, something for which the Zune has been widely criticized? It hasn't even been released in Europe, has it? Does this become a serious issue before then?

This section isn't really fair but can be remove since I see nothing in history that points out that Microsoft releases dual language support on any of it's products... even in my Windows. Microsoft probably hires local translators and advertisers and packagers in international regions to take care of this problem in their products for native tongue.Getonyourfeet 23:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The question isn't whether or not it's fair, the question is whether or not the Zune has been widely criticized for this. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm moving this one here for discussion:

  • The Zune comes with no integrated GPU required for accelerated 2d/3d graphics, that comes with the non "L" version of the i.MX31 processor series but has reservation for it to be coupled to an external graphics accelerator.[5][6]

The reference merely confirms that the i.MX31 has no built-in graphics acceleration. Has the Zune really been widely criticized for lacking it? Is this even beneficial for playing music or video or any other function currently performed by the Zune? Dpbsmith (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This functionally is only useful for gaming and confirms the fact that Zune wasn't ment to be a serious gaming machine contender comparable to Sony's PSP, which offers digital content playback, offers a more potent external GPU. This criticism was ment to show that gaming experience Zune 1.0 wouldn't be all great with today's gaming culture, which demands 3D. Speculation suggest that Microsoft will support gaming on Zune, the above facts supporting counter evidence for Zune 1.0 gaming even in the 2D gaming arena. Getonyourfeet 23:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If your gonna censor this or omit this you might as well omit the speculation to perserve neutrality of this page.Getonyourfeet 23:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, the question is: has the Zune been widely criticized for this? No source is cited. Who is criticizing the Zune for this? If a gaming publication wishes to criticize the Zune for this, fine. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indiscriminate removal of brand names from "criticism" section

An editor is removing mention of brand names from the criticism section. In many cases this makes the criticism meaningless or pointless.

For example, the reason why the Zune is criticized for being incompatible with PlaysForSure is precisely because PlaysForSure is Microsoft's own technology: Microsoft has betrayed customers and business partners that bought into Microsoft's last music venture.

Similarly, criticism of Microsoft for not having hard drive capability is meaningless unless it is pointed out that other players do have this criticism and it makes the criticism clearer to name the specific products that do.

Neutrality does not mean that brand names cannot be mentioned, and neutrality does not mean that opinions cannot be expressed in clear language. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


Such criticism should be made against Microsoft not Zune in the Microsoft page or PlaysForSure wikipedia page. Microsoft dropped the ball for PlaysForSure. Zune was a casualty of Microsoft's decision. The decision to omit references to Microsoft is because it does not bear significant weight of the statement which is Zune and PlaysForSure do not work with each other. Hey Zune you don't support PlaysForSure should be enough. Getonyourfeet 02:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Microsoft makes both the Zune and the PlaysForSure DRM is highly relevant to the criticism. The people doing the criticizing specifically make the point that they should work together because they come from the same company. 68.219.6.124 04:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
It is important to note that PlaysForSure is Microsoft's invention, and that it is incompatible with Microsoft's own MP3 product, the Zune. That is a major criticism. --MPD T / C 04:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine, make it reflect the intent of the population of critics.

Consumers and pundits criticize Microsoft's creations the Zune and PlayForSure technology for not working in hand-in-hand.Getonyourfeet 04:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct. Also, like everything in this section, this should also be sourced: at least one specific critic, preferably a well-known one, should be cited as saying this. The existing source (which for some reason is given twice... I'll fix that...) isn't as clear as it might be. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I get you guys in how its all in the presentation and delivery and context of the information.Getonyourfeet

Good. Thanks. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PlaysForSure content review

If you look at the Wikipedia page, PlaysForSure is certification that satisfies requirements. This Zune page qualifies this with "PlaysForSure technology." PlaysForSure defined to be certification. "The Zune will not play content purchased from sites that use Microsoft's own PlaysForSure technology." There should be a finer line between technology and certification.

Also people continue to mix PlaysForSure and DRM. PlaysForSure has support for DRM but is not entirely DRM, which editors unfairly tie the two together because of bias, propaganda, and logical fallacy of overgeneralizing. "This DRM is incompatible with other DRM systems, including PlaysForSure." According to Microsoft's PowerPoint[2] two DRM schemes must be met. "Windows Media DRM 10 for Portable Devices (WMDRM10-PD)" and "Portable Device DRM (PDDRM)"

Zune supports WMDRM10 and WMPPD according to Ph.D Georgia Institute of Technology of Computer Science and O'Reilly digital media columnist Erica Sadun's data obtained from libmtp software.[3] Take a look at the device extensions and see for yourself.

Also this same PowerPoint presentation describes the branding required after qualification has been verified as a PlaysForSure device. Obviously, producers of portable players are gonna stick this label on there after meeting qualifications.

Finer lines need to be drawn for the sake of fairness and factual evidence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Getonyourfeet (talk • contribs) 07:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

I think explaining the mechanics behind PlaysForSure in this article is complete overkill, and will only lead to confusing most readers, not enlightening them. Anyone who wants to know more about what PlaysForSure means can click on the link to read all about it. BJ Nemeth 05:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, try finding a credible source authoritative source and place it in the critic's section and enclose "PlaysForSure DRM" and the like to support PlaysForSure<->DRM. If your gonna use "ad populum" logical fallacy then cite sources. Otherwise it's not right to mislead the public that DRM is PlaysForSure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Getonyourfeet (talk • contribs).

Evidence of my point.

Wikipedia's definition of equality:

Equality (mathematics) "Two mathematical objects are equal if and only if they are precisely the same in every way"

Wikipedia's definition of logical equivalence:

logical equivalence "In logic, statements p and q are logically equivalent if they have the same logical content."

p=DRM, q=PlaysForSure

Statement in question is DRM=PlaysForSure.

According to slide 11 (dated 5/6/2005) of Microsoft's PowerPoint Presentation of PlaysForSure:

PlaysForSure = {Has a class driver, Must support Windows Media 10, Supports WMA/WMV, Pass testing, support DRM (WMDRM)};

DRM = {Restrictions and Access Control}

PlaysForSure has only has 5 elements compared to DRM's 1. Also they both have 1 element in common access control and restrictions. However, 4 elements are outside the domain so it is "not equal".

Yes i'm overanalyzing this but yet I'm trying to help you keep your sanity.

DRM frequently doesn't work, denying legitimate customers access to paid-for content. PlaysForSure is a combination of two elements: DRM and a certification program that is intended to ensure that Microsoft's partners implement the DRM correctly, so that it will work reliably.
Calling that simply "DRM" isn't a serious misrepresentation.
DRM grants access in some situations and denies access in other. Of course Microsoft in presenting DRM to customers is going to emphasize its role in granting access while minimizing its role in denying access. But PlaysForSure is still DRM. It's just supposed to be well-implemented DRM.
Insisting that PlaysForSure isn't just DRM is like insisting that "A Ferrari isn't just a car. It's a state of mind"[4] or "Hummer isn't just a car anymore. It's a lifestyle."[5] or "The Prius isn't just a car, it's the first high-power mobile generator and storage system to reach the mass market."[6] Well, all right I guess, but it's not wrong to call the Ferrari, the Hummer, and the Prius "cars." Dpbsmith (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

All points of your argument I agree. It is not wrong to express. To present PlaysForSure as DRM and to back that up without some evidence or reference is disturbing.

What I want to clear is ambiguity. When making an argument you want to remove ambiguity "because it can lead to incorrect conclusions and can be used to deliberately conceal bad arguments" Ambiguation It is DRM and it isn't DRM confusing because parts of PlaysForSure includes a DRM but not all of it is DRM.

Both PlaysForSure and Zune use the same DRM technology as shown in the first part of this section, WMDRM10/PDDRM, but the variables you plug into the DRM output different garbage. This is the case with DRM technology you can have the same set of algorithm the form working exactly the same way but the mathematics is gonna be different. Garbage in garbage out. In addition Zune has additional DRM layers to protect it's data. "Unfortunately Microsoft have put some protection on file transfers so the Zune has to authenticate with the host computer before files can be transferred"[7] according the lead computer programmer of the XNJB project. The DRM technology is analogous to your "car" (the type) and the output values you get out of DRM is analogous to the type of cars. y=x+1 is not the same as y=x-1 is not the same as y=x+0 (the variants). Linus Torvalds, Linux creator and kernel maintainer, makes it clear on his GPL3 (defining openness required with DRM) license stance "I think it's insane to require people to make their private signing keys available, for example. I wouldn't do it."[8] Microsoft isn't going to give the general public their keys because the system would be useless. "Individualization DRM makes each player unique by linking a player to the host computer. This prevents a compromised player from being widely distributed over the Internet."[9] I find this to be the case with Zune software itself. Counterexample of DRM critics that that test DRM files. To say PlaysForSure's DRM and Zune's DRM is not fair since the possibility of compatibility of DRM exists. Slide 17 of Microsoft's powerpoint slideshows that Zune is eligible for PlaysForSure.[10]

PlaysForSure is using DRM and also FairPlay is using DRM both make them technologies, or applications, of DRM. Zune is also a user of DRM. PlaysForSure has essential properties that Microsoft describes. Without those essential properties it no longer is recognized as PlaysForSure. Again to say PlaysForSure's is a system of DRM is not entirely correct because PlaysForSure system requires specific codecs standards, specific quality performance testing, specific communication protocol, and a written driver specifically for Windows Media Player 10. The parts of the systems must be exactly the same for two systems to be equal. Since Zune breaks two essential properties, the class driver requirement for WMP10 and is not WMP10 friendly it is essentially not PlaysForSure.

A personal computer (PC) is a system that has DRM, therefore it is DRM (no it is a computer system). My Zune includes DRM, therefore it is DRM (no it is a portable music player and no DRM is a subsystem within the Zune). I have a tiny cell, therefore I am a cell. Fallacies:Begging_the_question,Hasty generalization. This how some believe and how you are trying to present.

Again, this entire argument might be relevant to the PlaysForSure article, but it isn't relevant to the Zune article. PlaysForSure is the brand that the DRM technology operates under. If people want more information, they can simply click on the PlaysForSure link, and that should clarify things. (If it doesn't, then it's that article that should be corrected, not this one.) BJ Nemeth 20:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotations necessary?

Originally this criticism had references in quotes. If you take content from someone please put it in quotes or it is plagiarism, or stealing.

Songs wirelessly transferred from one Zune to another can only be played three times. While this is understandable for a protected song for which the recipient has not paid, this limitation is applied even if the song was purchased through the Zune store and the recipient has paid for a Zune Pass.[37] It is also applied even for material that is self-recorded, or copyright-free and unprotected by DRM. After three days, the song expires regardless of whether or not it has been played. Just playing half the song (or one minute, whichever comes first) counts as one "play." A song cannot be re-sent to the same device, nor can a song received from someone else be passed on to a third person. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Getonyourfeet (talk • contribs) 05:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Zune vs. Apple Challenge

Someone may want to remove the following bit of vandalism at the bottom of this section of the article: 'also, the zune tends to be horribly horrible on a horrible level.'. While this may or may not be true, it should be removed. I tried to edit the section, but for some reason that statement did not appear on the edit page, and therefore I was unable to delete it. SJM 1 February 2007

[edit] Revert

Someone revert and protect this article so the entire thing doesn't read: "Zune sucks balls"

[edit] Antiantisocial?

I'm removing this pending someone's supplying a published source:

There were also 100 Zunes made for Zune Ambasadors which were etched with artwork that read "antiantisocial" on the back of the unit.

Seems mysteriously pointless, enough so to make me wonder whether it's accurate. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I suspect this is the missing reference? It doesn't support the previous write-up (they would read "Ambassador", and be be based upon the antiantisocial artwork), but it does clarify the existing Zune Ambassadors text. Preppy 18:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
If you think it's worthwhile, reinsert it in an accurate form with that source. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zune phone

I'm removing this because no published source for this rumor is cited. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zune Phone

{{unreferenced}} {{tone}}

Rumor Has it that Microsoft will now make a "Zune Phone just like apple's "iphone .The design is a bit of a concern. The blocky Zune works as a media player because you don't have to be looking at it or holding it. A phone would need a makeover so it sits in your hand better.

But it does hold out some intriguing possibilities, like over-the-air downloads of songs directly from Zune's marketplace. And it could be an easy way for gamers to stay connected through the Live Anywhere service due later this year.

[edit] Invisitext

What's with the invisitext saying not to add anything about hacks in the "Critiscisms" section? I think that it would definately be worth while to add something to the effect of "it can with some minor hacking". I mean look at all the things ipods are capable of doing with hacking and they still get credit.DxPatxb 22:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Because it's not germane to criticism of the Zune. If it is easy to make a Zune do something and Microsoft elected not to have the Zune do it, then Microsoft should be criticized for their decision. If someone criticizes a model of car for having sluggish acceleration, it is not a valid response to say "you can make it accelerate faster by modifying it." The Zune is the product that Microsoft delivers, not the product that someone else can make out of a Zune by using it as raw material.
I don't see anything in the iPod article that "gives credit" to the iPod for functionality that can be achieved only by modifying it.
If someone thinks the hacks are important, they can start a separate section entitled "hacks." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vendor lock-in?

Do you think the Zune contributes to Vendor lock-in? Would it help to have a category identifying Category:Non-interoperable systems? The issue is being voted on, please contribute your vote / opinion: here. Pgr94 23:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rumours and Speculation

I heard that 'Zune' was Hebrew for 'Intercourse'. Can anyone confirm this rumour? It would be an interesting addition...--24.15.165.14 08:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to Zune DRM page

This page should link to 3-day-or-3-play, a page devoted to the Zune's DRM. 00:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of info from intro

Warrens' edit removed information and did not replace it elsewhere in the article.

Its Wi-Fi communication allows limited sharing of songs, recordings, playlists and pictures with other Zunes up to 30 feet away. Images may be transferred from one Zune to another without restriction. But songs expire after three plays or three days, whichever comes first, unless purchased or downloaded from the Zune Marketplace online store. Recipients cannot re-send music or audio files, but can save the names of expired songs for later purchase. Many songs downloaded from the Zune Marketplace cannot be shared: the ones record companies flag as non-distributable.[11]
Zune uses a new digital rights management system — Windows Media DRM (WMDRM) — that is incompatible with other DRM systems. This system includes the Zune Marketplace and a PC client called Zune Software. Zune does not support Audible.com's audiobooks and container format. It uses Media Transfer Protocol (MTP); however, its proprietary MTP extensions place an interoperability barrier between the Zune and previous MTP-based software and services.

I thought the info worked well in the intro; regardless, it belongs in the article. I will restore it unless otherwise convinced. PRRfan 18:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree most of this information is very useful to those interested in the device. They are very intrinsic and outstanding properties of the Zune. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Getonyourfeet (talk • contribs) 19:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Terrible article

I have to say this, this article has turned into an absolute mess. The intro jumps from a description of the machine, to its history, to its features, and then back again. The sections following are mostly point form, and include all sorts of uninteresting details. The vast majority of this information can be found elsewhere and is going to change if they ever come out with a new version. The wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a MS "features and capabilities" web page, try to keep this in mind! Maury 12:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hold details about update 1.3 until it is actually released

Wikipedia is not a new site, and there's no rush to "scoop" anyone. This material is not officially from Microsoft, and the date isn't even firm. It should go back in the article when the firmware is actually released. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

    • Update 1.3, will be released March 20, 2007, or around mid-march, will address — the skipping problem that some users were experiencing on the Zune and on the Marketplace; device and software reliability, when it comes to device detection and improved sync'ing; changes to the FM Tuner so it no longer drains the battery when in sleep mode.[7]

[edit] Conflict of interest

If people feel this link is appropriate, then someone other than User:Zachdms, User:Ceasarisok, or Microsoft employee should make this contribution. Cesarisok is maybe 'CesarIsOK' lawl in his blog. He is a marketing employee of zune team. Wikipedia suggest that people with conflict of interest suggest info though talk pages and indepenent users contribute. WP:COI, WP:COI#Self-promotion

  • [8] - Official Zune Blog

Getonyourfeet 02:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Restructure/Rewrite

I just found this article and feel it is unecessarily cluttered and confusing to read (as many others seem to feel).

For comparison, the iPod article is much simpler and formatted nicely. I found it much easier to scan and follow.


To get started (in addition to the to-do list) perhaps we could follow this plan:

1. Lock/protect the page

if of course it is still being vandalised.

2. Merge 3-day-or-3-play into DRM criticism

i don't think it deserves it's own article, since DRM and WMDRM have large articles of their own. The current DRM section of criticism is well referenced and could be combined nicely with the 3 day or 3 play article.

3. The Specification / Hardware rewritten/formatted

It looks a bit too detailed (repeats of hard drive size)and could be simplfied, perhaps put in a table.

4. Rewrite any advert non-NPOV material

Obviously!

I haven't got a clue how to start a vote for 1 and 2 (so if this plan is ok could someone do that please?) But i'll try doing 3.

This is my first substantial edit/proposal... please be gentle.. :-S Dhar8062 04:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Update - I noticed something else, is the request for image needed anymore? Dhar8062 04:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Update - Partial start of point 3. Dhar8062 05:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Update - Realised I left the section in a bit of a state and undid. Dhar8062 00:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


1.Indifferent Locking the page... I don't really care... vandalism IMO has declined since product launch
2.No 3-day-or-3-play was actually copied from previous revisions of the criticisms section of this article, which has changed in attempt to make the page more encyclopedic. The ideas still exist in the article but are communicated differently though the criticism section.
3.Yes Reformatting of the hardware section is necessary. I agree with this one. It needs to be tailored to general public/audience and made more encyclopedic. People can find detailed information at bunnie's blog or some fansite. A non techie would not be interested in ATA drive interface of Zune. Information needs to be written in paragraph form like PSP or iPod page and stripped of any technical detail. The same would go with preloaded content section which could be placed in a separate page then on this page glanced over briefly.
4.Indifferent As with POV material, they will be resolved overtime.
Images stuff... it already has been satisfied. Getonyourfeet 05:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current sales?

There must be some indication of current sales and sales trends... is it picking up, holding steady, or declining? Dpbsmith (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MS gets original billing for the name Zune? And no disambiguation page?

For years prior to Microsoft releasing their "Zune" product line, there has already been software under the name "Zune". It's a MUI (Magic User Interface) clone for AmigaOS and AROS. It's also developed and maintained by AROS. http://aros.sourceforge.net/documentation/developers/zune-application-development.php 24.254.187.237 01:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

well make a disambig page then... do it like Bill gates lawl Getonyourfeet 01:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I've Added in The New Colour Bit.

Why remove a confirmed thing. Seems Weird to me! It should be there. Don't remove it before saying why. Jimmy93211 22:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It is fine no problems... gratz to your contribution. But the link you provided has only powdered pink Zune and coming soon arrow. It didn't say "May" so that is original research (WP:OR). Plus I personally don't know how crediable ebgames.com is with news. If you provided a link from Microsoft directly/indirectly or something compelling from a reliable/well established news source (cnn/ny times/cnet/LA times/etc.), it would be considered worthy in the color section. To me, it is just speculation, rumor, or hearsay. Getonyourfeet 03:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../z/u/n/Talk%7EZune_b7c1.html"