Talk:Zune/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3 →

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)

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)

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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.13.101 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 23 July 2006

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

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)

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)

Is Zune PlaysForSure?

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

USB Host

Will the Zune support USB host as the Gigabeat does?

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)

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)
- It's not really the trademark issue. I think most editors would say it has more to do with popular usage, a practice supported by disambiguation guidelines. On top of that, the article for the GUI toolkit was hardly even a stub, and never developed past that point, and was probably deleted due to not meeting notability criteria. It's hard to justify a disambiguation when there's no other article. Dancter 23:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

What's with "Fail" instead of Zune? Revert please? Maybe the could do with protection. The vandal obviously wanted to make a point, and spent a good amount of time on it, even if it is just ctrl+f.24.108.206.103 07:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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) .

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).

You're right. Microsoft should warn people. But we need to find a reliable source stating clearly that those "free" songs are impossible to back up, and that they are lost when the Zune player is first synced with a computer. I've moved the claim to the paragraph above the list of free songs, which is where I think it makes more sense. By the way, do the images and videos remain on the Zune after the initial sync, or does all of the "free" content disappear? BJ Nemeth 04:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Gizmodo.com says that all the pre-loaded content is safe when you sinc with the initial computer, and I'm assuming that if you try to sync with another computer, it wipes all the previous-loaded content, initally pre-loaded or not. Following me? And it also says that the pre-loaded content is not able to be synched to the computer (so I'm assuming that means they can't be backed up. That makes sense. Well, we know that for the first computer, everything is safe. --MPD01605 (T / C) 04:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)