Talk:Zune/Archive 4

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 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 →

Contents

Zune Hat

Its under criticism. I didn't find it in the edit page though. 99.245.225.109 03:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Canada Sales

Settle a bet someone, is Zune sold in Canada at all? I really need to know. Thanks! 74.12.217.44 06:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The Zune is not sold in Canada. It is currently sold only in the United States. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.216.236.206 (talk • contribs).

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".

you has to be kidding myself... oh, and I'm not saying I would have seen this if I hadn't gone to edit, but if you are going to be criticizing people on whether or not they are grammatically correct, try spelling grammatically right... Out of all of the words you could have screwed up on it has to be that one... Can't you see the red line under it?!?!? PhorkPhace (talk) 07:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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.

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)

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).

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.

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)

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).

Well considering microsoft owns creative I doubt they will be getting sued for many trademark infringements. 202.83.118.27 08:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)RMD

Microsoft deserves criticism??? I hope you don't mean that they deserve criticism written into the article... this site is meant to give an unbiased informed statement, not an opinion.PhorkPhace (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Microsoft does not own Creative. Anyway, just because you personally happen to think that the Zune's name is unoriginal, that doesn't mean it belongs as a criticism on the Wikipedia page. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a forum for you to vent your personal anti-Microsoft bias. Sadly, it often doesn't work out that way in practice. 75.33.136.166 07:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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).

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)

The reason microsoft doesnt want the zune to act as a hard drive is because it allows for sending files other than music or pictures. A number of sites have posted information on it. You can re-name a video or .exe to a jpg, then send it to someone who has the hard drive hack. Why microsoft doesnt want that, though, i cant explain. 69.212.156.117 04:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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.

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.

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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.[1]

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)

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)