Talk:Zune/Archive 5

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 4

Archive 5

Archive 6 →

Contents 1 Two criticisms: are they really widely held? 2 Indiscriminate removal of brand names from "criticism" section 3 PlaysForSure content review 4 Quotations necessary? 5 Zune vs. Apple Challenge 6 Revert 7 Antiantisocial? 8 Zune phone 8.1 Zune Phone 9 Invisitext 10 Vendor lock-in? 11 Rumours and Speculation 12 Link to Zune DRM page 13 Removal of info from intro 14 Terrible article 15 Hold details about update 1.3 until it is actually released 16 Conflict of interest 17 Proposed Restructure/Rewrite 18 Current sales? 19 MS gets original billing for the name Zune? And no disambiguation page?

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.^[1][2]

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)

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)

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^[1] 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.^[2] 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"[3] or "Hummer isn't just a car anymore. It's a lifestyle."[4] or "The Prius isn't just a car, it's the first high-power mobile generator and storage system to reach the mass market."[5] 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"^[3] 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."^[4] 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."^[5] 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.^[6]

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)

Note: Relationship between Zune DRM and PFS DRM. The fact that Zune DRM is a compatible backward compatible extension of PFS DRM is easy to prove. All media encrypted with Zune DRM is playable on a PFS compatible media-player. The reverse is not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenumberdevil (talk • contribs) 18:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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).

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

By the way, very untrue. Think about it, Zune has a tuner, plays more codecs, and looks nicer (frankly). Downside: doesn't work on select Windows XP OS's, doesn't play all video codecs. 74.12.217.44 06:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert

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

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)

Zune phone

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

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.[7]
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).

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)

Not only is this article a complete mess for all the reasons you mentioned, it also displays a clear anti-Zune bias. It's absolutely brimming with criticisms of the Zune (some valid, many not significant at all) and includes very little about the positive sides of this media player. I own both a Zune and an iPod and both are good in their own way. From reading this article, however, an uninformed person would get the impression that the Zune is a complete piece of crap. An encyclopedia's purpose is to inform, not to serve as a mechanism for Apple fanboys to perpetrate their own personal biases against a competing company. 75.33.136.166 07:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You should create an account (though not required), put this article on your Watchlist, and see if you can improve it. Rstandefer 19:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would be ideal, wouldn't it? Unfortunately, at this point the article is in such a terrible state that I would pretty much have to rewrite the entire thing, which I don't have time to do. Besides, I'm not convinced that would even help. All the Apple fanboys would very rapidly muck it up again anyway. I'll consider it if this article ever gets locked, but until then, trying to improve it would merely be an exercise in frustration. 75.33.136.166 05:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Valid points, but then again, you could request it be protected after you complete the new version. Rstandefer 20:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

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.[6]

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

• [7] - Official Zune Blog

Getonyourfeet 02:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

I'd like to see the preloaded content sections deleted or moved to a separate page. It take up far too much of the article for such a trivial bit of information. Graavy 21:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Right, what is going on here? [8] seems to imply that the article about the Zune GUI toolkit has been actually deleted, and the Zune article protected in order to avoid any reference to the... non-Microsoft product appearing on it again. Is my reading correct? I hope not. LjL 23:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it doesn't matter... from Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation_pages ... it says when you type in a textual string in the search function and click go what are people going to expect... not the less notable GUI project Zune (by AROS) because it doesn't have the notability... Well guys just arguing over the matter isn't gonna help... just go recreate... restore... the page and create a new disambiguation link... It's like the iPhone situation... Cisco already legally had the trademark first but most people today know today that the iPhone is more notable and associated by Apple not Cisco's product. Getonyourfeet 02:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)