Zune Enters the Year 2005
The new Zunes are out. And predictably, they are as much of a non-event as the new iPods were an event. They now come in smaller-form flash variety, and sport a somewhat less-dorky control pad, with–get this–touch-sensitive ability. That’s not a touch-sensitive screen. It’s a touch-sensitive pad. Similar to the iPod click-wheel, which has been around for, what, five or six years now? Additionally, Apple has had flash-based iPods for over two and a half years now. So, congrats to the Zune for reaching 2005.
But no touch screen. No Internet browsing. No wireless purchasing of music. No international language support. No 160 GB model. No ultra-mini model (along the lines of the iPod shuffle). Still a smaller screen, and a thicker, clunkier body.
The big Zune now has a screen that is 3.2“ in size, as opposed to their old 3” screen, but is still smaller than the iPod Touch’s 3.5“ screen. No word yet on the screen resolution, though it’s bound to be less than the iPod’s; the question is, is it as bad as Zune 1.0’s? The iPod Touch’s 3.5” screen has twice the resolution of the Zune 1.0; if the Zune 2 has the same pixel size as its predecessor, it will be just as unimpressive.
Even the thickness of the player is still lacking–at 0.5“, it is 1/10th” thinner than the previous Zune, but still almost twice as thick as the 0.31“-thick iPod Touch.
Actually, the only advantage that the Zune has that I can see is the ability to sync wirelessly with a computer; that’s a plus, but not a game-winner, as you have to charge the unit anyway, and WiFi syncing may just drain the battery faster as it is. And, I suppose, the FM radio, if that’s to your liking. Yes, you can share music across Zunes, and they ”opened it up“ so the songs don’t evaporate after three days (they just self-destruct after three plays of more than one minute, like they used to), and recipients can now pass them on to third users and so on. But really, does anyone share music that way? MS is pushing the whole ”Social“ thing, making a new ”Social“ web site, but it smacks of MS trying to egg on an activity that people aren’t really participating in.
Other improvements include dropping features: many songs MS sells in the Zune marketplace will no longer have DRM, and the Zune will no longer come in the color brown. So credit them for at least minimal intelligence.
But a breakthrough? Hardly. But, as I pointed out last November when the Zune was originally released, MS has a record for releasing stuff that’s crappy at first, and progressively becomes less and less crappy until it is just good enough that they can then depend on their OS monopoly to get a feedback loop going.
So despite a continued lackluster presence, the Zune at least is not quite as crappy as it used to be, and that bodes relatively well for MS in the future.
UPDATE: Just as I was about to post this, MS updated the Zune web site to include the new Zunes–a little. Still no specs listed for the screen resolution. Just a zippy blurb, mostly. You’d think that they would have been prepared for this….
UPDATE 2: Still no specs published by MS, but Engadget has the rundown. Apparently, no one is even sure of the screen resolution! And preliminary reports hint at why they’re hiding the number; the reports are saying that it is, or is expected to be, 320 x 240. That’s exactly what is was before. Which means that the Zune 2 80GB (the only one with a big screen) actually loses screen resolution in pixels-per-inch with the new model… and it is still 1/2 the resolution of Apple’s iPod Touch. Hell, the iPod Nano has the same resolution, with only a 2” screen.
What are they thinking?
I think they’re trying to hit something in the marketplace that they (or their marketing research people) perceive to be a weakness in the iPod world- the ability to share songs.
By doing it wirelessly, they’re trying to make it really easy for me to say “hey, Luis, I heard this really awesome song by this new group called Flaming Toenails Herpes Sores, you gotta hear it” and then ZING! I send it to your Zune.
But because of the demands of the record companies, you get the “three plays and it’s gone” limitation. That way, we both have to buy the song if we really like it.
IMO, it doesn’t matter much. Apple’s domination of the portable music player market is such that nobody will crack it, at least when it comes to proprietary players linked up with an online music sales service.
The only real room in the market, IMO, is for non-DRM-protected players to sneak in. Since they would only play non-DRM MP3s, they don’t have to deal with being compatible with iTunes or whatever equivalent service a manufacturer sets up.
sorry, but off-topic: any chance we can read about some Japanese politics for a change, it’s not like anything is going on over there, oh just the change of a prime minister and such
I know this is your blog and you can write about whatever you please, but I truly appreciate your style and would like to read something from your perspective on current Japanese politics etc.
thanks,
-Jim
Jim:
Thanks for the suggestion; I understand your preference. At some point I may, and I do from time to time, but the fact is, Japanese politics kinda bores me. And that’s a good thing–in Japan, the government doesn’t mess with your life nearly as much as they do in the U.S. But I will keep my eyes open a bit more for news on that….
Somehow I can’t help but feel that the comparison between the Zunes and the ipod touch is a flawed one. They are devices of two rather different worlds; it would be more accurate to compare it to that which it is intended to compete against, the iPod classic and nano. Just because Apple releases the Touch doesn’t mean Microsoft is required to create a competitor for it.
Meanwhile, 320×240 is pretty standard for portable media players, as compared to the iPod Touch’s 480×320, which I still don’t quite understand the logic behind. Sure, it’s higher-resolution at 160PPI, but finding video suitable for that resolution can be rather difficult, especially considering that they market it as widescreen yet it fails to follow any standard widescreen format.
Also, the Touch lags behind in its minimal storage space. Higher resolution means more space requirements, something like twice as much in this case. This does of course allow it to win over the Zune in physical thickness; the Zune is hard drive based. However, this also means the highest-ranking Zune has almost four times the storage as the better of the two Touch models.
Finally, the new lineup of Zunes from what I recall is intended more as a refresh than a whole new generation. Microsoft is trying to flesh out more form factors and give more variety with storage and such than was covered by the Zune 30. An important thing to note is that Microsoft intends to backport the new Zunes’ software to the first generation, so that those who purchased the first Zune aren’t missing out.
Personally, I’m rather undecided about which I prefer. the new iPod lineup feels too lackluster, the iPod Touch feels overhyped and too expensive for what it is, and as for the Zune…. well, I’ll wait for SP2. I just got an HTC Hermes for my workplace, and I’ve got to have my fill of playing with that new toy before I consider any dedicated media players.
Piro: wow, I was waiting for someone to point that out. Effectively, you’re right–the new Zunes are directly going up against the iPod Classics and iPod Nanos, with no direct analogues for the iPod Shuffles and iPod Touches. And as far as that is concerned, there’s the WiFi and screen size.
The thing is, just because the big version of the Zune is an analogue for the iPod Classic, that doesn’t mean that they are the models competing with each other. For example, one might be buying for features. In that case, if one wants WiFi capabilities, then the HDD Zune goes head-to-head with the iPod Touch and loses. If I’m looking for HDD capacity, the 80 GB Zune goes head-to-head with the 160 GB iPod Classic and loses. Et cetera. If you want large HDD capacity AND a larger screen or WiFi, then the Zune wins. But other things come into play at the same time, such as the interface, coolness factor, and the software to run stuff, not to mention the DRM on your existing player, and so on. In most, perhaps almost all comparisons, the iPod line wins.
You can’t say the Zune is not competing with the iPod Touch; of course it is. No, MS doesn’t need to match Apple with every product–certainly if they don’t want to win the market, they don’t.
But the iPod line is “lackluster”? And yet you’re attracted to the Zunes, because one would assume you don’t find them lackluster? Interesting tastes there, friend. But each to his own.
Heh, nice call-out. I should probably clarify; I feel that the new iPods are lackluster compared to the previous generation ipods, not in general. I don’t feel the Zunes are particularly beautiful or anything, though I can’t say i find them ugly either (unless we’re talking brown…). Personally I wouldn’t mind having either a Zune or an iPod; they’re both rather interesting toys.
When it comes to comparing the devices, I generally consider the device on a whole rather than a single feature or small set of features. also, unless you’ve got money growing out of your ears, pricing is a vital concern as well. The best of the new Zunes has 80GB storage, wifi support, and a 3.2″ screen, and at least according to a fact sheet I found from a quick google search (which could admittedly be incorrect) it will be priced at $250USD, the pre-drop price of the original Zune. [http://www.zunethoughts.com/news/show/23174/0/1/2]
Comparing to the iPod lineup, the Touch comes with 16 GB for $400. It has wifi, a large high-resolution touch-sensitive screen, etc. But touch-sensitivity is superfluous as far as I am concerned, and the device storage is not expandable in any way (as far as I am aware; please correct me if I am mistaken). Personally I have a hard time justifying the price for the featureset. Sure, you’re paying for the touch and the bigger, higher-res screen, but I can easily live without them to save $150.
Meanwhile, the iPod classic maxes at 160 GB which is clearly far superior to the high-end Zune, but for the most part it’s still the same old iPod. Sure, there’s a new-ish interface, there’s cover flow, but once again it’s superficial. from a device standpoint, I feel the iPod classic and the new Zunes aren’t too far from being on level ground; the Classic has much more space and a smaller screen with the same pixel count (thus higher PPI resolution), while the Zune has wifi, a larger screen, and is almost half the price. I’m not entirely certain the extra 80GB is worth $100 and a smaller screen.
On a somewhat unrelated note, I have to say I’m somewhat disappointed that apple dropped the glossy white ipod for the anodized aluminum. I rather liked it. Of course, I had the same reaction when they released the mini, and updated the nano…
Anyway. I’d have to say that if you really wanted my personal opinion on what PMP i’d like to own the most, it’d be one of the Zen Vision models, mainly for the fact that I would never have to use iTunes or the Zune software to sync with them, and they have much wider format support.
Well, if wireless syncing or 3-play sharing with other few-and-far-between Zune owners does it for you, then the Zune is your choice. The question, however, is what the players do with the WiFi they have. The iPod uses WiFi to purchase music and surf the web.
For me, wireless syncing is nice but mostly redundant, as I would be charging my player a lot more often than I’d be syncing. The wireless syncing would be good with a phone, where contacts and calendar data would be something I would want to sync on the fly, but with just a music player, it would be mostly unused.
As for the 3-play sharing, I cannot imagine that being useful unless I had a pre-arranged group of people I shared music with–in which case, wireless sharing would only be a minor convenience anyway. Seriously, thinking of all the situations where I use my digital player around other people who use theirs, I find it hard to imagine any time when sharing would take place–and that’s not even counting how hard it would be to find fellow Zune owners. I just can’t see this kind of sharing being practical, without (a) Zune dominance of the market so everyone is using one, and (b) popular predisposition to sharing music with others. Neither exists.
Therefore, I see WiFi on the Zune, as it exists, to be virtually worthless.
WiFi on the iPod Touch, however, is something I would use all the time. Probably not to buy music in my case, though I can see that as being way more usable and used than 3-play sharing, and I would probably use it from time to time myself. And it probably will prompt more legitimate buying as opposed to illegal downloading, as people would buy stuff on an urge, right there wherever they are, and be willing to drop 99 cents instead of waiting to go home and download it there.
But the other feature, web browsing… well, forget about it, that’s the game right there. Maybe not everyone would want to surf the web from a mobile device, but I can imagine using it all the time.
As for capacity, maybe I’m strange or something, but I don’t consider my 3000-track-plus music collection to be small, yet it would all fit on the 16GB iPod with room for several TV shows or a few movies at a time; having to switch them all the time would not bug me, as I would not store them on the device long-term anyway. Plus I would probably leave the least-used half of my music behind anyway. 16GB is not too small for me. 8GB would be tight, but over that and you get to a point where you can do quite well.
And I just can’t leave your “larger screen” mention behind. EVen with the comparison to a 2″-screen, the resolution is the same–the larger screen does not mean better quality, it just means you can hold it a bit farther from your face. And a 3.5″ screen with double the resolution… WiFi that does stuff you want instead of being mostly useless… the ability to use a keyboard and surf the web and use a much better interface and so forth and so on… All of that is worth a lot.
But as I said, it’s a personal choice. If web browsing and touch screens and buying over WiFi and a better-resolution screen and so forth are not important to you, then maybe the Zune is better for you.
But from how sales are going, most people prefer to drop the extra cash for the 16GB iPod Touch.
Indeed, the Zune’s WiFi is not a particularly major draw; it’s more along the lines of a voice in the back of my head going “what will they do with that in the future, and what can i hack it to MAKE it do now…”
Admittedly, the Zune’s wireless sharing capabilities seem a bit premature; While the Zune is slowly gaining market share (already number 2 to apple’s number 1) it’s not nearly enough to actually form any sort of ‘social’ as far as Zune owners are concerned. It probably should have waited a few generations. I’m sure the folks at Redmond are completely oblivious of this fact, though. Meanwhile, I’m sort of torn about the web-browsing-on-a-mobile-device thing. I mean, I’m sure the situation is better with the larger screen on the Touch/iPhone, but for me, I can’t really find uses for the browser on my Hermes, so I have to wonder if I’d fare any better on the Touch.
And yes, I realize that the larger screen with the same resolution does not mean better quality; but that “can hold it farther from your face” thing is at least somewhat important to me. Screens as small as these can benefit from even the smallest of physical size increases, IMHO, even if the quality doesn’t change. This is especially important to me because a lot of my video is imported stuff, and I hate having to squint to read subtitles.
Meanwhile, storage space is a hugely important consideration for me, as I have quite a collection of both music and video (I use my computer exclusively as my media center), and am a bit of a stickler for encoding quality, so the files tend to be rather large… As it stands now, the music alone that I have stored on my system easily breaks 30GB (Of course, part of this is the fact that a great portion of it is 320kbps MP3s…), and unlike you, I really rather hate having to switch out media. I like being able to play what I want, when I want, where I want. Even if it’s a somewhat obscure tune that I only listen to once a month or something, it bugs the heck out of me if I have a sudden urge to play it while I’m out, and I can’t. I guess I’m spoiled. In any case, if Apple had given the Touch a bigger drive, I would be quite a bit more eager to get one.. but i suppose they were more concerned with making it thinner than giving it more space.
Oh right, I intended-but-forgot-to mention, it’s quite obvious that people are going to eat up the Touch like candy, as 1) it’s an iPod, and 2) it has the ‘new technology’ that everyone hyped so much in the iPhone; i.e. high-res multitouch screen. People are sheep when it comes to gadgets, they’ll get anything that’s new and has enough hype. Multitouch and the big-ish screen are great, yeah, but until they make one on which I can actually fit all or even most of my media, it’ll still only be a mere novelty.
Piro: Just one last comment… the Zune is only #2 in the market if you define “the market” as limited to 30GB HDD-based players, or some other esoteric counting system MS dreamed up to make it seem like they were more successful than they actually were; the “Zune #2” story is a Ballmer claim made for some time and has long been debunked as misleading. If you include all MP3 players, Zune has something like 2% of the market, nothing more. Look at Amazon’s best-selling list and you’ll see three different SanDisk models listed higher than the first Zune (that first Zune being the heavily-discounted, soon-to-be-discontinued Zune 1.0). There’s a fair chance that even Creative Zen is not far behind the Zune. Including all MP3 players, the Zune is doing damned poorly, considering the massive R&D, sales, and PR engine MS has driving it.
Heh true, I didn’t quite consider that. Point for marketing spin.