From OLED to Tegra: Five Myths of the Zune HD - Page 10

"The radically different manufacturing process of OLEDs lends itself to many advantages over flat-panel displays made with LCD technology. Since OLEDs can be printed onto any suitable substrate using an inkjet printer or even screen printing technologies,[43] they can theoretically have a significantly lower cost than LCDs or plasma displays.[citation needed] Printing OLEDs onto flexible substrates opens the door to new applications such as roll-up displays and displays embedded in fabrics or clothing.
OLEDs enable a greater range of colors, gamut, brightness, contrast (both DR and static) and viewing angle than LCDs because OLED pixels directly emit light. OLED pixel colors appear correct and unshifted, even as the viewing angle approaches 90 degrees from normal. LCDs use a backlight and cannot show true black, while an off OLED element produces no light and consumes no power. Energy is also wasted in LCDs because they require polarizers that filter out about half of the light emitted by the backlight. Additionally, color filters in most color LCDs filter out two-thirds of the light; technology to separate backlight colors by diffraction has not been widely adopted.[citation needed]
OLEDs also have a faster response time than standard LCD screens. Whereas the fastest LCD displays currently have a 2ms response time (manufacturer's quote), an OLED can have less than 0.01ms response time.[44]"
- From wikipedia, and you can travel there yourself to look at the citations.

and as far as the display's life being "too short," how many people still use their mp3 players from five years ago, which is the average time it takes to show any degradation in screen quality (even blues).


point one from fanboys = FAIL.


should i go on, or will you guys just go to the store and see how much pretty and responsive it is. don't worry. your head wont explode since these are all just TOYS, but grab your ipod touch and a zune hd, turn them both to the side, watch which one works faster and smoother.

nobody cares what you pick, zune or ipod, but i want competition so apple will get off their asses and start innovating again. It took microsoft 3 years to catch up on something 8 years in the making. apple needs to get a move on.

I'm curious how you think that the Zune HD has "caught up" with the Touch/iPhone platform.

As I've pointed out, it appears to be designed primarily as a PMP. As such, it has a nice screen and an extremely frenetic interface. How else has it "caught up"?

I'm pretty sure old Palm OS had more apps around, and probably less useless, farting/burping/shake the baby garbage. Didn't help.

On the other hand, I know handful of people with iPhone and they all purchased it because it is nice phone/PDA to use out of the box. Apps are way down the WHY? list - from my experience at least.

we are talking about mp3 players aren't we?

sound quality is a wash between the two.
video quality is much better on the zune, if you haven't noticed yet.
the interface for playing music is an opinion, so can't really rate that.
can plug zune into anyone hdtv and watch rented hd movies or tv shows with them, or by myself (if you dont already own the most popular gaming console-- if you do own it, then that feature isn't too big of a deal).
can click one of my favorite artists and listen to any similar artist using zune pass, which is years ahead of genius, and quite a bit ahead of pandora and last.fm


don't care about internet or apps. people have phones and computers for that crap.
I don't know about other people (because I don't like other people), but I use my media player for playing media.

True that. I am surprised so many people are downplaying good old radio. I'm lucky I am not using public transport - have company car - but having a choice between radio, CD and iPhone, I'm finding myself listening to radio almost 100% of time. You can always find a couple of wake up, feel good morning shows on local radio stations that offer right mix of music and talks, and some of them are genuinely funny.

If I'd have to ride a bus or train going to work and back, I'd feel more than a bit limited with my iPhone lacking a radio...

Yeah. Why would anyone want a pocketable general purpose computer when they could get far less functionality for the same money?

Apps are crap. The future belongs to having lots of different specialized devices.

The Zune isn't a bad media player.

No multi-national corporation raking in hundreds of millions (or more) per year is going to make bad product, but they very frequently make the wrong product.

Well, I certainly didn't ask him to write the article, you would have to ask the admins about that. But it is obviously of interest to the people here.

I'm also not negating the usefulness of the HD tuner. It's just that more than a few people have asked me if it's a high definition tuner, and it's anything but that. Sure, it may be static free in good areas, but the quality of the audio is still poor to fair. This isn't arguable, just look up the transmission rates. If you love 128 Kp/s MP3's, then you might love this in a car, where its a noisy environment. But over a good pair of cans it doesn't sound that good.

For a basic tuner therefor, it's ok, but the company that has come up with this is misleading people with the name. This has been discussed by people in the radio industry to death already, as well as in the audio magazines.

I'm not slamming subscription services, just saying that most people don't want them. That's the truth. People have every opportunity to use them, but they don't. They are losing subscribers. These are all facts. If you enjoy it then that's great, but it's not getting MS much in the way of buyers for their products.

well, they can get in the way, but we all know that Prince never lets facts get in the way of his rants

well, my phone is my "pocketable" general purpose computer, so i want a media player that sounds and looks great, not something that is a worse version of my phone. So, your statement is terrible, because everyone posting on here will have a phone and a media player (since the iphone isnt something most would want to use as an actual media player), and I would rather have the better MEDIA PLAYER.


jeez, this guy is thick, isn't he?

I can't argue with what you're saying, because it's possible too. This is one reason why I was somewhat disappointed in that Apple didn't have OLEDs this year, but I wasn't too disappointed, or surprised. I was hoping for OLEDs, because when they work well, they will be a very good addition.

But going to an OLED screen is a proposition that manufacturers must consider in light of how their product is used.

For example;

If a product is mostly a phone, it's likely that even with some multimedia features, the phone won't have the screen on for too long during the day. So lifetime, and battery consumption aren't much of an issue.

But if the phone (or player) is going to be heavily used for browsing, games, books, programs, then it might be on for several hours each day. That's different.

Also, if it will be used for high quality video games etc, that must be taken into account as well.

If used in quick spurts, an OLED screen is dandy. but if used for long times, and with bright images, the screen heats up more, and lifetime is shortened. It gets dimmer over time.

Heat and lifetime are proportionally related. (O)LEDs can be run much brighter than they are, but their lifetime drops significantly, so max brightness is limited to a fraction of where it can go.

The way LED and OLED life is measured is different from the way it's measured with other displays (except for plasma, which is sorta rated a similar way). most displays are rated until dead. But (O)LEDs are rated for either a 25% drop in brightness, or a 50% drop in brightness. Without knowing which is being used for a particular screen, we can't tell how it rates against another screen, no matter what it is.

So if an (O)LED screen is rated for 15,000 use, what does that mean? If it's for 25% drop, it could have a 25,000 life at 50% drop. but if it's rated for a 50% drop at 15,000 hours, then it might actually be 9,000 at 25%. There are standards, but they aren't equally applied.

but these ratings are at some specific temperature, which has to be known, because the life ratings change as we change the test temps.

That's why I, and others, wonder about some of the numbers we see for these screens.

And has been mentioned the colors age differently. Right now, it's the green that ages the quickest, followed by the blue. So how is the screen rated? Is it an average of the colors, or is it the shortest lived, or the longest lived?

Confusing, eh?

Meanwhile efficiency is increasing for all types of LEDs at a quick rate. As I mentioned earlier, it's expected to be twice as great in a year. That's major. Not only will battery usage drop, but the display won't get as warm at any given brightness, which either means longer lifetime, or brighter displays, or a bit of both. They are also increasing the life of the green color significantly.

I would assume that if Apple chooses to go OLED next year with a newer and better display, MS will too.

As it has been said before, the point of the article is to analyze the technology behind the claims being made about the zune. it's not analyzing how it's implemented (e.g. a review). Which explains why he did not go into the strengths of the zune.

The zune is touting the OLED and the Tegra as technology that gives the zune a significant advantage. the writer is showing how they are not intrinsically superior and possibly flawed. and yes, as a result, he is questioning the core advantages of the zune

Really, it's not bias if his thesis is overinflated claims of the zune based on its technology.

Now, if he had feigned to write an article as a review of the zune and then went on a bent against it, that would be bias.

The writer wrote on the topic at hand; should he stray off topic to talk about good things about the zune just to make people happy who want him to play nice?

yes, the topic itself is biased against microsoft. if you're wondering why, look at the banner at the top of the page.

get a life. classic.

If we were just talking about mp3 players, why would we throw $300 at a device when others can do it for cheaper?

and if we're just talking about mp3 devices, why did you bring up video?

these devices offer much more than mp3 capability. it's these features that drive consumer spending habits.

you may not care about internet or apps, but millions of others do. This fact either makes them or you irrelevant.


said the pot to the kettle. Do tell why most of us wouldn't want to use the iphone as an actual media player.

Don't say storage capacity. the ipod classic can do the trick and the iphone does everything else.

Is your pocketable general purpose computer an iphone? if not, the ipod touch is not a worse version of your phone.

if you do have an iphone, then why would you want to buy an ipod touch? it's not marketed for you. the fact is, the ipod touch offers many of the features and the experience of the iphone without a phone/contract. Not the other way around.

Heh, yes. I was wondering how many more "Micro$hits" are supposed to happen before moderator does something about that, too - I've seen them more around here than you can stuff into 64GB iPod memory.

While this is a fan site and bias is expected, some behaviour standards should be respected. And forced.

Hmm... it will never turn off loyal Apple supporters, but I think among that big Windows market share there are many users who use iPod not because it is Apple, but because it is better for them than competition.

Since so many of them don't have real brand loyalty, I think they can easily turn to the other brand on their next gadget refresh if other brand delivers.

So at this point it is a question of will MS be able to deliver competitive ecosystem with their new media player? Of course apple has big head-start with their iPod/iPhone/iTunes dynasty, but MS can pull a few good cards out with smart XBOX integration (something Apple simply can't right now) and with good enough player and accompanying desktop software/music store, they can nibble into iPod territory quite nicely.

To take market by storm they will not, but to gain market share significantly (compared to present one)..? We'll see.

It is never too late if the product is spot on. If Apple hasn't taught us that, noone has.


Different price segment, really.


Only for Apple fans. I know only 3 iPod users total (all with Windows computers) and all 3 are excited about Zune HD. Outside these walls, there is not that much love toward Apple and what it stands for (or is perceived to).


Not sure what are you referring to. If it is about Mac/iTunes/iPod/iLife/i... integration, don't forget majority of iPod users are actually Windows users.

[QUOTE]5) US-only (for an indefinite period of time)/[QUOTE]

Considering unavailability of Palm Pre is major reason I have an iPhone, I agree with you on that. Question is - how long is it going to last..?

I had Palm based smartphones for years before I bought my 3G last September. There were about 25,000 apps for the Palms, but many didn't work with the newer phones or OS's, and many didn't work with the older phones and OS's, so maybe a few thousand for each phone model in a generation.

I didn't look for fart apps, so I can't speak to those, but many apps were pretty bad, and many were useless. The average cost of an app was about $20, with a fair number close to $40, some much more, but there were a good number at $10, or even as low as $5 for a small game or trivial utility. Some free ones as well.

Everyone I know with iPhones and iPod Touches has at least a half dozen apps, and most have more, a few such as myself have a lot more. We're talking about a lot of people here, several dozen. I doubt we're that far off the average.

I think if you're going to call people "thick" you should append it to a post that doesn't suggest you're a fucking idiot, yeah?

iPhone users absolutely use their phones as a media player, as well as a pocketable computer. That's, you know, pretty much what it was designed to be.

Many Touch users want that same functionality, but without the phone app or the phone charges.

I have no idea what you mean by declaring your phone your pocketable computer (why the scare quotes on pocketable, I wonder) but go on to make some confused assertions about inferior media players (compared to the Zune, I guess). The Touch is the iPhone without the phone app, so not seeing how that would make it "worse" than what you're already doing with your phone, but I suspect you don't know what you mean either and are just sort of making combative noises with a Zune-ward slant. Or something.

At any rate, I'd rather have a single device that did a lot of things. Modest improvements in image quality and battery life wouldn't be enough to tip the scales for me, since the upside of being able to a ton of other stuff with the same device would carry the day.

I really doubt that the dedicated MP3/video player has much a future, any more than people carry around transistor radios.

Well then, honestly, you either never go anywhere, or you live in a very small village. I see iPods everywhere I go, and that includes other countries. You can't get away from them. And considering that almost all iPod owners are also Windows users, your statement about no love for Apple other than here is off base, also considering that Apple has sold more than 225 million of these things around the world. Those people obviously have love for at least one of Apple's products and the way they work.

Why do people come up with statements like this when it obviously isn't true?

This is kind of cute, from the same interview with the Zune marketing guy I cited before:


This same argument is being made in this thread-- all of a sudden doing less is a feature, because additional functionality is "distracting." Apps are "crowding in", apparently against my will, possibly tossing my music into a ditch.

This is why I never watch movies on my computer-- all that other stuff is just too distracting and I keep thinking of all the apps lurking around, just waiting to pounce.

I wish someone would make a laptop that only played movies and music, but still cost as much as the one that did everything else. Because of the laser focus.

What you meant to say is "Microsoft made a whole lot of stew without much meat".

Here's an early review of the new Zune 4.0 software:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1D8oIC2gfg

Interesting for what it is, but he isn't showing anything of real interest. The video has some problems with stopping in the beginning.

Prince McLean is an absolute genius! He caused so much trouble with this article that there's now going to be SOOOO many more people visiting AI! (including me )

haha, this guy should calm down. we are talking about toys here. the end of that post contradicts the beginning, though.

first the defense for having a device that can't do it all, then at the end slamming a device without all of the features.
well, I'm sure all of the people i know with ipod nanos and classics would have to disagree with you, and some people like to leave their media player in the car, hooked up to their audio system, or want to use a media player while working out and not drain their cell phone battery. don't give me any bull about the iphone's battery because I've had one (original) and my girlfriend(3g) has to charge hers every night just using it for push email, calls, and the occasional facebook. calls take up a lot of battery and, personally, when i use my phone for business, battery runs down.


But take my opinion with a grain of salt since i don't have any of these. haha, i just use my phone as, well, a phone and my car has a hard drive for music already. I just don't like to demote competition because it has a different name.

and, you know, if you have a life, that iphone wont last all day. I mean I guess it does if you don't call anybody, and nobody calls you. I currently have an android phone, and yes, I have to charge this one every night too, but that is expected. If I wanted to listen to music while jogging though, I think i would buy the best music player... and maybe video player (you know, for breaks ). haha, but i don't.
the missus just ordered a blue zune hd though (ahh, proof they can coexist).

oh, and "pocketable" is quoted because it isn't a word.

there wasn't much response about oled screens though. I mean, does anybody disagree with me? the first point in the article is completely wrong... right? wikipedia? actual sources?

What a hilariously one sided fanboy fueld article that was.

I listened to MacBreak Weekly on my iPhone this morning and surprise surprise, ALL the Mac heads who host the show and had used the Zune HD absolutely loved it. The apparently amazing screen, great UI, and Zune Pass were all picked out as stand out features.

I live in the UK so for me the Zune may as well not exist, but if it was available here I'd be seriously considering one.

At least the Zune software runs very fast and can actually monitor your music folders unlike slowtunes.

Sorry, but if you really think that iPod audio out is "just as good as anything out there", then you either 1) don't own a 5 figure audio system or 2) Don't care what it sounds like.

Yes, the iPod is good enough for most consumers, but that is simply because they do not know what good sound quality is. They hear music, but don't really listen to it. Look at home audio. People spend THOUSANDS on HD tvs and buy horrible HTIBs for their audio.

Is it just me, or is melgross repsonsible for at least 150 of the 400+ posts on this thread?

Is it just me, or have you been here all of ten minutes?

Huh, I guess I'll stick with my Kuro plasma instead of switching to the OLED based XBR's when they come out.

This was an interesting and informative article. Still, I really couldn't help but notice a very anti-Microsoft viewpoint throughout it.

I've seen how the Zune has not been anywhere near as popular as the iPod. I'm sure we could all say that. I've also talked to people who own Zune players, and all of them have said the same thing--that they were not satisfied in some way or another. Most of them thought the player hardware was good but the software that came with it was not so good.

iFixit did a teardown of this new Zune, and I've got to admit that the Zune team did a good job on the hardware engineering. In particular, it appears to be possible to take the thing apart without violence or a high risk of doing irreversible damage to it. As much as I like the iPod Touch platform, servicing one is more difficult than it should be.

I agree completely with this article's author on the state of the Windows Mobile software. I've used that since it was called Windows CE. One thing about Windows CE/Mobile that has always bugged me is how Microsoft left it up to the device OEM to decide if you were ever going to get software upgrades to fix bugs or move to new versions. This sort of thing is a joke to put it mildly. Early devices usually had non-flashable ROMs, so any update had to come by installing new ROMs into the unit, if your manufacturer ever offered them.

Later device came closer to getting this right, by including flashable ROMs. But you still had to have the support of your OEM to get a new a release of Windows Mobile software or any updates. This was also ridiculous, epsecially for devices like Toshiba's ill-fated E740 that never even actually worked and were abandoned before software that could let them work was developed.

Apple has really gotten that part of the iTouch family of devices right. It doesn't matter which one you have, getting the latest software is at most a matter of a few dollars and maybe fifteen minutes (most of the time).

YOU LIE !!l!

Far too many fanboy naysayers here - you appear to be running scared. Why not buy a new ipod touch with a camera that doesn't work in the dark.

My point was that people were upset because the iPod touch doesn't have a camera. If a camera is what they want, the ZuneHD isn't for them either. If they want the other features that the ZuneHD has to offer, that's fine, but that isn't what they've been saying they want.

Reading zome early reviews of the Zune, it doesn't seem that microsoft has a major interest in actually competing directly with the iPod touch. The Zune is first and foremost a PMP, while the iPod touch is more of a portable computer. There isn't going to be a major app push from Microsoft for a long time, if ever. Apps are relegated to a menu option on the home screen, instead of displayed prominently on the home screen as with the touch. The narrower screen makes web browsing less effective, but works fine for music and movies. The ZuneHD is really aimed at something like the Samsung P3, which it is superior to in many ways.

If you want a touchscreen device primarily for your music (or movies), the ZuneHD will probably work quite well for you, and it does have a couple great ways to discover new music that the Touch will never offer, but you have to be prepared to give up a lot of functionality that a device such as the iPod touch has.

Unfortunately it appears that Microsoft left out some simple refinements such as physical volume controls and always present music controls in their media player. Overall it seems to fit in with Microsofts current mindset, which is good and bad. Microsoft is great at making a slick looking UI. Look no further than Windows Media Center, Windows 7 or of course the ZuneHD. They also pack their sofware full of features and the ZuneHD continues this with 720p output, OLED screen and HD radio. Where they stumble is in functionality and ease of use. The Windows Media Center remote is a nightmare (what button do I press now, and where is it?) and WMC has far too many many menu items that detract from a potentially excellent product. Furthermore WMC runs in 64 bit mode by default while WMP runs in 32 bit mode, unsuspecting users will be surprised when a video plays in WMP but wont open in WMC (because you don't have the proper 64 bit codec for the file, but you do have the 32 bit one). Windows 7/Vista's document flip looks pretty, but its functionality pales in comparision to something like expose. Again the ZuneHD seems to thrive on visual flair, even at the expense of functionality. Menu based navigation and hidden controls really work against it here, at least in my opinion. It is amusing that Apple is often considered to provide form over function, yet I see it in Microsoft products alot. Visual flair too often gets in the way of actual usability, which is another reason why Apple started using the moniker "it just works".

I really don't see any reason why we should believe anything that someone who just pops up in here, who we don't know, and who claims to do reviews for - what, we don't know, should be listened to. People here know who I am, and they know my background.

Who are you?

Yes, I post a lot, so people know me.

And you're what, exactly? A nobody to us!

Give some reason as to why we should care about what you say.

You can skip your snarky remarks. You haven't earned the right to make them.

Wow! What a helpful remark.

Why not buy a Zune, also without a camera, and no programs, and a crappy browser.

From the folks at Gizmodo (bunch of Apple lovers too, I think their entire staff uses Macs):

http://gizmodo.com/5360126/zune-hd-r...yline=true&s=i