And despite the power savings attributed to OLED's backlight-free design, OLEDs still use more power than LCD displays most of the time because the OLED technology consumes power based on how bright the image it is displaying is. Essentially, OLED is the backlight.
Sony and Microsoft try to compensate by giving their OLED devices a dark, mostly black user interface. Unless you will exclusively be using your Zune HD to watch gothic movies in the dark, the screen will be gobbling up more power than an LCD. This is particularly the case if you want to browse the web, which involves a lot of white space. Showing a white background, OLED consumes as much as 300% of the power of an LCD. Any colors that rely upon those those fragile blue pixels are particularly power inefficient.
This is just out of curiosity, but can I see the sources for these claims? Everything I have researched so far on OLED would suggest it consumes less power when compared to LCD at a smiliar brightness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
And again, because OLED doesn't use any ambient light to brighten its picture, as LCD does, 100% of the image comes from emitted light output, which requires a bigger drain on the battery. For this reason, reviewers of other OLED products have expressed puzzlement about why the supposedly efficient OLED technology didn't translate into better battery life in actual use, as did the Register when looking at a Samsung s8000 Jet:
"Considering it's got an energy-saving OLED screen, we were disappointed with the battery life of the Jet. Perhaps the powerful processor puts some extra drain on the juice, but the promised 180 minutes of talk time and 250 hours' standby translated into a barely a day of moderate use."
But that wasn't the reason though, in fact your own source for that article says the OLED saves power, they suggested it was the more powerful CPU that caused the battery life to be drained, in fact it was the sentence right after the part you quoted. Curious, why did you leave that important tidbit out about the CPU being thought of as the cause instead of the oled?
But the main point is Microsoft needs to get their head out of their asses and stop internet explorer. with all of that money they have, they should just buy mozilla and let it be a separate company, but reap the benefits. I don't see a downside to that scenario, unless they f***ed up Firefox too.
Your post is (unintentionally) funny and offensive at the same time.
1. Funny because you obviously know nothing about either Mozilla or business or the history of IE and Mozilla (which inherited part of the Netscape assets after MS crushed Netscape in its cradle).
For one thing, MS can't "buy" Mozilla. It has no "stock" and is a non-profit organization, not a for-profit corporation. Further, Mozilla exists BECAUSE it wants to provide alternatives to proprietary, closed software - it's part of a movement, not a "company" as such (although it does derive some income from corporations to support its efforts, e.g., from Google).
Firefox add-ons are also free and nearly all developed by those sympathetic to the ideals of the Mozilla community - and this is part of why there are so many compared to those available for Safari and IE, although some add-on developers also target multiple browsers, e.g., X Marks (formerly FoxMarks).
open-source software is a term you might want to google to get a little basic education because it's an important part of the computing universe you've obviously never looked at with roots going back at least 40 years.
So no way. Period. The idea is a contradiction in terms.
2. Watch your language here. I know that word, and I use it, but I watch where. This is a family friendly site with lots of young Mac fans - probably many under 12.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Most of these screens are AMOLED. I don't know if MS's is because it's too early and I haven't read about it.
It's not too different or more difficult to make. AMOLED just means Active Matrix. It takes less current to drive, because it's always on. This doesn't mean that a black pixel has current going through it all the time. OLEDS (called passive) need more overall current, but it's supplied in large pulses. Regular OLEDS have the current turned off when not being used.
The large pulses cause the LEDs to heat up more, reducing life.
They pretty much have the same performance. It's the way they're driven thats different, the OLEDS are the same.
AMOLEDS cost a bit more, but as they'll likely to be used more, the cost will drop faster.
But unless you're simply saying that no small screen browser can ever be good because of the small screen, and that's your major consideration, well, then I guess your logic works for you.
Every platform must be taken on is own merits when it's much different in form factor from others.
So we can directly compare Windows, Linux, and Mac OS because they are all (large) computer OS's. Therefor the browsers can also be compared directly.
But with a small mobile device (I'm not sure what to call the iPhone iPod Touch plus every other small and similar device environment other than a small mobile device, or platform) environment things are different.
Safari on the Apple small mobile platform is great for that platform. So far, the best. If you think that's it's impossible for that to be good just because it's small, then there's no point of discussion that you can join in with, because you are out in left field about this.
You just have to accept these small devices for what they are.
This is just out of curiosity, but can I see the sources for these claims? Everything I have researched so far on OLED would suggest it consumes less power when compared to LCD at a smiliar brightness.
Show some of those sources then, because that's not true.
Power consumed, unlike an LCD is proportional to the brightness.
An LCD has a backlight that is always on (except for some new models with LEDs that can be turned on or off depending on the brightness, such as Samsung's new LED backlit LCD Tvs. but computer monitors don't use that tech.)
OLEDS turn up or down in brightness depending on the image.
So when the screen is almost all white, a common occurrence in browsing many informational sites, and any programs such as book readers with a lot of text, the screen consumes several times as much power an an LCD + backlight. But when the screen is mostly black, the LCD consumes several times as much power as the OLED.
In order to know what the power being consumed is, you must know the average level the screen is outputting. This is affected on the colors as well, as the red, green, and blue OLEDS consume different amounts of power, and so the prominent colors in the screen also affect that.
In addition, temperature affects the power levels in OLEDS. The higher the ambient temperature, the more power they will consume. So on a hot day they ill use more power than in a wintery one.
Also, if the device is used for a long time, the heat it produces affects OLED power draw.
So far, no one has come up with a valid screen power draw usage test for consumer devices.
This makes the battery usage ratings for the Zune HD difficult to determine, despite MS's numbers. Was the screen off during some of those tests? For the video, what was the average grey levels during the tests? Was it 18%, or 30%?
Quote:
But that wasn't the reason though, in fact your own source for that article says the OLED saves power, they suggested it was the more powerful CPU that caused the battery life to be drained, in fact it was the sentence right after the part you quoted. Curious, why did you leave that important tidbit out about the CPU being thought of as the cause instead of the oled?
But, again, as you can see from what I've said, that we really don't have a good standard way to measure this.
Measure it one way, and you will get more efficiency. Measure it another, and efficiency falls drastically.
Here's one attempt to give an idea of how this works.
Your post is (unintentionally) funny and offensive at the same time.
1. Funny because you obviously know nothing about either Mozilla or business or the history of IE and Mozilla (which inherited part of the Netscape assets after MS crushed Netscape in its cradle).
For one thing, MS can't "buy" Mozilla. It has no "stock" and is a non-profit organization, not a for-profit corporation. Further, Mozilla exists BECAUSE it wants to provide alternatives to proprietary, closed software - it's part of a movement, not a "company" as such (although it does derive some income from corporations to support its efforts, e.g., from Google).
Firefox add-ons are also free and nearly all developed by those sympathetic to the ideals of the Mozilla community - and this is part of why there are so many compared to those available for Safari and IE, although some add-on developers also target multiple browsers, e.g., X Marks (formerly FoxMarks).
open-source software is a term you might want to google to get a little basic education because it's an important part of the computing universe you've obviously never looked at with roots going back at least 40 years.
So no way. Period. The idea is a contradiction in terms.
2. Watch your language here. I know that word, and I use it, but I watch where. This is a family friendly site with lots of young Mac fans - probably many under 12.
Haha, calm down. Buy is a term that I use loosely. Basically they can pull a google and take something open source and slap their name on it (of course, subtly making it their own) and pull profits from it (charging for add-ons, and the like). I see it as very possible. Look at android. while you don't charge for the software itself, you charge for everything else. boom. done.
Haha, calm down. Buy is a term that I use loosely. Basically they can pull a google and take something open source and slap their name on it (of course, subtly making it their own) and pull profits from it (charging for add-ons, and the like). I see it as very possible. Look at android. while you don't charge for the software itself, you charge for everything else. boom. done.
But it's cute how upset you got.
It's amazing what people don't know about what they're commenting on, whether you do or not. I do get upset about the f bomb in this space, but otherwise was trying to add a little historical perspective on some issues for noobs and the clueless before they buy into a notion which is nonsensical on its face.
You are correct, though, that MS has a history of trying to co-opt open source efforts and turn them into proprietary products. I remember them trying to hi-jack Java with some "extensions," and then there's their XML-derived new Office file formats like DocX.
But the large and committed FireFox community would give plenty of push-back if MS ever tried to release some superset of the Mozilla code base that would lead to website browsing that couldn't be done in the original FF - and they'd find friends in governments, in the EU if not the US. Plus I doubt MS has any intent to move in that direction. Silverlight shows they're still choking on their own dog food in thinking about the web.
It's amazing what people don't know about what they're commenting on, whether you do or not. I do get upset about the f bomb in this space, but otherwise was trying to add a little historical perspective on some issues for noobs and the clueless before they buy into a notion which is nonsensical on its face.
You are correct, though, that MS has a history of trying to co-opt open source efforts and turn them into proprietary products. I remember them trying to hi-jack Java with some "extensions," and then there's their XML-derived new Office file formats like DocX.
But the large and committed FireFox community would give plenty of push-back if MS ever tried to release some superset of the Mozilla code base that would lead to website browsing that couldn't be done in the original FF - and they'd find friends in governments, in the EU if not the US. Plus I doubt MS has any intent to move in that direction. Silverlight shows they're still choking on their own dog food in thinking about the web.
And, yes, I am all about cute....
What wasn't cute though, was your statement about many people here likely being under 12. Mature people don't make those kinds of statements about whole groups of people they obviously don't know.
Okay, to correct some information in the original posting...
I have a Zune HD and 2nd gen iPod Touch... A summary of differences...
* The OLED screen on the Zune HD is amazing. It is quite bright, and very vibrant. When I held my ZHD up to my Touch, the display on the Touch looked, well, pathetic. It hadn't ever been so obvious how much backligh seeps through until I compared it to a device without a backlight. And as a result of the backlight, colors on the iPod look very washed out when compared to to the Zune.
* Brightness on the OLED is NOT a problem. At equivalent brightness levels (the Zune only has Low, Mid, and High) the Zune's display is at least as bright as the iPod's.
* I have been trying for several days to take a picture that shows a decent comparison shot. But none come out quite right. The white balance of the two displays is quite different (ZHD tracks in at D6500, while the iPod Touch is closer to D5000), so either the iPod's display looks yellow, or the Zune's display looks blue when they are in the same shot. And for some reason the Zune's display shows up a little bit blurry in pictures, which I can't explain. When you see the display IRL it is extremely crisp and sharp.
* The Apps on the Zune don't even begin to compare to those on the iPod Touch. iPod wins hands down here.
* The browser on the Zune is better than expected. It is a hair sluggish while a page is loading, but once the page is loading the Zune zooms and pans a lot faster than the iPod. Page rendering is fine, but it seems like a substantial number of web sites are serving up their mobile version to the Zune where they serve the full version to the iPod, so direct comparisons aren't really possible. On sites that serve the full version, though, the Zune page rendering seems fine. One obvious lacking on the Zune is that only one page can be open at a time. It doesn't attempt to mimick the multi-page capability of the Touch.
* The user interface on the Zune is much snappier and responsive than that of the iPod Touch. Where the iPod is rendering page transitions at roughly 10 frames per second, the Zune is easily doing 30 fps or more. Scrolling on the Zune is also at least 30 fps, where the iPod is less. The iPod Touch never really felt at all sluggish to me until I compared it to the Zune's interface.
* The experience of listening to music on the Zune is WAY better than the iPod Touch. Between having a more logical and flexible layout of the menu structure for finding music, and the additional features that MS has added to link between artists and provide information (and photos) about the artists in your collection, the Zune provides a much more pleasing experience. And these features are available without the Zune Pass subscription. If you add the Zune Pass subscription, the Zune leaps further ahead because you can not only download but stream any of the music in the Zune catalog in real time. So any track is available at any time so long as you have access to WiFi. And the Zune's Channels feature is a lot cooler than I had eve anticipated. It not only makes music suggestions, but it actually downloads the recommended songs directly to the device automatically so they can play anywhere even without WiFi. Apple ought to be taking notes here.
* Video playback on the Zune is better primarily because of the better screen. It also does a better job of organizing your video collection, because you can manually tag video files as being movies, TV shows, music videos, or other. iTunes doesn't let you do that on your own; the only things tagged this way are the ones you download from the iTunes store. Letting the user catalog their own collection makes it much easier to find your way around.
* The Zune's battery capacity is technically lower than that of the iPod, but it seems to be better at managing it. After two hours of watching video my iPod Touch is dead (my unit could be an anomoly, but it doesn't seem to be). I watched more than 4 hours of video on the Zune HD and the battery meter hadn't fallen past half yet.
* The HD radio is cool, but I have a hard time picking up the HD feeds in my basement. Then again, I can't pick up stereo in my basement on any radio either. When I take the device upstairs or outside, the HD kicks in, and it is definitely clearer than the analog transmission. The primary benefit here is that all static goes away and you get a clean signal, and higher frequencies are much better reproduced in the digital feed.
* One feature on the Zune I find particularly useful is the WiFi syncing. Probably not a big deal for people who are right at their computer all of the time, but I'm not, so it is nice to click a couple options and have the Zune connect to the desktop and download the latest podcast and music updates.
* Another thing I noticed is that the Zune software automatically picks up on changes in files in the music and video folders, and reflects them in the software automatically and virtually instantly. So as I was moving files in and out of my music folders the tracks would instantly appear and/or disappear. It has always bugged me that iTunes doesn't automatically pick up on music or videos that I add to my folders.
* The Zune desktop software is also significantly snapper than iTunes on Windows. And I think I like the design and interface better. It is certainly snazzier and more refined. iTunes looks relatively dated at this point.
So to summarize, for people looking for a device primarily for music and video, the Zune provides a better experience. For people looking to take advantage of the App Store, the iPod Touch can't be touched (hardy, har har). For web browsing, the iPod has a bit of an edge, but it isn't terribly significant.
If someone already has a significant amount of DRM protected content from the iTunes store, there is absolutely no reason to consider the Zune. But if someone doesn't care much about the App Store and their main focus is music, the Zune HD is a pretty good device and worth serious consideration. Since the Zune can play AAC files and MP4 video, the switch isn't too painful.
Okay, to correct some information in the original posting...
I have a Zune HD and 2nd gen iPod Touch... A summary of differences...
* The OLED screen on the Zune HD is amazing. It is quite bright, and very vibrant. When I held my ZHD up to my Touch, the display on the Touch looked, well, pathetic. It hadn't ever been so obvious how much backligh seeps through until I compared it to a device without a backlight. And as a result of the backlight, colors on the iPod look very washed out when compared to to the Zune.
* Brightness on the OLED is NOT a problem. At equivalent brightness levels (the Zune only has Low, Mid, and High) the Zune's display is at least as bright as the iPod's.
* I have been trying for several days to take a picture that shows a decent comparison shot. But none come out quite right. The white balance of the two displays is quite different (ZHD tracks in at D6500, while the iPod Touch is closer to D5000), so either the iPod's display looks yellow, or the Zune's display looks blue when they are in the same shot. And for some reason the Zune's display shows up a little bit blurry in pictures, which I can't explain. When you see the display IRL it is extremely crisp and sharp.
* The Apps on the Zune don't even begin to compare to those on the iPod Touch. iPod wins hands down here.
* The browser on the Zune is better than expected. It is a hair sluggish while a page is loading, but once the page is loading the Zune zooms and pans a lot faster than the iPod. Page rendering is fine, but it seems like a substantial number of web sites are serving up their mobile version to the Zune where they serve the full version to the iPod, so direct comparisons aren't really possible. On sites that serve the full version, though, the Zune page rendering seems fine. One obvious lacking on the Zune is that only one page can be open at a time. It doesn't attempt to mimick the multi-page capability of the Touch.
* The user interface on the Zune is much snappier and responsive than that of the iPod Touch. Where the iPod is rendering page transitions at roughly 10 frames per second, the Zune is easily doing 30 fps or more. Scrolling on the Zune is also at least 30 fps, where the iPod is less. The iPod Touch never really felt at all sluggish to me until I compared it to the Zune's interface.
* The experience of listening to music on the Zune is WAY better than the iPod Touch. Between having a more logical and flexible layout of the menu structure for finding music, and the additional features that MS has added to link between artists and provide information (and photos) about the artists in your collection, the Zune provides a much more pleasing experience. And these features are available without the Zune Pass subscription. If you add the Zune Pass subscription, the Zune leaps further ahead because you can not only download but stream any of the music in the Zune catalog in real time. So any track is available at any time so long as you have access to WiFi. And the Zune's Channels feature is a lot cooler than I had eve anticipated. It not only makes music suggestions, but it actually downloads the recommended songs directly to the device automatically so they can play anywhere even without WiFi. Apple ought to be taking notes here.
* Video playback on the Zune is better primarily because of the better screen. It also does a better job of organizing your video collection, because you can manually tag video files as being movies, TV shows, music videos, or other. iTunes doesn't let you do that on your own; the only things tagged this way are the ones you download from the iTunes store. Letting the user catalog their own collection makes it much easier to find your way around.
* The Zune's battery capacity is technically lower than that of the iPod, but it seems to be better at managing it. After two hours of watching video my iPod Touch is dead (my unit could be an anomoly, but it doesn't seem to be). I watched more than 4 hours of video on the Zune HD and the battery meter hadn't fallen past half yet.
* The HD radio is cool, but I have a hard time picking up the HD feeds in my basement. Then again, I can't pick up stereo in my basement on any radio either. When I take the device upstairs or outside, the HD kicks in, and it is definitely clearer than the analog transmission. The primary benefit here is that all static goes away and you get a clean signal, and higher frequencies are much better reproduced in the digital feed.
* One feature on the Zune I find particularly useful is the WiFi syncing. Probably not a big deal for people who are right at their computer all of the time, but I'm not, so it is nice to click a couple options and have the Zune connect to the desktop and download the latest podcast and music updates.
* Another thing I noticed is that the Zune software automatically picks up on changes in files in the music and video folders, and reflects them in the software automatically and virtually instantly. So as I was moving files in and out of my music folders the tracks would instantly appear and/or disappear. It has always bugged me that iTunes doesn't automatically pick up on music or videos that I add to my folders.
* The Zune desktop software is also significantly snapper than iTunes on Windows. And I think I like the design and interface better. It is certainly snazzier and more refined. iTunes looks relatively dated at this point.
So to summarize, for people looking for a device primarily for music and video, the Zune provides a better experience. For people looking to take advantage of the App Store, the iPod Touch can't be touched (hardy, har har). For web browsing, the iPod has a bit of an edge, but it isn't terribly significant.
If someone already has a significant amount of DRM protected content from the iTunes store, there is absolutely no reason to consider the Zune. But if someone doesn't care much about the App Store and their main focus is music, the Zune HD is a pretty good device and worth serious consideration. Since the Zune can play AAC files and MP4 video, the switch isn't too painful.
I agree with some of that, and don't agree with some.
But, you can't separate out the other functions of the Touch as though it isn't important.
The value of the two devices is directly related to the functionality the Touch has over the Zune HD. When you compare ALL the features, the Zune is very overpriced. May as well go and get a Sandisk.
The Touch is more than "just" a music and video player, and that's exactly why it's so popular.
The reality is that the Touch and the Zune are selling to different markets, and guess which is the much bigger one?
I expect the new Zune to do better than the old one, but what does that mean? Zune sales have been on a downward trajectory. If they come back to where they were that's tripling the sales, but it doesn't get them closer than they were two years ago.
Now MS has discontinued ALL the Zunes, and are left with just this one. It will take at least one full quarter of sales to see where it's going.
I agree with some of that, and don't agree with some.
But, you can't separate out the other functions of the Touch as though it isn't important.
The value of the two devices is directly related to the functionality the Touch has over the Zune HD. When you compare ALL the features, the Zune is very overpriced. May as well go and get a Sandisk.
The Touch is more than "just" a music and video player, and that's exactly why it's so popular.
The reality is that the Touch and the Zune are selling to different markets, and guess which is the much bigger one?
I expect the new Zune to do better than the old one, but what does that mean? Zune sales have been on a downward trajectory. If they come back to where they were that's tripling the sales, but it doesn't get them closer than they were two years ago.
Now MS has discontinued ALL the Zunes, and are left with just this one. It will take at least one full quarter of sales to see where it's going.
You bring up a good point, Mel.
People keep talking about how, sure, the Zune doesn't have as many "apps", if you care about that kind of thing, as if "apps" were just sort of a variant on content, like "songs."
But the Touch is a computing environment. The core apps just aren't stuck on there, like little movies you can watch, they interact and share data-- you know, like a computer. The OS is designed to support a broad range of functionality, and to do so in a unified, consistent environment, with core services available system wide. You know, like a computer.
I guess if you limit your thinking about apps to a game that you open, play, and then close, and you don't care about those kind of games, you can kid yourself that the Zune doesn't give up much against the Touch, but that's just not thinking about it very clearly.
Of course, if you insist on dismissing the app store as "a bunch of fart apps", you're unlikely to figure out what you're missing, but personally I can't fathom why most people would want to forgo a lot of useful, real world functionality in their pocket because they're "all about the music."
People keep talking about how, sure, the Zune doesn't have as many "apps", if you care about that kind of thing, as if "apps" were just sort of a variant on content, like "songs."
But the Touch is a computing environment. The core apps just aren't stuck on there, like little movies you can watch, they interact and share data-- you know, like a computer. The OS is designed to support a broad range of functionality, and to do so in a unified, consistent environment, with core services available system wide. You know, like a computer.
I guess if you limit your thinking about apps to a game that you open, play, and then close, and you don't care about those kind of games, you can kid yourself that the Zune doesn't give up much against the Touch, but that's just not thinking about it very clearly.
Of course, if you insist on dismissing the app store as "a bunch of fart apps", you're unlikely to figure out what you're missing, but personally I can't fathom why most people would want to forgo a lot of useful, real world functionality in their pocket because they're "all about the music."
Yeah, it gets me very annoyed.
When non iPod users criticize Apple for not putting this, or that feature into the iPod, even though the iPod outsells everything else by ten times for the SanDisk, and 50 times for the next closest competitor, I wonder what they're thinking. What I think they're thinking is that they're looking for an excuse to not buy one, and since they don't have a good one, that's it.
But, now when they criticize it for having many more features, that's hypocrisy, at best.
So, the way I look at it is that now, the Zune HD is about as good a stand-alone (more on this below) music player as the Touch. And depending on how you argue it, an equal, or slightly better, or slightly worse video player depending on which features you think are more important.
But then, after that, the Zune seems to stop. A few crummy Ad infested games, and a few lame programs don't make it a platform.
So Zune fans don't know what to make of that. If theZune had a few hundred good apps upon release, you just know they would be singing a different tune about it.
But even as a music player, the Zune falls down hard in one area, accessory equipment. There are dozens of Stereo devices to plug an iPhone or Touch into. When I was in the UK, I saw at least a couple of dozen more that I haven seen here in the US, from manufacturers I haven't seen here.
How many are available for the Zune HD? How many for ANY Zune of the past two years?
Other than a few things that MS itself paid to have done, theres nothing! Nothing at all.
Just dozens of more reasons to not buy a Zune, but to buy an Apple device instead.
When non iPod users criticize Apple for not putting this, or that feature into the iPod, even though the iPod outsells everything else by ten times for the SanDisk, and 50 times for the next closest competitor, I wonder what they're thinking. What I think they're thinking is that they're looking for an excuse to not buy one, and since they don't have a good one, that's it.
But, now when they criticize it for having many more features, that's hypocrisy, at best.
So, the way I look at it is that now, the Zune HD is about as good a stand-alone (more on this below) music player as the Touch. And depending on how you argue it, an equal, or slightly better, or slightly worse video player depending on which features you think are more important.
But then, after that, the Zune seems to stop. A few crummy Ad infested games, and a few lame programs don't make it a platform.
So Zune fans don't know what to make of that. If theZune had a few hundred good apps upon release, you just know they would be singing a different tune about it.
But even as a music player, the Zune falls down hard in one area, accessory equipment. There are dozens of Stereo devices to plug an iPhone or Touch into. When I was in the UK, I saw at least a couple of dozen more that I haven seen here in the US, from manufacturers I haven't seen here.
How many are available for the Zune HD? How many for ANY Zune of the past two years?
Other than a few things that MS itself paid to have done, theres nothing! Nothing at all.
Just dozens of more reasons to not buy a Zune, but to buy an Apple device instead.
I just used that same argument and bought a PC laptop instead of a macbook pro. Tons of more apps and gadgets, it's not even close. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Both are good devices, but my iPhone now looks dated when compared to the UI of my zune. It's just me. What I don't get is why people here really want it to fail, who cares?
When non iPod users criticize Apple for not putting this, or that feature into the iPod, even though the iPod outsells everything else by ten times for the SanDisk, and 50 times for the next closest competitor, I wonder what they're thinking. What I think they're thinking is that they're looking for an excuse to not buy one, and since they don't have a good one, that's it.
But, now when they criticize it for having many more features, that's hypocrisy, at best.
So, the way I look at it is that now, the Zune HD is about as good a stand-alone (more on this below) music player as the Touch. And depending on how you argue it, an equal, or slightly better, or slightly worse video player depending on which features you think are more important.
But then, after that, the Zune seems to stop. A few crummy Ad infested games, and a few lame programs don't make it a platform.
So Zune fans don't know what to make of that. If theZune had a few hundred good apps upon release, you just know they would be singing a different tune about it.
But even as a music player, the Zune falls down hard in one area, accessory equipment. There are dozens of Stereo devices to plug an iPhone or Touch into. When I was in the UK, I saw at least a couple of dozen more that I haven seen here in the US, from manufacturers I haven't seen here.
How many are available for the Zune HD? How many for ANY Zune of the past two years?
Other than a few things that MS itself paid to have done, theres nothing! Nothing at all.
Just dozens of more reasons to not buy a Zune, but to buy an Apple device instead.
Yep. And the weird thing is, before release there was a lot of talk of how the Zune HD was going to leverage that awesome Tegra hardware and "blow the Touch away", and how even if it shipped with few apps it was only a matter of time till the SDK got things rolling because the underlying WinCE OS was mature and robust just imagine the integration and.....
And now that it looks like MS is going to hobble the Zune app ecosystem in favor of maintaining focus on WinMob, all of a sudden the same people are like "Music! Perfect! Who needs anything else! So clean! So...... focused!"
And while the iPhone/Touch lacking cut and paste and MMS and whatnot was proof of being a toy, somehow the Zune not even being in shouting distance of same is proof of..... something. Focus, I guess.
Really, it's a little comical to have it explained that a stand alone MP3/video player is just exactly what the world needed, because who needs all those distracting apps. It's a little like MS brought out a "notebook" with great looking hardware and a really nice screen that was basically a Blu-Ray player, charged as much as a MacBook, and people went "Meh, email, word processing, video editing, spread sheet, graphics, I have a desktop for all that stuff. Why would I want all that clutter on my laptop? I mean, just look at that picture!"
I just used that same argument and bought a PC laptop instead of a macbook pro. Tons of more apps and gadgets, it's not even close. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Both are good devices, but my iPhone now looks dated when compared to the UI of my zune. It's just me. What I don't get is why people here really want it to fail, who cares?
/twospoons.
Most people here don't want it to fail, no more, I suppose than those who don't like Apple products who don't want Apple to fail.
Whether the interface looks better or worse is a very personal thing. The looks of the Zune HD interface is constrained by the power usage curve of the OLED screen. If you like that, fine.
There aren't that many more apps for Windows anymore, that's the truth. Same thing for gadgets.
Yep. And the weird thing is, before release there was a lot of talk of how the Zune HD was going to leverage that awesome Tegra hardware and "blow the Touch away", and how even if it shipped with few apps it was only a matter of time till the SDK got things rolling because the underlying WinCE OS was mature and robust just imagine the integration and.....
And now that it looks like MS is going to hobble the Zune app ecosystem in favor of maintaining focus on WinMob, all of a sudden the same people are like "Music! Perfect! Who needs anything else! So clean! So...... focused!"
And while the iPhone/Touch lacking cut and paste and MMS and whatnot was proof of being a toy, somehow the Zune not even being in shouting distance of same is proof of..... something. Focus, I guess.
Really, it's a little comical to have it explained that a stand alone MP3/video player is just exactly what the world needed, because who needs all those distracting apps. It's a little like MS brought out a "notebook" with great looking hardware and a really nice screen that was basically a Blu-Ray player, charged as much as a MacBook, and people went "Meh, email, word processing, video editing, spread sheet, graphics, I have a desktop for all that stuff. Why would I want all that clutter on my laptop? I mean, just look at that picture!"
It's kind of interesting, because for what the Zune HD does right now, it doesn't need hardware equal to the new Touch. A waste of money.
I just used that same argument and bought a PC laptop instead of a macbook pro. Tons of more apps and gadgets, it's not even close. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Both are good devices, but my iPhone now looks dated when compared to the UI of my zune. It's just me. What I don't get is why people here really want it to fail, who cares?
/twospoons.
No. You're not understanding the point that's being made. If a MacBook Pro wasn't designed to run email or image editing apps or sound editing apps or word processing or graphics or presentation apps, and was designed purely as an "entertainment" machine, with a simplified OS that let you watch movies and listen to music and maybe a few other things, and it cost the same as the full on PC laptop you had your eye, then yes.
But that's not the case is it?
Oh, and if you want to play "now the shoe's on the other foot", finding the iPhone OS "dated" just because MS threw in a lot of whizzy animation must mean your one of those sheep that are easily distracted by eye candy and prize form over function, yeah?
Most people here don't want it to fail, no more, I suppose than those who don't like Apple products who don't want Apple to fail.
Whether the interface looks better or worse is a very personal thing. The looks of the Zune HD interface is constrained by the power usage curve of the OLED screen. If you like that, fine.
There aren't that many more apps for Windows anymore, that's the truth. Same thing for gadgets.
Ugh. Buy much for your mac on newegg? Like, new graphics cards, mother boards, cpus, memory, tv tuners.. want me to go on?
You can run any application developed for 16bit OS 20+ years ago on a PC plattform (x86 that is), you still think there is about the same amount of apps for the Mac? I tried finding some numbers, but OMG, it's probably as close as the 7 to 70.000 zunehd/ipod comparison.
I'm just saying that you cannot use the market share argument against the Zune on one hand, and turn around and say that it doesn't matter when it comes to the Macs.
Saying that the UI is constrained by the power usage of the OLED screen is really strange. Wierdest argument ever. I have charged my Zune once since it got it. I charge my iPhone every night. So, by that argument the iPhone UI must suck really bad.
Try the Zune with a Zune Pass. You'll love it. Don't be scared!
No. You're not understanding the point that's being made. If a MacBook Pro wasn't designed to run email or image editing apps or sound editing apps or word processing or graphics or presentation apps, and was designed purely as an "entertainment" machine, with a simplified OS that let you watch movies and listen to music and maybe a few other things, and it cost the same as the full on PC laptop you had your eye, then yes.
But that's not the case is it?
Oh, and if you want to play "now the shoe's on the other foot", finding the iPhone OS "dated" just because MS threw in a lot of whizzy animation must mean your one of those sheep that are easily distracted by eye candy and prize form over function, yeah?
So you're saying that the hardware in the Zune is not capable of doing the same thing the iPod touch can do?
I thouch Macs were all about eye candy. They look gorgeous, but in your eyes that just functional design? Comon.
Comments
More power to ya
And despite the power savings attributed to OLED's backlight-free design, OLEDs still use more power than LCD displays most of the time because the OLED technology consumes power based on how bright the image it is displaying is. Essentially, OLED is the backlight.
Sony and Microsoft try to compensate by giving their OLED devices a dark, mostly black user interface. Unless you will exclusively be using your Zune HD to watch gothic movies in the dark, the screen will be gobbling up more power than an LCD. This is particularly the case if you want to browse the web, which involves a lot of white space. Showing a white background, OLED consumes as much as 300% of the power of an LCD. Any colors that rely upon those those fragile blue pixels are particularly power inefficient.
This is just out of curiosity, but can I see the sources for these claims? Everything I have researched so far on OLED would suggest it consumes less power when compared to LCD at a smiliar brightness.
And again, because OLED doesn't use any ambient light to brighten its picture, as LCD does, 100% of the image comes from emitted light output, which requires a bigger drain on the battery. For this reason, reviewers of other OLED products have expressed puzzlement about why the supposedly efficient OLED technology didn't translate into better battery life in actual use, as did the Register when looking at a Samsung s8000 Jet:
"Considering it's got an energy-saving OLED screen, we were disappointed with the battery life of the Jet. Perhaps the powerful processor puts some extra drain on the juice, but the promised 180 minutes of talk time and 250 hours' standby translated into a barely a day of moderate use."
But that wasn't the reason though, in fact your own source for that article says the OLED saves power, they suggested it was the more powerful CPU that caused the battery life to be drained, in fact it was the sentence right after the part you quoted. Curious, why did you leave that important tidbit out about the CPU being thought of as the cause instead of the oled?
But the main point is Microsoft needs to get their head out of their asses and stop internet explorer. with all of that money they have, they should just buy mozilla and let it be a separate company, but reap the benefits. I don't see a downside to that scenario, unless they f***ed up Firefox too.
Your post is (unintentionally) funny and offensive at the same time.
1. Funny because you obviously know nothing about either Mozilla or business or the history of IE and Mozilla (which inherited part of the Netscape assets after MS crushed Netscape in its cradle).
For one thing, MS can't "buy" Mozilla. It has no "stock" and is a non-profit organization, not a for-profit corporation. Further, Mozilla exists BECAUSE it wants to provide alternatives to proprietary, closed software - it's part of a movement, not a "company" as such (although it does derive some income from corporations to support its efforts, e.g., from Google).
Firefox add-ons are also free and nearly all developed by those sympathetic to the ideals of the Mozilla community - and this is part of why there are so many compared to those available for Safari and IE, although some add-on developers also target multiple browsers, e.g., X Marks (formerly FoxMarks).
open-source software is a term you might want to google to get a little basic education because it's an important part of the computing universe you've obviously never looked at with roots going back at least 40 years.
Here's your first link: http://www.mozilla.org/
And your second: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
So no way. Period. The idea is a contradiction in terms.
2. Watch your language here. I know that word, and I use it, but I watch where. This is a family friendly site with lots of young Mac fans - probably many under 12.
Most of these screens are AMOLED. I don't know if MS's is because it's too early and I haven't read about it.
It's not too different or more difficult to make. AMOLED just means Active Matrix. It takes less current to drive, because it's always on. This doesn't mean that a black pixel has current going through it all the time. OLEDS (called passive) need more overall current, but it's supplied in large pulses. Regular OLEDS have the current turned off when not being used.
The large pulses cause the LEDs to heat up more, reducing life.
They pretty much have the same performance. It's the way they're driven thats different, the OLEDS are the same.
AMOLEDS cost a bit more, but as they'll likely to be used more, the cost will drop faster.
Thanks! Great info.
sigh
Logic is not a strong suit, eh?
Perhaps you use a different kind of logic.
But unless you're simply saying that no small screen browser can ever be good because of the small screen, and that's your major consideration, well, then I guess your logic works for you.
Every platform must be taken on is own merits when it's much different in form factor from others.
So we can directly compare Windows, Linux, and Mac OS because they are all (large) computer OS's. Therefor the browsers can also be compared directly.
But with a small mobile device (I'm not sure what to call the iPhone iPod Touch plus every other small and similar device environment other than a small mobile device, or platform) environment things are different.
Safari on the Apple small mobile platform is great for that platform. So far, the best. If you think that's it's impossible for that to be good just because it's small, then there's no point of discussion that you can join in with, because you are out in left field about this.
You just have to accept these small devices for what they are.
http://gizmodo.com/5360126/zune-hd-r...he-pmp-evolved
It seems the Zune HD isn't a 'failure' afterall! This will surely come as no surprise to anyone, except Apple Insider.
It's not a failure. It's just a limited version of what the iPod Touch is.
Check the Tegra specs, and you'll see it's no better than what Apple has, possibly a bit worse.
But it seems that so many people are so happy that MS has gotten part of it right, that the hype knows no bounds.
If reviewers said that about Apple products, you would be complaining that they were just a bunch of Mac users anyway, which wouldn't be correct.
Since they often do, I suppose you must be grinding your teeth a lot.
This is just out of curiosity, but can I see the sources for these claims? Everything I have researched so far on OLED would suggest it consumes less power when compared to LCD at a smiliar brightness.
Show some of those sources then, because that's not true.
Power consumed, unlike an LCD is proportional to the brightness.
An LCD has a backlight that is always on (except for some new models with LEDs that can be turned on or off depending on the brightness, such as Samsung's new LED backlit LCD Tvs. but computer monitors don't use that tech.)
OLEDS turn up or down in brightness depending on the image.
So when the screen is almost all white, a common occurrence in browsing many informational sites, and any programs such as book readers with a lot of text, the screen consumes several times as much power an an LCD + backlight. But when the screen is mostly black, the LCD consumes several times as much power as the OLED.
In order to know what the power being consumed is, you must know the average level the screen is outputting. This is affected on the colors as well, as the red, green, and blue OLEDS consume different amounts of power, and so the prominent colors in the screen also affect that.
In addition, temperature affects the power levels in OLEDS. The higher the ambient temperature, the more power they will consume. So on a hot day they ill use more power than in a wintery one.
Also, if the device is used for a long time, the heat it produces affects OLED power draw.
So far, no one has come up with a valid screen power draw usage test for consumer devices.
This makes the battery usage ratings for the Zune HD difficult to determine, despite MS's numbers. Was the screen off during some of those tests? For the video, what was the average grey levels during the tests? Was it 18%, or 30%?
But that wasn't the reason though, in fact your own source for that article says the OLED saves power, they suggested it was the more powerful CPU that caused the battery life to be drained, in fact it was the sentence right after the part you quoted. Curious, why did you leave that important tidbit out about the CPU being thought of as the cause instead of the oled?
But, again, as you can see from what I've said, that we really don't have a good standard way to measure this.
Measure it one way, and you will get more efficiency. Measure it another, and efficiency falls drastically.
Here's one attempt to give an idea of how this works.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/...years-away.ars
Your post is (unintentionally) funny and offensive at the same time.
1. Funny because you obviously know nothing about either Mozilla or business or the history of IE and Mozilla (which inherited part of the Netscape assets after MS crushed Netscape in its cradle).
For one thing, MS can't "buy" Mozilla. It has no "stock" and is a non-profit organization, not a for-profit corporation. Further, Mozilla exists BECAUSE it wants to provide alternatives to proprietary, closed software - it's part of a movement, not a "company" as such (although it does derive some income from corporations to support its efforts, e.g., from Google).
Firefox add-ons are also free and nearly all developed by those sympathetic to the ideals of the Mozilla community - and this is part of why there are so many compared to those available for Safari and IE, although some add-on developers also target multiple browsers, e.g., X Marks (formerly FoxMarks).
open-source software is a term you might want to google to get a little basic education because it's an important part of the computing universe you've obviously never looked at with roots going back at least 40 years.
Here's your first link: http://www.mozilla.org/
And your second: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
So no way. Period. The idea is a contradiction in terms.
2. Watch your language here. I know that word, and I use it, but I watch where. This is a family friendly site with lots of young Mac fans - probably many under 12.
Haha, calm down. Buy is a term that I use loosely. Basically they can pull a google and take something open source and slap their name on it (of course, subtly making it their own) and pull profits from it (charging for add-ons, and the like). I see it as very possible. Look at android. while you don't charge for the software itself, you charge for everything else. boom. done.
But it's cute how upset you got.
Haha, calm down. Buy is a term that I use loosely. Basically they can pull a google and take something open source and slap their name on it (of course, subtly making it their own) and pull profits from it (charging for add-ons, and the like). I see it as very possible. Look at android. while you don't charge for the software itself, you charge for everything else. boom. done.
But it's cute how upset you got.
It's amazing what people don't know about what they're commenting on, whether you do or not. I do get upset about the f bomb in this space, but otherwise was trying to add a little historical perspective on some issues for noobs and the clueless before they buy into a notion which is nonsensical on its face.
You are correct, though, that MS has a history of trying to co-opt open source efforts and turn them into proprietary products. I remember them trying to hi-jack Java with some "extensions," and then there's their XML-derived new Office file formats like DocX.
But the large and committed FireFox community would give plenty of push-back if MS ever tried to release some superset of the Mozilla code base that would lead to website browsing that couldn't be done in the original FF - and they'd find friends in governments, in the EU if not the US. Plus I doubt MS has any intent to move in that direction. Silverlight shows they're still choking on their own dog food in thinking about the web.
And, yes, I am all about cute....
It's amazing what people don't know about what they're commenting on, whether you do or not. I do get upset about the f bomb in this space, but otherwise was trying to add a little historical perspective on some issues for noobs and the clueless before they buy into a notion which is nonsensical on its face.
You are correct, though, that MS has a history of trying to co-opt open source efforts and turn them into proprietary products. I remember them trying to hi-jack Java with some "extensions," and then there's their XML-derived new Office file formats like DocX.
But the large and committed FireFox community would give plenty of push-back if MS ever tried to release some superset of the Mozilla code base that would lead to website browsing that couldn't be done in the original FF - and they'd find friends in governments, in the EU if not the US. Plus I doubt MS has any intent to move in that direction. Silverlight shows they're still choking on their own dog food in thinking about the web.
And, yes, I am all about cute....
What wasn't cute though, was your statement about many people here likely being under 12. Mature people don't make those kinds of statements about whole groups of people they obviously don't know.
Prices are beginning to come down. This is expensive, but Sony's 11" is also $2,500. So this is a good sign.
http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php...&id=1253273205
I have a Zune HD and 2nd gen iPod Touch... A summary of differences...
* The OLED screen on the Zune HD is amazing. It is quite bright, and very vibrant. When I held my ZHD up to my Touch, the display on the Touch looked, well, pathetic. It hadn't ever been so obvious how much backligh seeps through until I compared it to a device without a backlight. And as a result of the backlight, colors on the iPod look very washed out when compared to to the Zune.
* Brightness on the OLED is NOT a problem. At equivalent brightness levels (the Zune only has Low, Mid, and High) the Zune's display is at least as bright as the iPod's.
* I have been trying for several days to take a picture that shows a decent comparison shot. But none come out quite right. The white balance of the two displays is quite different (ZHD tracks in at D6500, while the iPod Touch is closer to D5000), so either the iPod's display looks yellow, or the Zune's display looks blue when they are in the same shot. And for some reason the Zune's display shows up a little bit blurry in pictures, which I can't explain. When you see the display IRL it is extremely crisp and sharp.
* The Apps on the Zune don't even begin to compare to those on the iPod Touch. iPod wins hands down here.
* The browser on the Zune is better than expected. It is a hair sluggish while a page is loading, but once the page is loading the Zune zooms and pans a lot faster than the iPod. Page rendering is fine, but it seems like a substantial number of web sites are serving up their mobile version to the Zune where they serve the full version to the iPod, so direct comparisons aren't really possible. On sites that serve the full version, though, the Zune page rendering seems fine. One obvious lacking on the Zune is that only one page can be open at a time. It doesn't attempt to mimick the multi-page capability of the Touch.
* The user interface on the Zune is much snappier and responsive than that of the iPod Touch. Where the iPod is rendering page transitions at roughly 10 frames per second, the Zune is easily doing 30 fps or more. Scrolling on the Zune is also at least 30 fps, where the iPod is less. The iPod Touch never really felt at all sluggish to me until I compared it to the Zune's interface.
* The experience of listening to music on the Zune is WAY better than the iPod Touch. Between having a more logical and flexible layout of the menu structure for finding music, and the additional features that MS has added to link between artists and provide information (and photos) about the artists in your collection, the Zune provides a much more pleasing experience. And these features are available without the Zune Pass subscription. If you add the Zune Pass subscription, the Zune leaps further ahead because you can not only download but stream any of the music in the Zune catalog in real time. So any track is available at any time so long as you have access to WiFi. And the Zune's Channels feature is a lot cooler than I had eve anticipated. It not only makes music suggestions, but it actually downloads the recommended songs directly to the device automatically so they can play anywhere even without WiFi. Apple ought to be taking notes here.
* Video playback on the Zune is better primarily because of the better screen. It also does a better job of organizing your video collection, because you can manually tag video files as being movies, TV shows, music videos, or other. iTunes doesn't let you do that on your own; the only things tagged this way are the ones you download from the iTunes store. Letting the user catalog their own collection makes it much easier to find your way around.
* The Zune's battery capacity is technically lower than that of the iPod, but it seems to be better at managing it. After two hours of watching video my iPod Touch is dead (my unit could be an anomoly, but it doesn't seem to be). I watched more than 4 hours of video on the Zune HD and the battery meter hadn't fallen past half yet.
* The HD radio is cool, but I have a hard time picking up the HD feeds in my basement. Then again, I can't pick up stereo in my basement on any radio either. When I take the device upstairs or outside, the HD kicks in, and it is definitely clearer than the analog transmission. The primary benefit here is that all static goes away and you get a clean signal, and higher frequencies are much better reproduced in the digital feed.
* One feature on the Zune I find particularly useful is the WiFi syncing. Probably not a big deal for people who are right at their computer all of the time, but I'm not, so it is nice to click a couple options and have the Zune connect to the desktop and download the latest podcast and music updates.
* Another thing I noticed is that the Zune software automatically picks up on changes in files in the music and video folders, and reflects them in the software automatically and virtually instantly. So as I was moving files in and out of my music folders the tracks would instantly appear and/or disappear. It has always bugged me that iTunes doesn't automatically pick up on music or videos that I add to my folders.
* The Zune desktop software is also significantly snapper than iTunes on Windows. And I think I like the design and interface better. It is certainly snazzier and more refined. iTunes looks relatively dated at this point.
So to summarize, for people looking for a device primarily for music and video, the Zune provides a better experience. For people looking to take advantage of the App Store, the iPod Touch can't be touched (hardy, har har). For web browsing, the iPod has a bit of an edge, but it isn't terribly significant.
If someone already has a significant amount of DRM protected content from the iTunes store, there is absolutely no reason to consider the Zune. But if someone doesn't care much about the App Store and their main focus is music, the Zune HD is a pretty good device and worth serious consideration. Since the Zune can play AAC files and MP4 video, the switch isn't too painful.
Okay, to correct some information in the original posting...
I have a Zune HD and 2nd gen iPod Touch... A summary of differences...
* The OLED screen on the Zune HD is amazing. It is quite bright, and very vibrant. When I held my ZHD up to my Touch, the display on the Touch looked, well, pathetic. It hadn't ever been so obvious how much backligh seeps through until I compared it to a device without a backlight. And as a result of the backlight, colors on the iPod look very washed out when compared to to the Zune.
* Brightness on the OLED is NOT a problem. At equivalent brightness levels (the Zune only has Low, Mid, and High) the Zune's display is at least as bright as the iPod's.
* I have been trying for several days to take a picture that shows a decent comparison shot. But none come out quite right. The white balance of the two displays is quite different (ZHD tracks in at D6500, while the iPod Touch is closer to D5000), so either the iPod's display looks yellow, or the Zune's display looks blue when they are in the same shot. And for some reason the Zune's display shows up a little bit blurry in pictures, which I can't explain. When you see the display IRL it is extremely crisp and sharp.
* The Apps on the Zune don't even begin to compare to those on the iPod Touch. iPod wins hands down here.
* The browser on the Zune is better than expected. It is a hair sluggish while a page is loading, but once the page is loading the Zune zooms and pans a lot faster than the iPod. Page rendering is fine, but it seems like a substantial number of web sites are serving up their mobile version to the Zune where they serve the full version to the iPod, so direct comparisons aren't really possible. On sites that serve the full version, though, the Zune page rendering seems fine. One obvious lacking on the Zune is that only one page can be open at a time. It doesn't attempt to mimick the multi-page capability of the Touch.
* The user interface on the Zune is much snappier and responsive than that of the iPod Touch. Where the iPod is rendering page transitions at roughly 10 frames per second, the Zune is easily doing 30 fps or more. Scrolling on the Zune is also at least 30 fps, where the iPod is less. The iPod Touch never really felt at all sluggish to me until I compared it to the Zune's interface.
* The experience of listening to music on the Zune is WAY better than the iPod Touch. Between having a more logical and flexible layout of the menu structure for finding music, and the additional features that MS has added to link between artists and provide information (and photos) about the artists in your collection, the Zune provides a much more pleasing experience. And these features are available without the Zune Pass subscription. If you add the Zune Pass subscription, the Zune leaps further ahead because you can not only download but stream any of the music in the Zune catalog in real time. So any track is available at any time so long as you have access to WiFi. And the Zune's Channels feature is a lot cooler than I had eve anticipated. It not only makes music suggestions, but it actually downloads the recommended songs directly to the device automatically so they can play anywhere even without WiFi. Apple ought to be taking notes here.
* Video playback on the Zune is better primarily because of the better screen. It also does a better job of organizing your video collection, because you can manually tag video files as being movies, TV shows, music videos, or other. iTunes doesn't let you do that on your own; the only things tagged this way are the ones you download from the iTunes store. Letting the user catalog their own collection makes it much easier to find your way around.
* The Zune's battery capacity is technically lower than that of the iPod, but it seems to be better at managing it. After two hours of watching video my iPod Touch is dead (my unit could be an anomoly, but it doesn't seem to be). I watched more than 4 hours of video on the Zune HD and the battery meter hadn't fallen past half yet.
* The HD radio is cool, but I have a hard time picking up the HD feeds in my basement. Then again, I can't pick up stereo in my basement on any radio either. When I take the device upstairs or outside, the HD kicks in, and it is definitely clearer than the analog transmission. The primary benefit here is that all static goes away and you get a clean signal, and higher frequencies are much better reproduced in the digital feed.
* One feature on the Zune I find particularly useful is the WiFi syncing. Probably not a big deal for people who are right at their computer all of the time, but I'm not, so it is nice to click a couple options and have the Zune connect to the desktop and download the latest podcast and music updates.
* Another thing I noticed is that the Zune software automatically picks up on changes in files in the music and video folders, and reflects them in the software automatically and virtually instantly. So as I was moving files in and out of my music folders the tracks would instantly appear and/or disappear. It has always bugged me that iTunes doesn't automatically pick up on music or videos that I add to my folders.
* The Zune desktop software is also significantly snapper than iTunes on Windows. And I think I like the design and interface better. It is certainly snazzier and more refined. iTunes looks relatively dated at this point.
So to summarize, for people looking for a device primarily for music and video, the Zune provides a better experience. For people looking to take advantage of the App Store, the iPod Touch can't be touched (hardy, har har). For web browsing, the iPod has a bit of an edge, but it isn't terribly significant.
If someone already has a significant amount of DRM protected content from the iTunes store, there is absolutely no reason to consider the Zune. But if someone doesn't care much about the App Store and their main focus is music, the Zune HD is a pretty good device and worth serious consideration. Since the Zune can play AAC files and MP4 video, the switch isn't too painful.
I agree with some of that, and don't agree with some.
But, you can't separate out the other functions of the Touch as though it isn't important.
The value of the two devices is directly related to the functionality the Touch has over the Zune HD. When you compare ALL the features, the Zune is very overpriced. May as well go and get a Sandisk.
The Touch is more than "just" a music and video player, and that's exactly why it's so popular.
The reality is that the Touch and the Zune are selling to different markets, and guess which is the much bigger one?
I expect the new Zune to do better than the old one, but what does that mean? Zune sales have been on a downward trajectory. If they come back to where they were that's tripling the sales, but it doesn't get them closer than they were two years ago.
Now MS has discontinued ALL the Zunes, and are left with just this one. It will take at least one full quarter of sales to see where it's going.
I agree with some of that, and don't agree with some.
But, you can't separate out the other functions of the Touch as though it isn't important.
The value of the two devices is directly related to the functionality the Touch has over the Zune HD. When you compare ALL the features, the Zune is very overpriced. May as well go and get a Sandisk.
The Touch is more than "just" a music and video player, and that's exactly why it's so popular.
The reality is that the Touch and the Zune are selling to different markets, and guess which is the much bigger one?
I expect the new Zune to do better than the old one, but what does that mean? Zune sales have been on a downward trajectory. If they come back to where they were that's tripling the sales, but it doesn't get them closer than they were two years ago.
Now MS has discontinued ALL the Zunes, and are left with just this one. It will take at least one full quarter of sales to see where it's going.
You bring up a good point, Mel.
People keep talking about how, sure, the Zune doesn't have as many "apps", if you care about that kind of thing, as if "apps" were just sort of a variant on content, like "songs."
But the Touch is a computing environment. The core apps just aren't stuck on there, like little movies you can watch, they interact and share data-- you know, like a computer. The OS is designed to support a broad range of functionality, and to do so in a unified, consistent environment, with core services available system wide. You know, like a computer.
I guess if you limit your thinking about apps to a game that you open, play, and then close, and you don't care about those kind of games, you can kid yourself that the Zune doesn't give up much against the Touch, but that's just not thinking about it very clearly.
Of course, if you insist on dismissing the app store as "a bunch of fart apps", you're unlikely to figure out what you're missing, but personally I can't fathom why most people would want to forgo a lot of useful, real world functionality in their pocket because they're "all about the music."
You bring up a good point, Mel.
People keep talking about how, sure, the Zune doesn't have as many "apps", if you care about that kind of thing, as if "apps" were just sort of a variant on content, like "songs."
But the Touch is a computing environment. The core apps just aren't stuck on there, like little movies you can watch, they interact and share data-- you know, like a computer. The OS is designed to support a broad range of functionality, and to do so in a unified, consistent environment, with core services available system wide. You know, like a computer.
I guess if you limit your thinking about apps to a game that you open, play, and then close, and you don't care about those kind of games, you can kid yourself that the Zune doesn't give up much against the Touch, but that's just not thinking about it very clearly.
Of course, if you insist on dismissing the app store as "a bunch of fart apps", you're unlikely to figure out what you're missing, but personally I can't fathom why most people would want to forgo a lot of useful, real world functionality in their pocket because they're "all about the music."
Yeah, it gets me very annoyed.
When non iPod users criticize Apple for not putting this, or that feature into the iPod, even though the iPod outsells everything else by ten times for the SanDisk, and 50 times for the next closest competitor, I wonder what they're thinking. What I think they're thinking is that they're looking for an excuse to not buy one, and since they don't have a good one, that's it.
But, now when they criticize it for having many more features, that's hypocrisy, at best.
So, the way I look at it is that now, the Zune HD is about as good a stand-alone (more on this below) music player as the Touch. And depending on how you argue it, an equal, or slightly better, or slightly worse video player depending on which features you think are more important.
But then, after that, the Zune seems to stop. A few crummy Ad infested games, and a few lame programs don't make it a platform.
So Zune fans don't know what to make of that. If theZune had a few hundred good apps upon release, you just know they would be singing a different tune about it.
But even as a music player, the Zune falls down hard in one area, accessory equipment. There are dozens of Stereo devices to plug an iPhone or Touch into. When I was in the UK, I saw at least a couple of dozen more that I haven seen here in the US, from manufacturers I haven't seen here.
How many are available for the Zune HD? How many for ANY Zune of the past two years?
Other than a few things that MS itself paid to have done, theres nothing! Nothing at all.
Just dozens of more reasons to not buy a Zune, but to buy an Apple device instead.
Yeah, it gets me very annoyed.
When non iPod users criticize Apple for not putting this, or that feature into the iPod, even though the iPod outsells everything else by ten times for the SanDisk, and 50 times for the next closest competitor, I wonder what they're thinking. What I think they're thinking is that they're looking for an excuse to not buy one, and since they don't have a good one, that's it.
But, now when they criticize it for having many more features, that's hypocrisy, at best.
So, the way I look at it is that now, the Zune HD is about as good a stand-alone (more on this below) music player as the Touch. And depending on how you argue it, an equal, or slightly better, or slightly worse video player depending on which features you think are more important.
But then, after that, the Zune seems to stop. A few crummy Ad infested games, and a few lame programs don't make it a platform.
So Zune fans don't know what to make of that. If theZune had a few hundred good apps upon release, you just know they would be singing a different tune about it.
But even as a music player, the Zune falls down hard in one area, accessory equipment. There are dozens of Stereo devices to plug an iPhone or Touch into. When I was in the UK, I saw at least a couple of dozen more that I haven seen here in the US, from manufacturers I haven't seen here.
How many are available for the Zune HD? How many for ANY Zune of the past two years?
Other than a few things that MS itself paid to have done, theres nothing! Nothing at all.
Just dozens of more reasons to not buy a Zune, but to buy an Apple device instead.
I just used that same argument and bought a PC laptop instead of a macbook pro. Tons of more apps and gadgets, it's not even close. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Both are good devices, but my iPhone now looks dated when compared to the UI of my zune. It's just me. What I don't get is why people here really want it to fail, who cares?
/twospoons.
Yeah, it gets me very annoyed.
When non iPod users criticize Apple for not putting this, or that feature into the iPod, even though the iPod outsells everything else by ten times for the SanDisk, and 50 times for the next closest competitor, I wonder what they're thinking. What I think they're thinking is that they're looking for an excuse to not buy one, and since they don't have a good one, that's it.
But, now when they criticize it for having many more features, that's hypocrisy, at best.
So, the way I look at it is that now, the Zune HD is about as good a stand-alone (more on this below) music player as the Touch. And depending on how you argue it, an equal, or slightly better, or slightly worse video player depending on which features you think are more important.
But then, after that, the Zune seems to stop. A few crummy Ad infested games, and a few lame programs don't make it a platform.
So Zune fans don't know what to make of that. If theZune had a few hundred good apps upon release, you just know they would be singing a different tune about it.
But even as a music player, the Zune falls down hard in one area, accessory equipment. There are dozens of Stereo devices to plug an iPhone or Touch into. When I was in the UK, I saw at least a couple of dozen more that I haven seen here in the US, from manufacturers I haven't seen here.
How many are available for the Zune HD? How many for ANY Zune of the past two years?
Other than a few things that MS itself paid to have done, theres nothing! Nothing at all.
Just dozens of more reasons to not buy a Zune, but to buy an Apple device instead.
Yep. And the weird thing is, before release there was a lot of talk of how the Zune HD was going to leverage that awesome Tegra hardware and "blow the Touch away", and how even if it shipped with few apps it was only a matter of time till the SDK got things rolling because the underlying WinCE OS was mature and robust just imagine the integration and.....
And now that it looks like MS is going to hobble the Zune app ecosystem in favor of maintaining focus on WinMob, all of a sudden the same people are like "Music! Perfect! Who needs anything else! So clean! So...... focused!"
And while the iPhone/Touch lacking cut and paste and MMS and whatnot was proof of being a toy, somehow the Zune not even being in shouting distance of same is proof of..... something. Focus, I guess.
Really, it's a little comical to have it explained that a stand alone MP3/video player is just exactly what the world needed, because who needs all those distracting apps. It's a little like MS brought out a "notebook" with great looking hardware and a really nice screen that was basically a Blu-Ray player, charged as much as a MacBook, and people went "Meh, email, word processing, video editing, spread sheet, graphics, I have a desktop for all that stuff. Why would I want all that clutter on my laptop? I mean, just look at that picture!"
I just used that same argument and bought a PC laptop instead of a macbook pro. Tons of more apps and gadgets, it's not even close. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Both are good devices, but my iPhone now looks dated when compared to the UI of my zune. It's just me. What I don't get is why people here really want it to fail, who cares?
/twospoons.
Most people here don't want it to fail, no more, I suppose than those who don't like Apple products who don't want Apple to fail.
Whether the interface looks better or worse is a very personal thing. The looks of the Zune HD interface is constrained by the power usage curve of the OLED screen. If you like that, fine.
There aren't that many more apps for Windows anymore, that's the truth. Same thing for gadgets.
Yep. And the weird thing is, before release there was a lot of talk of how the Zune HD was going to leverage that awesome Tegra hardware and "blow the Touch away", and how even if it shipped with few apps it was only a matter of time till the SDK got things rolling because the underlying WinCE OS was mature and robust just imagine the integration and.....
And now that it looks like MS is going to hobble the Zune app ecosystem in favor of maintaining focus on WinMob, all of a sudden the same people are like "Music! Perfect! Who needs anything else! So clean! So...... focused!"
And while the iPhone/Touch lacking cut and paste and MMS and whatnot was proof of being a toy, somehow the Zune not even being in shouting distance of same is proof of..... something. Focus, I guess.
Really, it's a little comical to have it explained that a stand alone MP3/video player is just exactly what the world needed, because who needs all those distracting apps. It's a little like MS brought out a "notebook" with great looking hardware and a really nice screen that was basically a Blu-Ray player, charged as much as a MacBook, and people went "Meh, email, word processing, video editing, spread sheet, graphics, I have a desktop for all that stuff. Why would I want all that clutter on my laptop? I mean, just look at that picture!"
It's kind of interesting, because for what the Zune HD does right now, it doesn't need hardware equal to the new Touch. A waste of money.
I just used that same argument and bought a PC laptop instead of a macbook pro. Tons of more apps and gadgets, it's not even close. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Both are good devices, but my iPhone now looks dated when compared to the UI of my zune. It's just me. What I don't get is why people here really want it to fail, who cares?
/twospoons.
No. You're not understanding the point that's being made. If a MacBook Pro wasn't designed to run email or image editing apps or sound editing apps or word processing or graphics or presentation apps, and was designed purely as an "entertainment" machine, with a simplified OS that let you watch movies and listen to music and maybe a few other things, and it cost the same as the full on PC laptop you had your eye, then yes.
But that's not the case is it?
Oh, and if you want to play "now the shoe's on the other foot", finding the iPhone OS "dated" just because MS threw in a lot of whizzy animation must mean your one of those sheep that are easily distracted by eye candy and prize form over function, yeah?
Most people here don't want it to fail, no more, I suppose than those who don't like Apple products who don't want Apple to fail.
Whether the interface looks better or worse is a very personal thing. The looks of the Zune HD interface is constrained by the power usage curve of the OLED screen. If you like that, fine.
There aren't that many more apps for Windows anymore, that's the truth. Same thing for gadgets.
Ugh. Buy much for your mac on newegg? Like, new graphics cards, mother boards, cpus, memory, tv tuners.. want me to go on?
You can run any application developed for 16bit OS 20+ years ago on a PC plattform (x86 that is), you still think there is about the same amount of apps for the Mac? I tried finding some numbers, but OMG, it's probably as close as the 7 to 70.000 zunehd/ipod comparison.
I'm just saying that you cannot use the market share argument against the Zune on one hand, and turn around and say that it doesn't matter when it comes to the Macs.
Saying that the UI is constrained by the power usage of the OLED screen is really strange. Wierdest argument ever. I have charged my Zune once since it got it. I charge my iPhone every night. So, by that argument the iPhone UI must suck really bad.
Try the Zune with a Zune Pass. You'll love it. Don't be scared!
/twospoons.
No. You're not understanding the point that's being made. If a MacBook Pro wasn't designed to run email or image editing apps or sound editing apps or word processing or graphics or presentation apps, and was designed purely as an "entertainment" machine, with a simplified OS that let you watch movies and listen to music and maybe a few other things, and it cost the same as the full on PC laptop you had your eye, then yes.
But that's not the case is it?
Oh, and if you want to play "now the shoe's on the other foot", finding the iPhone OS "dated" just because MS threw in a lot of whizzy animation must mean your one of those sheep that are easily distracted by eye candy and prize form over function, yeah?
So you're saying that the hardware in the Zune is not capable of doing the same thing the iPod touch can do?
I thouch Macs were all about eye candy. They look gorgeous, but in your eyes that just functional design? Comon.
/twospoons.