Talk:Zune/Archive 4

If unsupported hacks for adding functionality to the Zune are to be included, they should be in a separate section, because they do not describe the Zune as such, they are describing something that can be made from a Zune.

In response to criticism of what the Zune is, it is not appropriate to say "but someday maybe it will be better than it is now," or to say "but it is possible to turn a Zune into something better."

It is accurate to say pigs cannot fly.

It is accurate to say pigs can be shipped as air cargo. (Well, I think it is).

It is not accurate to say pigs fly. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

P. S. I don't think hacks should be in the article at all, but if people want to include them, this is my draft for a proposed "hacks" section, to follow the "criticism" section.

I think some kind of disclaimer is appropriate. I have strong reservations about each of the hacks on its own merits. With regard to upgrading the internal drive, I can see this as recreation for someone who enjoys tinkering, but the practical merits of spending the money for a 40 gig drive and taking the risk of performing home surgery on a Zune in order to increase the capacity by 10 gig escape me utterly.

As for the hard drive hack, well, I think it is irresponsible to promote this unless one has good evidence of the reason why Microsoft didn't provide this functionality themselves. It's so easy and so obvious that an explanation is really required. One hopes that it's something like "because it enables some method for getting around the DRM." But it is at least possible that Microsoft knows some valid reason why this is not a good idea. Perhaps these drives are not designed for heavy use and could overheat under worst-case disk access scenarios, and that the Zune software babies the drive. Yes, that's just speculation on my part, although I've read warnings against using iPods as Mac OS X system drives (as well as articles telling you how to do this). Dpbsmith (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

These vandals are not going to leave the page alone. I'm tired of trying to edit something and it gets cancelled because someone else edits it and puts Apple Fanboyism stuff in there. Shintsu (talk) 03:14, 9 January, 2007 (UTC)

I agree... "iPhone - Zune Killer" and a pic of an iPhone, arg... --LuisLJ403 03:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, they can't even get the international launch dates for the thing right.

Waaay too much fanboyism going on on the Apple side. Definitely calls for a lock in my book.Velorium 00:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This is legitimate criticism and should not have been removed, certainly not with the edit comment "Criticism - Fixes" that did not mention that criticism had been removed. It is appropriate for these reasons:

• It is properly sourced to a columnist in a major newspaper.
• Microsoft itself says that the word Zune comprises a "digital media player and music service," so criticism of Zune properly includes criticism of Zune Marketplace.
• This criticism is not limited to a single columnist, but has been levelled against Zune Marketplace by numerous critics. Walter Mossberg in the Wall Street Journal, for examples, makes the point that "Songs are priced at 79 points, which some people might think means 79 cents."

Dpbsmith (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe reedit it to be non-POV? "doesn't even", "real money", "confusing", and "complex" all seem POV. I have no position on this, but I can see why it would be removed as it seems highly out of place in an encyclopedic write-up. Preppy 03:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the criticism is relevant and expressed by several influential sources, both neutral (eg. Walt Mossberg/Wall Street Journal) and more or less Pro-Microsoft (Paul Thurrot/Winsupersite). I've added the following write-up expanding the existing stub: ""The Zune Marketplace doesn't even take real money," using a confusing and complex system of "points" instead.[17] The system in which a song costs 79 Microsoft points (corresponding to 99 dollar cents) is deemed deceiving by some as it gives the impression that songs only costs 79 cents. Moreover, "Microsoft Points" can only be bought in blocks of at least 400 points, leading to possible over-purchasing and rest points.", including references to both the WSJ and Winsupersite. I hope this is acceptable and NPOV. Open to suggestions :) 80.212.56.218 11:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the points system from a global perspective, the idea that a "Microsoft Point" should correspond to the value of US cent becomes debatable. As it happens, the rate between a "Microsoft Point" and US cent is approx. 1.25. Interestingly enough, this is roughly the exchange rate between the USD and EUR :) 88.115.113.120 15:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

To Preppy: of course Ihnatko is expressing a point of view. Including it in his own words is no more "unencyclopedic" than quoting, say Winston Churchill's words "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." One wouldn't remove that as being Churchill's opinion, or replace it with a toned-down paraphrase.

Ihnatko's phrase is a) a direct quotation, b) sourced, c) to a columnist in a mainstream newspaper. Or it was a quotation, before someone replaced it with an inaccurate paraphrase that blurs what the columnist was saying. neutrality policy does not mean that opinions, or opinions expressed in punch language, or biassed opinions. are prohibited. "Facts about opinions" are fine. "Facts about opinions" means that a source must be cited--it can't be "Wikipedia," or an individual Wikipedia editor, that is expressing the opinion. This opinion, for example, was expressed by Andy Ihnatko, Chicago Sun-Times columnist.

Neutrality means the opinions must be reasonably representative of a reasonable number of people, i.e. it represents a relevant fact regarding opinions about the Zune. This one is.

It can't be presented as the truth: it needs to be labelled as being opinion; this one is, simply by being in a "criticisms" section.

And it needs to be balanced by other widely-held opinions, to whatever extent is necessary. If necessary, this is done by adding relevant opinions from other sources, not by removing or softening or distorting the opinion that is already there. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I see why it should be kept in the criticism but it's not all bad. It's a good thing for those who already use Microsoft Points via Xbox 360. It would make it easier for them to buy the music without setting up another account for the Zune Marketplace. I like to see the glass as half full with this. :) Tom F 03:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Of course opinions are going to differ on this. And of course it's not all bad. (I'd add, too, that if course if Microsoft were sincerely doing this to aid customers, obviously, what would be most convenient for customers would be for Zune Marketplace to accept both direct credit card purchases and Microsoft points... just as the iTunes Music Store accepts direct credit card purchases and iTunes gift cards. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Under "Speculation and Rumors" I added the news about gaming functionality. It's more like "Plans for the Future" since it came straight from Microsoft. Anyway, thought maybe we should make a "Games" or "Gaming" section somewhere? What does everyone think? It could get big enough to have its own section soon, if not some sister pages ie: "Games for the Zune" etc. Any thoughts ideas? Thanks all!!! --Scottymoze 15:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding a gaming section at what could possibly be a year ahead of the release would make no sense. I say either make a "Future Plans" section or leave it as is. Velorium 00:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

People keep removing emphasis from certain descriptions in the criticism section, with comments about it being unencyclopedic or non-neutral. The passages in question are:

• Songs wirelessly transferred from one Zune to another can only be played three times. While this is understandable for a protected song for which the recipient has not paid, this limitation is applied even if the song was purchased through the Zune store and the recipient has paid for a Zune Pass. It is also applied even for material that is self-recorded, or copyright-free and unprotected by DRM.

• Although the Zune can pick up FM programs on its built-in tuner, and although it can record voice, it cannot record from the radio.

Here's why this emphasis is perfectly appropriate.

First, emphasis is a legitimate part of English typography that can be used to clarify meaning.

Second, this part of the article describes criticism. Criticism is by definition a point of view. A description of criticism, if reasonably widely held and properly sourced, represents "facts about opinion," which is allowed under the neutrality policy. Including criticism in an article is only non-neutral if presented as truth or as the only point of view, which is not the case here.

When presenting a statement of what the criticism consists of, it is beneficial if the statement is clear and succinct.

In these two cases, the emphasis clarifies what is being criticized. Microsoft is not being criticized for applying DRM restrictions. You'd expect that. What is unexpected is that Microsoft also applies the same restrictions on material that ought not to be restricted, either because the purchaser has already paid the Zune store for the right to listen to the material, or because the material isn't protected by DRM. Microsoft is being criticized for applying restrictions inappropriately.

In the second case, the emphasis again clarifies what is being criticized. Given that the Zune can receive FM radio, and that the Zune can record audio, it seems technically trivial for the Zune to record FM radio. The criticism is not that the Zune cannot record FM. The criticism is that the Zune is obviously technologically capable of recording FM, and Microsoft is artificially withholding the capability.

Italicizing the surprising fact, the fact which is the target of the criticism, is one way to write a clear and succinct statement of the criticism. Removing the italics makes it unclear what is being criticized. I personally can't think of a simple way to reword the criticism to be just as short and just as clear without using emphasis, and I don't see any particular reason to do so.

Emphasis is being used to convey a point of view, yes. There's nothing wrong with that if it is a point of view that is appropriate for inclusion in the article, per WP:NPOV.

Now, if these criticisms were, let us say, promotional statements from Microsoft that had had emphasis added to turn them into criticism that would be inappropriate. If they were direct quotes from a critic who had not used emphasis, applied in such a way as to distort the critic's tenor or tone, that would be inappropriate. That's not the case here. The statements are not quotations that are being distorted by selective emphasis. They are accurate short summaries of reasonably widely held criticism. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems that other people continually disagree with your view here. Assuming good faith, I think you're potentially in the minority. The additional emphasis does not seem really necessary to ensure comprehension of the criticism. I think you prefer your criticism presented differently than I do - I find that third party non-opinionated restatements are more intellectually compelling, while you've tended to prefer direct quotes and emphasis. In this case, it appears to simply be perceived as over-clarification. The criticism is understandable as-is (without emphasis), I would think. If it's not, perhaps a compromise between the two POVs would be to rewrite it for clarity without emphasis... ? I'll likely not touch it, but I do feel strongly that it's much more compelling without the italics. Preppy 00:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"The unlimited "Zune Pass" costs US$14.99 per month or $44.97 for three months."

This is the same price. Is there any particular reason it's expressed like that? Ironcorona 11:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's listed that way because those are the only two options from Microsoft when purchasing the Zune Pass -- one month for $14.99, or three months for $44.97. There is no 6-month subscription or 1-year subscription, and as you can see, there is no discount for purchasing additional months in advance. Why did Microsoft create two choices that are effectively the same? Who knows. But when it comes to pricing at the Zune Marketplace (79 points = 99 cents, purchase 400 points at a time), it's best to leave logic at the door. BJ Nemeth 19:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I put it there in the first place, I'm now removing this criticism:

• Although the Zune can receive FM programs on its built-in tuner, and can record audio, it cannot record from the radio.^[1]

pending discussion. If the Zune can, in fact, record audio from sources other than the built-in FM tuner, then its being unable to record FM from the tuner is a significant criticism. But if, in fact, it does not have any audio recording capability, then its inability to record FM is hardly surprising and not a very important criticism.

I've been Googling like mad and have gotten snippets of conflicting information about this. But since the official Zune fact sheet says nothing about being able to record anything, I conclude that it doesn't record, period. In which case, saying it can't record FM is like criticizing it because it can't make telephone calls. Apologies for my role in inserting what is apparently misinformation. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• I completely agree with your reasoning, and support the idea that the inability to record from the radio should NOT be listed as a criticism. BJ Nemeth 19:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I updated sales so that it refocuses from the initial sales to more recent sales of Zune. It would be better to have more recent data, but initial sales (in my mind) was more apropos before Zune had been on the market for a while. 70.17.92.51 21:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)