Zune, The iPod Killer That Never Was
I was quite disappointed recently when I read that Microsoft’s much hyped iPod competitor was just a repacked Toshiba player with some different software. Afterwards I felt a bit foolish, but I couldn’t help it, I really was sad at the news. Because I had hoped that maybe, just maybe, Microsoft would surprise me. I must admit, I was a little worried that its new player might have some cool new features the iPod wouldn’t. I began to fret (just a little) that it might indeed offer an actual challenge to the iPod. I thought (however briefly) that the era of iPod dominance might be in just the smallest amount of trouble.
But no, I was wrong.
Houstan, we do not have a problem.
Microsoft isn’t working on a new, secret, innovative product. it isn’t even working on a home-grown product. It is just repackaging a decent player from Toshiba and adding some better software to it. How. . . boring.
I had kind of hoped that the company would come out with something, I don’t know, cool? Something with style. Something that was easy to use and would have the potential to become a real threat to the iPod. In short, I wanted something that would add a little drama to the “MP3 player-wars.” Instead, once all the smoke cleared and the mirrors were taken down and I could actually see what Microsoft had in the works I was nonplussed.
Maybe Zune 2.0 (if it even lasts that long) will offer more of a challenge, but I don’t think so. The reasons for such a tepid product offering can be blamed on any one of Microsoft’s numerous faults and since I don’t think any of those problems will get fixed any time soon (if ever) I can only conclude that Microsoft is just going to concede the lion’s share of the market to Apple while it tries to control that remaining 15%. What a shame that there will be no Wellington to meet Apple’s Napoleon. No Patton to strive against Rommel. This isn’t even David vs. Goliath, but rather something more along the lines of General Lee vs Ed the gardner. The battle to come looks neither pretty nor interesting. What a shame.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
Beeblebrox,
I love your attempt to label me as a fan boy - you really shouldn’t be so predjudice though, although I can see where you’d get it from as I do, after all, write for an Apple orientated website.
I like your example and could see it being used but in a minority. I don’t know many people who have such a technical setup as you, at least in the U.K, who would take use of Wi-Fi.
If Apple introduced it I would still be saying how unimportant I think it is to the overall player. I realise you can share music in iTunes at the minute but I think it’s only designed to be used in private use. I still see it being illegal to share to a larger audience. Obviously Apple don’t have much control over that.
I know I wouldn’t make any use of Wi-Fi in an iPod or any other music player at the minute.
If the implementation of Wi-Fi in the iPod happens to be like the Airport Express (w/ AirTunes) where a central Mac running iTunes streaming to a remote set of speakers somewhere in the house then this wireless iPod concept will not be that dramatic.
The wireless syncing is OK but you have to plug that baby on the cradle sometime anyway so why not just sync there? It will always be faster. Wireless podcast upload? How many times do you refresh your TWIT subscription? Most podcasts are issued only once a week (most magazine-based and rumourcasts). I can’t imagine this wireless syncing justifies killing the battery capacity. There has to be other reasons.
As for wirelessly sharing your music collection with other iPod users, remember how iTunes share its music? It is through its own local subnet period. There was a time when iTunes could stream outside its subnet but Apple quelled that quickly after discovering the hole.
With the wireless iPod, there will be a streamer/server built into the fw that will constantly scanning for peers in the same subnet. Most likely this will be automatic and set by iTunes itself when the iPod is synced via the cradle. Unless your friends live with you and use the same network, then forget that this will work with just anyone out there with an iPod. It’s called intellectual property protection.
The only thing that will justify a wireless iPod is if this feature will be used as a communication medium - a la Skype, or VoIP. If this is implemented then it would most likely use Bluetooth and not 802.11x. Not that I am discounting 802.11 but BT is more battery friendly (notice the smaller profile of those USB Bluetooth adapters?).
Anyway, so much for the wireless iPod concept, eh?
I don’t know many people who have such a technical setup as you, at least in the U.K, who would take use of Wi-Fi.
I’m not sure how plugging my iPod into speakers in my bedroom is such a “technical setup” but it would be no different if you set your iPod on your nightstand before you went to sleep and woke up with it all updated.
And even without podcasts, you could rip albums or buy iTM$ songs without having to tether your iPod to your computer just to transfer the music.
I still see it being illegal to share to a larger audience. Obviously Apple don’t have much control over that.
You’re not think-differenting. It would be simple enough to allow you to share your music with up to 5 people, a limitation Apple currently has on network sharing. And there would be no legal difference. There’s nothing “personal” about a network. You can do the same on any LAN including a business one.
And the legal issues are the same whether you share with one person or twenty. So obviously it’s not technically illegal unless, as I mentioned, you actually copy the file over.
And while this kind of sharing might not appeal to you specifically, it would appeal quite a bit to teenagers, who love portable music players, sharing their music interests, and have tons of disposable income.
Wi-fi is a MAJOR feature. Whether that translates into sales for the Zune, I don’t know, but when Apple adds it, which they will, it will be greeted with big open arms.
you really shouldn’t be so predjudice though, although I can see where you’d get it from as I do, after all, write for an Apple orientated website.
As an aside, I should say that normally I don’t regard you as a kool-aid drinkin’ labotomized Mac-bot the way I do some others. But the skepticism of awesome new features on products that compete directly with a product you like seems to be a uniquely Apple-fanboy characteristic.
I remember all too well the overwhelming sentiment that video on an iPod not only wouldn’t happen, but that it would be a terrible feature that no one would ever use because the screen is so small and it drains batteries, and how would you get videos on there, etc, etc, etc.
This was driven home further by Steve Jobs’s outright LIE to his fans that video on the iPod was the wrong way to go.
But they did add it. And it does drain batteries. And the screen is small.
But video on the iPod is still FRAKKING AWESOME. And whatsmore, most of the people who could never imagine using the video feature on the iPod now love it and brag about it as a feature, and some of them even want video added to the Nano.
I believe wi-fi will follow the same pattern.
Video on the iPod is AWESOME because it can be played on my living room flat panel not because it is running on the damn 2.5” or whatever LCD screen.
It is a portable DVR, of sort, and will not drain batteries while on a charger playing a 2-hr flick! I can’t imagine anyone walking or jogging around while watching videos of Lost or American Idol.
As for wireless, it will happen sooner than most think. Perhaps this coming upgrade cycle. As for implementations, again I will give early kudos to Apple for not telling us anything about it. A- to MS for detailing Zune’s wi-fi haves and have nots. Now we know it is just another candidate for the trash heap.
Deepthought system startup.
Process: Zune; AKA: ‘ipod killer’
About: possibility of ‘Zune’ replacing ‘iPod’
/SYS/wordsearch>possibility
/SYS>switch to outcome mode
Outcome: Not likely
Why: No originality
Comfirmation: No
/SYS/wordsearch>No
/SYS>repeat last question
Why: no one acually knows anything real on ‘microsoft Zune’
/SYS/famillaritysearch:microsoft
items found: longhorn
Meaning: Zune will be delayed for approximately 5 Years, by which time will undergo a name change, competition (iPod) will come out with newer models with more features, and manufacturers will have a way to show you every single feature, by wich time most ‘technogeeks’ will be: A) bored with it, B) mad at its flaws, or C) if it has a way to connect to the internet, had written viruses for it.*
*only if there is a way to get the entire system.
Nice one Deepthought. Although partner Toshiba may speed things up a bit for MS tardy ways. We might actually see this thing by Xmas since it is already at the FCC for Part 15 certifications..
Cheers!
A bit more of FCC Part 15. Any consumer [electrical] product undergoes a Part 15 Non-Interference Certification before actual public release. This means all features are complete (e.g. no further tinkering or back-to-the-drawing-board-kind of retreats).
The external plastics may change slightly as in color schemes, rubber pads, thickness, etc. but not to change the internal cavities or layouts or revise components.
It would be very expensive for even MS or Toshiba to revise the Zune after an FCC Part 15 cert since you are then guaranteeing that the actual released product is exactly the same “electrically” and “electro-magnetically” as in unwanted RF emissions.
If any changes affect Part 15 compliance after release the FCC can force a recall of ALL released units. Imagine MS recalling a million of these at $200 a pop. Ouch! That hurts!
So, feature-wise the Zune is done. It would be unwise for MS or Toshiba to be adding more features in the hardware at this point. The additional work is now concentrated on the firmware and UI, the supposed Pyxi network, and the Argo wireless protocol.
I usually don’t post much on here but this is an intriguing subject…
I think that one major use for Wifi enabled mp3 players is networking with car stereos. I think they only have bluetooth currently but how long do you think it would take for a Wifi enabled head units to be released if the iPod had Wifi? At first it would just be after market stereos, then the high end auto manufacturers would put them in at the factory and eventually everywhere. All of the sudden, anyone who gets into your car with an iPod can stream their music to your head unit which is a major upgrade for the people who have been using tape adaptors.
Also, I don’t understand why Wifi would be such a drain on the battery? If you can turn it off, much like bluetooth enabled phones, when you aren’t using then it won’t drain your battery too much.
This could be done with bluetooth as well but bluetooth is limited in its connectivity range so if they wanted to add the ability to buy tracks directly on your device Wifi should be a better choice…
Also, I don’t understand why Wifi would be such a drain on the battery? -Dustin
First, thanks for posting here at AM. It is nice to hear a new opinion from an outsider now and then.
To answer your opinion, it takes hundreds of milliwatts to push 54mbps data onto a +20dBm of channel power. This is the spec for WiFi-G but B and A variants are similar power levels. RF is my profession and it is not magic to come up with a RF power level as with a 802.11G at its highest data rate.
Yes, you are right the radio link does not need to be constantly on to conserve battery juice only when appropriate. This is where the firmware power management and auto-reconfiguration scheme comes to mind. The implementation of this is crucial to be transparent to the user. If you make the user do this manually every time, then it is not a feature but a nightmare.
As for Bluetooth’s weaknesses as you’ve said - short range and low throughput. These were exactly what BT was designed for from the beginning and not to compete with then fledgling 802.11b standard. It isn’t designed as a LAN but what we call a PAN for Personal Area Network. PAN is normally within 10 meters (around 30 feet) radius. This is normally enough for a mouse, keyboard, headphones, microphones, printers, etc.
Have you noticed these are low bit-rate and low-power devices? If 802.11x were so good, why aren’t these devices based on it? The answer always goes back to battery consumption and auto-configuration nightmares of 802.11x.
As for the wireless iPod connection in the car. You must have been on vacation off the grid since a Bluetooth adapter is being worked on by Pioneer and Apple for their car stereo head units. Streaming audio will not be a problem with BT 2.0 with EDR since even 1Mbps rate is plenty fast for 44 or 48kHz PCM sampled digital audio (CD quality).
This is the very reason Apple will implement not just 802.11x but also Bluetooth 2.0 with EDR. I can imagine the rumoured iPhone is actually an iPod with a BT-enabled VoIP capability. I am due for a new ‘Pod this Xmas and I hope this will be available by then.
I think that one major use for Wifi enabled mp3 players is networking with car stereos.
In the meantime, my understanding is that the Zune has a built-in FM transmitter.
As for the battery life, I’d imagine video is a much bigger drain than wi-fi, but that’s certainly not a good enough reason to exclude the video feature from either the iPod or the Zune. And how this specifically affects the specs for the Zune remains to be seen.
Upon further reading, I find that the Zune will support sharing with up to 4 other users. Also, and this is probably the biggest mistake I see so far with the Zune, it will not support PlaysForSure. There is speculation that Microsoft will allow users to convert existing Fairplay and PFS songs to the new format, but that’s just speculation.
Thanks for the informative posts Robotech and Beeblebrox…It seems after reading your explainations that bluetooth would indeed be the best network option for integration into a car audio system. I have a Nintendo DS lite and really need to test how long it lasts using the 802.11b connection. My experience so far with 802.11b enabled devices is based on this and so far has been positive, including battery life. The DS has a sleep mode but doesn’t have any auto on/off connectivity such as you are describing and it works for me. The average user might have trouble using it though because you do at least have to be able to detect a Wifi hotspot and enter a WEP key if needed. I plan on getting the DS browser for non-image intensive sites when it comes to Europe (emailing, blogs etc.) and hope my perception of the battery life doesn’t change after using it. One positive thing is that with the browser I should be able to finally access public hotspots that require a username and password login such as my university, Starbucks, McDonalds, hotels etc. Any wifi enabled iPod needs to be at least as easy as the DS and hopefully easier with the auto-detection/connectivity features you mentioned.
The reasons video consumes more battery juice than a non-video is the fact that the system-on-a-chip ASIC has more DSP transistors than an audio-only ASIC. It is not because of the file encoding which is either MPEG-2 or 4 or H.264/AVC based.
The CPU processing circuits designed to decode MPEG-2/4 packets are constantly used during a video stream.
Also, as a result of such medium, the LCD panel is constantly ON and backlighting is same.
I do doubt that video processing consumes more battery electron flow (or current >> milliwatts?) than a 802.11x pre-amp and power amplifier and receiver low-noise amplifiers combined. The combination of such components easily can reach 1000 milliwatts or 1Watt.
To put that in perspective. Say, you have a 2000 mA/hour rated battery in a device. If the device consumes 1000mW for two hours then the battery is drained and must be charged.
So, in this case, the device would be rated 2-hrs playing a video stream constantly. Standby and sporadic usage rates would vary between two users of the same device.
Small LCD panels and extra circuits in a system-on-a-chip ASIC would not be that power-hungry as a heat-generating transmitter power amplifiers.
I’m not even mentioning that power amplifiers generate a considerable amount of heat. Much of the consumed power is converted to heat in the process of amplification. Notice those big heat sinks on any final amplification stages?
In a miniscule size scale as an iPod. This heat has to be vented out similar to a notebook PC. Or the heat can be piped by a the external case itself. The metal back plate of the iPod is an ideal heatsink. The internal HD already uses this, by the way.
My experience so far with 802.11b enabled devices is based on this and so far has been positive, including battery life.
I didn’t realize that the DS used 802.11 wi-fi. I guess the PSP does as well to connect to other PSPs for multi-player game play (I want one of these with GTA sooooo bad).
I would imagine then that the FUD over wi-fi draining battery life to the point of uselessness is probably ill-founded. I don’t see any reason it wouldn’t work as advertised, and if it does then wi-fi could be a killer feature.