The Microsoft Zune HD is better than the comparative Apple Ipod Touch

Firstly i find your language and the tone, which you present many of your comments as rude and arrogant. I would also like to point out that while i have not physically used a Zune Hd i fail to see any relevance to your debate as it is arguing mainly in terms of harddware and software capability, and that information is easily obtainable. I would also present that I am unbiased as i neither own or plan on owning either of this devices now or in the near future. It could be seen merely as a childish reaction in an effort to bid favour against me by creating bias. 2) Your last point being that "Do you think that either company would test this with wireless on? No." an arrogant comment on your behalf as you neglect that in this debate we cannot truly make any assumptions if we regard this as a fair comparision, as we do not know the conditions in which either device was tested. So it would be prudent to assume otherwise , consequently we cannot judge based on battery life. If you are not satisfied with this answer then what distinction is there in truth between 33 hours and 30 hours mathematically one is greater yet practically it is also irrelevant as neither is capable for long durations without being charged regularly. As such i propose to you that the average user would charge either devices regularly after a days use. In turn this makes this information useless when applied in context. 3) ""...the zune weight 65% the weight of the touch..." Thank you for proving my exact point." You are also in this instance arrogant to believe your point has won as in fact i have dissproved your earlier claims that it had a weight of half that of the ipod touch, clearly there is a major difference between 50% and 65%, thus dissproving your point. 4)"...not aesthetically pleasing or modern in any ways...". I disagree. It is much better than the cluncky metallic silver of the Ipod Touch, which smears easily." In regards to this point you are mistaken in your definition of aesthetically pleasing, as you reference "clunky", which refers to the ergonomics of the ipod touch. However, i agree with you that the surface of the ipod touch does tarnish easily. I would like to apologise in this instance for confusing the subject i am referring to both the capability of bluetooth and wi-fi, which is what i assume you are talking about in regard to wireless as bluetooth is a form of wireless also. I would also argue that the feature is not unecessary as it allows a basis for future apps to communicate between ipods, such as , multiplayer games and also allows the use of bluetooth products such as headphones and speakers. As such it surpasses the Zune Hd as a platform for multimedia applications like games. Next i would like to ask for your souce regarding pixel height for the Zune Hd as i could only reference it from the offical site as being 272 pixels, as such it is smaller than the 320 pixels of the Ipod touch. In turn i would suggest that this allows for a better experience when using the device by providing a larger clearer display. I would also hasten to add that i personally cannot see why you would use a device such as the Zune or Touch to output video anyways seeing as they both cannot do so in full HD, and in a world where prices of blueray players and High definition streaming, that it would not be in my considerations when choosing either device. In regards to you issue about cost i would argue that $10 is not enough to suggest the better value of one device over another as that issue would require more context. I would now also like to debate the software availiability for the Touch also as the itunes store already has a vast number of applications, video and music. According to apples site over 100 000 applications. I would say that the availiability of diverse software for the touch is a key selling point allowing a wide range of software based personalisation. Source www.apple.com