Talk:Zune/Archive 4

message: Its under criticism. I didn't find it in the edit page though. 
99.245.225.109 03:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zune Hat 

message: Please note the grammar in this page is not professional quality.  There are references to subjects that the average reader or techie doesn't know about so please link the information properly with a wikilink.  Proof read it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Getonyourfeet (talk • contribs) 11:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you has to be kidding myself... oh, and I'm not saying I would have seen this if I hadn't gone to edit, but if you are going to be criticizing people on whether or not they are grammatically correct, try spelling grammatically right... Out of all of the words you could have screwed up on it has to be that one... Can't you see the red line under it?!?!? PhorkPhace (talk) 07:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much grammar mistakes 

message: Having continuous entries that begin by "The Zune cannot..." is not proactive or subjective and imply very negative qualities of the Zune over the "alternative."  Though the entries are so-called thoroughly researched.  They are only presented in 'cases against' owning a Zune, whereas similar products do not.  Whoever is presenting these criticism should also thoroughly research the positive aspects of the Zune.
Most of these criticsms detract from the purpose of product and/or are issues/features have not been addressed or released by Microsoft.  
The Zune is a Microsoft, Hard drive based portable media station.  Criticism should be directed to how it fails to be a media station instead of how its details or 'features' do not satisify the single critic.
Note:  I just previewed several of the "sources" many of them are just blogs of non industry or non-accredited individuals.
(~~Uberpesh 022607~~)
:The revised criticism section seems really amateur and hard to read.  "Doesn't support non-English characters" seems to be a lot more informative than "Michael Kaplan ....... claims".  "Power users" doesn't seem to me to uniquely define people who would be running non-XPSP2 English systems... it just seems a throwaway remark that doesn't belong.  Maybe this is how the New Improved Wiki Criticism Sections are supposed to read, but I think the writing quality, readibility, and accuracy took a nosedive with this latest round of edits. I would suggest tightening this, removing the bias, and making it criticism-centered as opposed to critic-centered.  But that's just my opinion. Preppy 03:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Wikipedia admin Maury at the bottom of the page claims the Zune page is "terrible article" because many of contributions appear to be listed based and breaks Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout. Many of the paragraphs by previous contributers before my edits were very short usually one-to-two sentences long and were piecemeal information, which really would put it no higher than the B-scale Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment.  Everyone worked off the broken style guide and it kept getting worst overtime.  To address these issues, I started to consolidate the information in paragraph form in the criticism section.  Having visited the iPod page and several articles, then generalizing what I saw... many of the pages are paragraphed based but minimize listing.  Also, criticism pages in some Wikipedia divide the sections covering aspects of the criticism help the reader.  Like the audiophile page divides it into subjectivist and objectivist criticisms.  The iPod page divides the sections into topical format.  I tried to logically divide the sections in topical order.  The criticism by its nature is biased if you remove the criticisms like Dpbsmith said before it defeats the purpose of criticisms and softens it to the point it becomes meaningless.  Rather try to present the fact of Zune does not support x,y,z feature repeatedly as fact, I tried to tie it to prominent people as suggested by Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements so that biased statement becomes NPOV.  When I added Michael Kaplan, I did it according to Wikipedia recommendations.  Also in writing when you do this it build credibility because this person is a professional of handling international language on computer rather than reduce it to down to Zune only supports English text which doesn't add to credibility.  I also tried to grouped up these scattered criticisms and integrate them under a constituency so that new readers understand who would make those criticisms.  Also Maury believes there is too much minutia, or highly detailed info which may not be interesting for non-technical non sophisticated reader, which should either be integrated in paragraph form like the PSP article or removed all together.  If Maury didn't stop by, I wouldn't be making these edits because I too felt PRRfan edits where great edits but what he said was shocking to me.Getonyourfeet 06:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Either remove or edit criticism 

message: I feel this page needs to step back and rewrite some of these in a neutral point of view and more balanced.  Many of you write the page under the assumption that you are a Windows XP user which is fine but fail to provide balance/neutrality.  If your gonna promote Microsoft provide balance with alternatives.  For example, the the accessory section gives almost a fair balance by considering other companies but fails to provide alternatives products which make Microsoft products stand out more because you guys fail to provide examples of their offerings.  Also the operating system section of support was misrepresented because you didn't consider the gamut of other operating systems and projects and provided a poor link to OLD Macintosh but not the latest Apple had to offer MacOS X.  Please, reconsider these thoughts when continue editing this wiki and make yourself better writers.  Also it is not ethical to place blinders on wikipedian visitors by using censorship by promoting only Microsoft only products. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Getonyourfeet (talk • contribs) 09:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page needs to communicate thoughts neutral point of view of computing information systems 

message: ...especially with references to Microsoft.
Please make this page more company neutral.  I have to point that there should be more cleaning up of the page between Microsoft and Zune or else the page becomes too wordy and becomes a waste of time for the public to scan and comprehend the information.  Also, I feel that if there needs to be a link to companies product and a company name it should only be referenced no more than once per paragraph or mentioned at least once.  Also there should be more focus on the product "Zune" rather than "Microsoft's Zune." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Getonyourfeet (talk • contribs) 06:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Much Advertising of a company 

message: I feel it is sometimes necessary to decouple company qualification to its product.  The benefits of decoupling branding from the product are ease of reading, speedy reading, getting straight to the points, etc.  However, there are cases where such decoupling cannot be made because it is needed to distinguish it from others or to preserve the value or credibility.  For example Microsoft Points.  Points isn't a satisfactory qualification.  What points?  Dragon Point Kill Points?  Points of Interest?  These are better replaced with a pronoun or acronym. Imagine that we qualified every single reference to Zune with "Microsoft Zune."  Or every Microsoft product beginning with Microsoft or every product mention in this article with their respective company name.  Some if you wouldn't reach the end of the page.  I myself get turned off with large blocks of text.  That's not friendly reading.  Also when you do this, you are advertising unintentionally.  It's like the in the movie Hellboy and the guy drinks slowly to Red Bull.  Not only that... they place Red Bull and advertising all over the scenes.  In some shows they mask product names with tape because they didn't get paid to advertise the product or to keep your attention on the act.  I do this fairly with every company name I see not just Microsoft but with constraint.  All I'm interested in is the Zune and what it can do no more or less, not who where involved with every part associated in making this product.Getonyourfeet 01:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Embedded advertising removal needs to be considered 

message: For the Criticism section... 
...hasn't anybody in the trade press taken Microsoft to task for calling their player "Zune" when Creative has been calling theirs "Zen" for something like, is it four years now? Same consonants, different vowels... if it were Hebrew they'd be the same word.
Of course a sensible person would say these names are not similar enough to constitute trademark infringment. I'm not saying it is. I'm just saying it seems lazy and unsporting and, well, just generally tacky. 
I mean, after all this is the company that sued Michael Robertson for calling a product LindowsOS.
Microsoft deserves criticism for sharp practice and stunning lack of originality... didn't they get any? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's not like they called it Wen or something. MarkKB 03:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or sued the student Mike Rowe for his sofware web site MikeRoweSoft.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.213.187.32 (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Microsoft deserves criticism??? I hope you don't mean that they deserve criticism written into the article... this site is meant to give an unbiased informed statement, not an opinion.PhorkPhace (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zune and Zen 

message: Is the first half of this section, mentioning debunked rumors, still relevant to the current state of the device? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tywillis (talk • contribs) 05:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of "Speculation and rumors" content 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hacks 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Locking the Page to prevent Vandalism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gaming Functionality on the Way 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Descriptions of criticism can include emphasis in the service of clarity

message: "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)
thread_title:  Cost 

message: 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.: "Pressing the Pause button during FM playback will only mute the audio. You cannot record FM radio."
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)
thread_title: Does the Zune record audio?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sales