IPOD vs Zune

[coreyjune12]

I like my iPod but my mom has a zune. I like the ipod better because you can use it as an external disk, personal planner, timer, play games, and put notes on it without having to mod it (unlike the Zune). I like the itunes software better than the zune software. The only things i like about the zune is the wide screen and the ability to sync wirelessly.

 

[coreyjune12]

I say iPod. They hold more music and they're cheaper. Aren't Zunes like over $200 or something like that?

No, actually the zunes are the same price as ipods. I got a zune for my mom and only paid $80 for a 30 GB in November of last year.

 

[disneyworldluvr349]

I love my ipod! They are and will ever be the best.

 

[bicker]

Wow, that's a lot better than iTunes! Is the Zune songs in MP3 format, and can you put them onto an iPod?

You can't put MP3s onto a Zune, and you can buy some MP3s from Zune, but the Zune subscription is only for use on the Zune or with the Zune software on your computer, I believe. Since the subscription allows you to download all you want for the monthly fee, songs you download via the subscription have embedded DRM enforcing those restrictions. That is really one of the two main reasons to choose Zune over iPod. (The other is the neat ability is that which allows you to "squirt" any song on your Zune over to someone else with a Zune, wirelessly, so they can listen to the song three times.)

However, as I noted, Zune works fine with any MP3s you buy (from Zune Marketplace if you wish, but I prefer to buy MP3s from Amazon.com) that have no DRM. Those tracks remain DRM-free, on the Zune, and so in that way the Zune works just like the iPod.

 

[bicker]

I say iPod. They hold more music and they're cheaper. Aren't Zunes like over $200 or something like that?

Zunes actually hold the same amount of music as comparable iPods, and Zunes are actually less expensive than comparable iPods.

Using Best Buy as a source of comparison:

Zune 4GB (flash) $130
Zune 8GB (flash) $180
Zune 80GB (HD) $250

iPod nano 4GB (flash) $150
iPod nano 8GB (flash) $200
iPod classic 80GB (HD) $250 (on sale for $238 this weekend, though)

 

[bicker]

One other feature of the Zune that I really like, that I forgot to mention earlier: It has a great FM receiver in it; digital tuning, presets, etc.

 

[Ampris]

I'd rather have the iPod. Right now, I have a 1GB mp3 player that's pretty good, but I'd rather have an iPod to hold eighty gigs worth of songs + video. (Is the Zune able to play video?) I like the menus and navigation of the iPod a lot, too. And I'm not gonna pretend to know every detail about either one, but... well, even after I've fully compared their features, Zune is still a Microsoft product. That turns me off like whoa. (Even with the FM tuner, which is my favorite feature of the Zune. It does tick me off that if you want it for the iPod, you have to buy something else. )

Now I may not be an Appleholic, but I still have no love for Microsoft or their products; and if I'm going to fork over all that money for a music player, I'd rather it wasn't going to a company that I know will leave me disappointed. It might happen that I break down and buy a new mp3 player sometime soon, and I would definitely pick an iPod over Zune.

 

[bicker]

(Is the Zune able to play video?)

Absolutely, and you can subscribe to both audio and video podcasts, and they'll go directly onto the Zune, if you wish.

Apple and Microsoft are both good companies that produce good products. Neither is really substantially better than the other with regard to the kinds of things consumers care about; one's just a lot bigger than the other, and therefore a substantially bigger target for ire. The bigger and more powerful they are, the more "fun" it is to sling mud at 'em.

 

[shelby&stitch]

i think ipods are easier to use

 

[Ampris]

Absolutely, and you can subscribe to both audio and video podcasts, and they'll go directly onto the Zune, if you wish.

Apple and Microsoft are both good companies that produce good products. Neither is really substantially better than the other with regard to the kinds of things consumers care about; one's just a lot bigger than the other, and therefore a substantially bigger target for ire. The bigger and more powerful they are, the more "fun" it is to sling mud at 'em.

Eh, what? You misunderstand why I dislike Microsoft. It's not because they're an easy target-- their products just aren't that good.

Apparently you've had more positive experiences with them I have, but it's really all be in the perception. I'm a Windows user, always have been, and I can say from my long experience that Windows causes a lot of trouble. Your experience was probably different, but from what I've seen, Microsoft's stuff simply doesn't work the way it's supposed to. So when it comes down to picking a music player, I'll choose to err on the side of caution. The chances of my getting lucky with a Zune --that is, getting one that works the way it should--aren't quite high enough, imho, to justify the risk of buying one.

Unfortunately, I can't really speak for Apple as I've never used any of their products. But they do have a decent reputation.

And podcasts aren't really my thing. Nice to know that the it's capable of video, though.

 

[bicker]

i think ipods are easier to use

Easier? How so?

The iTunes software (the software that runs on the computer) is very "light-weight". That's both good and bad. "Light-weight" means it runs much more reliably, and faster. (Reliability and speed are major concerns with the Zune software, which will almost surely be a major part of the product's future improvements.) However, the fact that iTunes is "light-weight" also means that it is missing a lot of feature functionality you get with the Zune software. For example, the social networking capability... stuff you don't realize you cannot live without until you've enjoyed it for a while. (Think of it as Facebook for music.) I also feel the Zune software (that runs on the computer) also provide a much richer interactive experience, including a lot more information and resources regarding artists, albums, songs, and such -- but that's pretty subjective.

With regard to the software that runs on the devices themselves, however, I don't see much of a difference at all. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, but overall they're pretty comparable AFAIC.

 

[bicker]

Eh, what? You misunderstand why I dislike Microsoft. It's not because they're an easy target-- their products just aren't that good.

Well that's really subjective. I've found Microsoft Word to be one of the best products in its class, as compared to any other product within its own class. Similarly, Excel beats its competitors. Microsoft Visual Studio is a far better IDE than Eclipse or Domino Designer, for example. Microsoft not the best at everything -- no where near so -- but they are either the best or close to the best, for many things.

Apparently you've had more positive experiences with them I have, but it's really all be in the perception.

I might also have had a lot more negative experiences with Apple, IBM, and other Microsoft competitors. The more experiences you have, the more you realize that there are more religious differences in the software realm than actual, substantive differences.

I'm a Windows user, always have been, and I can say from my long experience that Windows causes a lot of trouble.

So does democracy, but it is still the best form of government we have, overall. Other operating systems may be better for certain things, but who wants to have separate computers for different purposes?

Your experience was probably different, but from what I've seen, Microsoft's stuff simply doesn't work the way it's supposed to.

In my experience, you can readily get anything to the point where it doesn't work the way a specific set of expectations remain unsatisfied. Again, it is a matter of size which sets the bar higher for Microsoft, and why folks are willing to overlook the failures of other software. For example, Apple's operating systems are the only ones that come close to Microsoft Windows for personal computing but fail miserably on many objective measures. Again, OS X is good stuff, but lots of the software many people use simply won't run on OS X, or runs more reliably and faster on Microsoft Windows. And that's just operating systems -- once you get to office applications, Microsoft software really shines. And again, with regard to multimedia software, Microsoft is arguably as good as any and better than some.

Unfortunately, I can't really speak for Apple as I've never used any of their products. But they do have a decent reputation.

The advantage of being the underdog. It's substantially a fabricated distinction, again, due to how many of the deficits people are willing to overlook when they are the small guy's deficits.