Why I’m disappointed with Zune and latest iPods

>I also note you completely avoided my point about the podcasts: are you acknowledging you need iTunes to help you get podcasts on your iPod?

No, again, you are being pedantic with my words. I said iTunes handled Podcasts a lot better than any other service I’ve used. We’ll see tomorrow if Zune makes that better.

>I wwould respect a guy to no end that could convince a company he could build a game in a weekend and get his friend to do it for him while he slacked off, build a multi-million dollar company that revolutionized how employees behave in the workplace/space from a garage with a few circuits strapped to plywood.

Steve Jobs did all that in 1977? Really? Damn, now you’re rewritting Silicon Valley history.

My point was that they were edge cases. You just proved that you would have treated them as such until they got rich. Fine. I understand. You really don’t care about new ideas, you just care about kissing the feet of people who made a big business. Got it.

“No, again, you are being pedantic with my words. I said iTunes handled Podcasts a lot better than any other service I’ve used. We’ll see tomorrow if Zune makes that better.”

I was being sarcastic, not pedantic. Being pedantic would be saying: “No, you didn’t say it handled Podcasts best, you said it had the best choice of podcasts suggesting that you were referring to the quanity and quality of content and the inability to get it otherwise.

“Steve Jobs did all that in 1977? Really? Damn, now you’re rewritting Silicon Valley history.”

Now, you are being pedantic: I can’t bring a brief and hperbolistic overview of some of Jobs’ successes and exploits because you specifically referred to 1977? Get a life. You can whip out the lame “pedantic” card all you want, but try not to be a hypocrite about it.

“My point was that they were edge cases.”

No, your point was that serving edge cases was a way to succeed. I have no qualms with the notion that edge cases can be successful, I do have a problem with the notion that not appealling to edge cases is a problem for a business.

“You just proved that you would have treated them as such until they got rich.”

Again, you don’t get me. I’m quite certain I would have liked them much better before they were rich. Woz is a tool in his own world and Jobs is unapproachable. I treat people in many different ways, but money is not a factor: I treat both rich and poor people well and like shit.

“You really don’t care about new ideas, you just care about kissing the feet of people who made a big business. Got it.”

“Your” idea is NOT new. That’s part of my point. It’s not significant is another part of my point. Another part is that there are many more significant and interesting factors than aspect ratio.

Get it? Doubt it.

Robert, you’re not nuts. But you are impatient. We’re in the middle of a transition from 4:3 to 16:9 for TV (probably at the tipping point or close to it). Two points: 1) The ATSC standards for HDTV were published ten years ago. It’s taken that long to get as far as we have. Maybe 10% of US TVs will be HD at the end of this year. But suddenly, as soon as any of us crosses over and buys a wide screen TV we demand widescreen content. period. 2) the iPod screen is not just for videos and movies. What about photos? Most digital cameras shoot in 4:3. Film cameras vary, but rarely go widescreen. The majority of the world’s graphics are not widescreen. Back in July, you posted about GalleryPlayer’s service which provided art for HDTVs. Most of that art gets cropped badly because it wasn’t created in the widescreen format. 4:3 screens are not evil. They’re just an endangered species. By all means keep pressing for wide. And do your part to produce in HDTV 16:9. We’ll get there–even Apple.

Can we have other examples of you visiting “normal people” besides Montana? What, do you go around like that guy selling Campbell’s Soup and knocking on people’s door saying “HI, I’m Robert Scoble and would like to visit you to see what type of TV you have”.

So, please, give us examples of “normal people” you visit when you travel.

LayZ: no. Why don’t you follow me around on a trip?

How about the simplest reason as to no widescreen is this way in 2008 they can have a big to do about offering the 160 gb widescreen ipod that is as thin as the nano. Technology today is like an underclocked processor it can go faster, but than how can u slowly churn out slightly faster ones at higher prices.

Couldn’t agree more – I blogged very similar thoughts yesterday.

There are multiple problems that Apple faces with HD, most of which boil down to cost. The majority of films haven’t been filmed as HD-digital (for the obvious reason that it didn’t exist!) and transferring 35mm film prints to HD through telecine is ferociously expensive. Secondly, boosting to HD or close to HD quality would triple Apple’s already vast bandwidth bill.

But more importantly, demanding HD quality is a classic case of jumping AHEAD of the technology curve. You forget, Robert, that you’re not a typical family in the US, let alone worldwide. When you say “Do you have any clue how bad that looks on a good 60-inch 16:9 widescreen HDTV?” you’re betraying that – what do you think the market penetration of 60in HDTV’s actually is?

I had to write something because I can’t believe everyone takes Steve’s words in a press release as fact. The music videos on the store have been upsized to 640×480. That is what he demoed. If you look at the movies most (if not all.. I couldn’t find one that wasn’t) are widescreen. I even bought Hitchiker’s to check it out. It’s 640×272. Which yes is a lower than DVD resolution. But it is a 1:2.35 aspect ratio. That’s widescreen. That’s most likely the ratio the store bought DVD is in even.

As for HD content, yes it’s the new thing, and yes I have an HD tv, but we’re not going to see a large amount of content for it until the market is much more penetrated than it is right now.

Product design is always about trade-offs. I love the IKEA motto–the first thing we design is the price. Lots of testimony above to why going HD end-to-end for downloadable content would price a product out of the sweet spot in the market.

True, things are tipping to HD for new TVs. But not everybody is buying new TVs this year.

I recently visited some friends and their neigbors in North Hollywood. They work in the film & TV business. They have old, old TVs. And upgrading the TV is not very high on their priorities. Shocking. Statistically useless sample, but I was, nevertheless, surprised to see it.

BTW, Robert… what’s the path in your house to get HD video from a computer drive to your big Sony? Are you seeing any QoS issues? audio or video glitches?

It’s worth noting that widescreen and HD really aren’t the same thing. In the UK, I’ve had a widescreen TV for over ten years now, and HD was only launched this year. I’d say that for at least five years now, all major TV purchases have been widescreen here, and it’s a similar picture across the rest of Europe. And before I even got a DVD player, I was only buying VHS movies in widescreen format.

As a result, I would never buy a device at the moment that didn’t offer widescreen. It’s just not future-proof. For me it’d be like buying a VCR.

The Police – Ghost in the Machine
Record album – I paid $7
Tape – I paid $9
CD – I paid $15
MP3 – $1 per song

Why do we have to pay over and over for the exact same content? I’m sure they want us to do the same thing with movies. You pay for the theather, the VHS, the DVD, the MP4, and whatever else they can come up with.

I’m sure they love all the money, but sorry, I’m not playing.

As for how it will play out in the future, would you rather own iTunes with a crappy 640×480 platform with crappy little ipod screens or the Xbox Live platform with high definition devices that can play high definition movies, a broadband infrastructure, and a possible portable device coming later?”

I’d take Xbox Live.

As Adam aais in #62 there seems to be a huge amount of confusion over HDTV, widescreen etc.

Widescreen TV is in a 16:9 format, rather than the old 4:3. However, it still uses the same number of “lines” as the old system, 500 for NTSC and 600 for PAL iirc.

Films are usually filmed in super-widescreen (2.35:1); any major US tv show is filmed in 16:9. In Europe, 16:9 is now standard for broadcast (and there are very few 4:3 TVs left, either for sale or in people’s homes).

HDTV refers to upping the number of “lines”, either to 720 or, in the highest standard, 1080. Very little is broadcast in this format, a few satellite and cable channles I believe (either side of the pond). You’ll be able to buy HD content on Blu Ray or HD-DVD soon, but afaik there’s few players and fewer discs available at the moment.

DVDs are 720×480. If the content on the DVD is widescreen, e.g. a film, the 720 remains the same but the 480 gets cut down to whatever is required. It still looks just fine on a large screen though, as you’ve all no doubt witnessed.

Job’s 640×480 looks good on TVs. It will remain 640 in width but will get cut down in height for widescreen content, which all their content on iTunes 7 will be delivered in (I think someone above worked out to be 640×275). You’d be hard-pressed to tell this apart from a DVD.

Finally, I expect the iTV will be fully capable of supporting HDTV (i.e. 720+ lines), but as stated HDTV content has monster storage requirements. You won’t be able to stream it wirelessly whatever the standard used (MCEs struggle unless their practically in line-of-sight with the wireless router; Apple’s kit will be no different). If they’re wired via Ethernet though, it won’t be a problem. It’ll take a night to download the movies though .

Make no mistake though, HDTV will become standard, just as colour did over BW, and 16:9 and digital have replaced analouge 4:3 transmission in Europe.
Things progress!

Totally agree with you on this one Robert. I just read an article that said more than 50% of all TVs sold last year were High Def. Why the portables arent doing a wide screen format makes no sense to me either

Michael, 50% of TVs sold is no where near 50% of all TVs though. And the TVs have upped the anti because the market had essentially gone stagnant and offering HD is easy, obvious, and relatively cheap. It’s similar to cellphones having video cameras and disc storage and more application features. It has less to do with demand and more to do with the fact that these features can be thrown in for little cost to boost demand where little exists. A portable device is a whole different story: tons of demand in a nascent market, other areas which will also advance with technology (memory size, connectivity, screens, size, add-ons), the needs of a new and fickle market, etc…

Starting from November 14, those lame apple fanboys will gradually become an extinct species. And their lame whitey ipod thing (an abomination) will be used as an expensive paperweight. ’nuff said.

Robert,

did I miss something? I didn’t see anywhere a mention that the Zune will allow you to subscribe to podcasts (audio or video).

Consuming podcasts is all I use my iPod for.

Hm… no one talking about Zune.

I love how scoble thinks he’s Apple’s primary target consumer.

I disagree scoobie doo. The screens are so small it makes no difference what the aspect ratio is. If you want a wider aspect ratio put some black tape on the top and bottom of the screen.

Dan G is confused about DVD widescreen: DVD is always 720×480 (720×576 PAL), and by “widescreen” we mean 16:9 vs. 4:3… those are the only two actual resolutions. And it’s really just a matter of interpretation; a flag in file indicated 16:9 vs. 4:3 to the player.

DV camcorders generally offer the same option: you can set the camera to 16:9 or 4:3… different cameras deliver the video in different ways, but what goes on tape is always 720×480 NTSC.

Obviously, one you have digital screens at lower resolutions, it’s not such a great idea to have non-square pixels on-screen; the resizing can be pretty obvious. Apple’s new videos go all the way to 640 pixels, which of course is an easy bilinear scaling to deliver 320 pixels across (well, sure, it it’s widescreen, in this case you’d resize in both dimensions). A larger screen will need more pixels, and a better resizing algorithm.

My iPod was stolen last July, and I haven’t replaced it yet. I am absolutely waiting for a player that can handle widescreen. I may wait to see an Apple offering; if not, there are numerous others out there. Nothing quite as slick as the online mockups of the “screen-only” iPod. Then again, Apple doesn’t make anything that slick, either… yet.

zune… the small screen is exactly why aspect ratio does matter. Most of what I watch, either from DVD or my own videos, is widescreen. Playing a 16:9 video on a 4:3 screen, I’m blacking out 25% of the pixels I paid for. Given the already-too-small/lowres screens out there on the pocket players, this is unacceptable. Add just the extra pixels necessary to extend your 4:3 to 16:9, and you get full use on widescreen material, and just what you have today on 4:3 (most existing 16:9 PMPs have higher resolutions screens, but also in the 4″-4.25″ range or better).

Why not check out some of Archos’ products? Not very many people have mentioned them. Their PVPs have 4 to 4.3″ screens, 16:9 screen, excellant video quality, a removable battery, one has a kickstand(604), you can record music and video with their dock, and they are releasing a wi-fi touchscreen version soon.

I would like to see the ipod catch up to some of their competitors by releasing a “true video” player, but their are much better options out right now than the ipod. The ipod is a great MP3 player but it has a long way to go before it dominates the market in anything else.

Why not check out some of Archos’ products? Not very many people have mentioned them. Their PVPs have 4 to 4.3″ screens, 16:9 screen, excellant video quality, a removable battery, one has a kickstand(604), you can record music and video with their dock, and they are releasing a wi-fi touchscreen version soon. http://www.archos.com

I would like to see the ipod catch up to some of their competitors by releasing a “true video” player, but their are much better options out right now than the ipod. The ipod is a great MP3 player but it has a long way to go before it dominates the market in anything else.