Mossberg's new Zune review sounds familiar
Relevant Posts
- Walt Mossberg gives Ubuntu the cold-shoulder (63 days ago - 146 Comments)
- Mossberg harshes on Dell's new Vostro lineup (85 days ago - 50 Comments)
- The new Zune: better than before, but not quite good enough (3 days ago - 129 Comments)
- New Zunes get unboxed, reviewed, and Microsoft firms up plans (4 days ago - 103 Comments)
- Mossberg howls: "Free My Phone" (25 days ago - 99 Comments)
Add your comments
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
Please note that gratuitous links to your site are viewed as spam and may result in removed comments.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Alex @ Nov 14th 2007 9:19AM
sounds like the fresh hypnosis session was successful.
Jeff @ Nov 14th 2007 9:59AM
Seriously, this thing reads like it was faxed over from Apple HQ, which may just have happened.
Earth to Walt, did you think for a minute that anyone actually was thinking you were going to write anything different than what you posted above. Not only did you reach your daily Apple product reference quota, you exceeded it more than usual!
And he found the wi-fi to be nearly useless? Is he still recycling that old talking point? Where in his beloved iPod line can he wirelessly sync his music? Oh I can guarantee you when Apple copies I mean "adopts" this he wont find it to be oh so useless then.
Ryan's post may have been just awful, but this guy does it everyday like a master to the point where he is becoming a cartoon. the only people that take him seriously are his fellow Apple shills and the people who depend on him for a paycheck.
Chris @ Nov 14th 2007 10:08AM
This review and Ryan's yesterday share a lot of similarities. Now that's fine but so far they've been the only people to form these opinions of the Zune.
I'll let you come to your own conclusion.
RandomVillainZA @ Nov 14th 2007 12:31PM
A few words to what those of you that I can only describe as Zune fanboys, despite my dislike of the word 'fanboy', regarding yesterdays post and this.
Why the hell are you all going crazy?! I mean look at the basic picture here. A company released a new mp3 player. yeah. an mp3 player. a reason for living? no. a technological breakthrough? no. the only must have item in the world? no. a device that plays music. that's it. Now for some reason you love this mp3 player unconditionally, as you are raving about it while you haven't even used it yet. Fair enough, we all desire certain things. But honestly, is it really necessary to grab the pitchforks and torches when someone who has actually used it doesn't like it or think it's 'all that'?! Grow up. Come to your senses. Go grab a cup of coffee. it's an mp3 player. go buy it if you fancy it.
B.B. @ Nov 14th 2007 2:50PM
Man, get over it fanboys.
I use both players since I got a boatload of music and I like the Zune (and the FM tuner built-in).
The new software is a simpler and dumbed down prettier version of what we had before. You cant' create smart playlists? No easy management? I would love to hear from someone who doesn't have a chip on their shoulder who says that it's better than what Apple has put together.
Granted, Apple has their own issues which can be discussed elsewhere, but Microsoft dropped the ball AGAIN. they had a chance to make the software more intuitive, and now it's just more confusingly simple. They cut out so may features I find it more of a pain to work with my Zune than before (which I didn't find all that problematic).
kentg @ Nov 14th 2007 9:19AM
As I have said before, if you are looking for a review of the Zune, check out cnet. They have the Zune rated as their top mp3 player.
Thomas Ricker @ Nov 14th 2007 9:28AM
@kentg,
Do you have a link? From what I found, the iriver clix is their top rated player with an 8.7 rating. They give the Zune 80 an 8.3. In fact, CNET gives an 8.3 to the iPod, samsung yp-k5, cowon d2 and iAudio 7, Creative Zen V, a bunch of SanDisk players and more.
http://reviews.cnet.com/4566-6450_7-0.html?tag=dffl1_6&sort;=edRating7 desc
Thomas
AceMcLoud @ Nov 14th 2007 10:52AM
Gotta love that logic.
"As I have said before, if you are looking for a review of the Zune, check out cnet. They have the Zune rated as their top mp3 player."
So I should disregard any review that does not have the Zune as the Top mp3 player?
kentg @ Nov 14th 2007 10:58AM
Gee, you're right, that's EXACTLY what I said. If I didnt make myself clear before, let me say this.....the only reviews that count are the ones where the Zune is top rated. Actually, some people feel cnet is a very credible source for reviews, and I for one respect their opinion on the matter. I always consult cnet before buying any sort of electronics, apparently many other people think similarly.
AceMcLoud @ Nov 14th 2007 11:07AM
CNET also rates Mac OS X Leopard higher than Vista. Guess in your opinion they got those reviews wrong, right?
kentg @ Nov 14th 2007 11:10AM
No, actually I think vista is crap. I am no ms fan by any strech on the imagination. If I could get Ubuntu working the way I want to on my laptop, I wouldnt have a dual boot machine. Nice try though.
AceMcLoud @ Nov 14th 2007 11:21AM
But Windows Vista Ultimate is rated higher than Ubuntu. You really should get it.
After all some people feel cnet is a very credible source for reviews, and I for one respect their opinion on the matter. You should always consult cnet before buying any sort of software, apparently many other people think similarly.
Getting old, I know, but hopefully you will eventually get the point.
qwerty @ Nov 14th 2007 11:25AM
TOP 5 MP3 Players: http://reviews.cnet.com/4370-6490_7-234-101.html?tag=dir
Top Rated Hard Drive MP3 Players: http://reviews.cnet.com/4370-6490_7-234-102.html?tag=lnav
kentg @ Nov 14th 2007 11:27AM
Wow arent we getting a little testy. I was simply giving people a link to an actualy review of the product. I also pointed out that they made it their rop player. Nothing more. Vista Ultimate may be rated higher, it may even be a better product. I cant say for sure since I have not used that version. But lets not compair apples with oranges the differences between these two players are easier to compare since they are more tangible.
Ryan Block @ Nov 14th 2007 11:30AM
qwerty, chill out man. I was trying to not have a bunch of redundant links and accidentally hit delete one too many times. Thanks for reposting!
qwerty @ Nov 14th 2007 11:34AM
Great!!! Now your editing posts that have no cursing, derogatory comments, or anything that would seem to be deemed worthy of an edit. You guys are really losing it.
John @ Nov 14th 2007 11:33AM
Who the hell rated the AceMcLoud's comment up? Cnet is more credible than Mossberg. Period. If you're looking at virtually any electronic equipment (the main thing I use their reviews for - primarily when I was looking at TVs) or anything else they go through the trouble of reviewing, Cnet's reviews are pretty dead on - for one thing, they list specific pros and cons for each section of a review, not the rambling imminently quotable style of Mossberg. Even if you don't agree with a Cnet rating, the review itself is always almost impossible to argue with because it's an actual in-depth review.
Derbeste @ Nov 14th 2007 12:05PM
"qwerty, chill out man. I was trying to not have a bunch of redundant links and accidentally hit delete one too many times. Thanks for reposting!"
k...you actually got a bit of respect back on that. At least now we know you are trying to listen to your fanbase. Thank you for the clarification. And thanks for listening.
snitch @ Nov 14th 2007 1:51PM
CNET reviews are not to good sometimes I just brought a belkin N1 vision router following their reviews and had to take it back the same day, looks like the guy that did the review did not even try it out, people should wait at least a week so they can hear the truft from users not fanboys, I try one out yesterday and did not like it, but I must say mossberg is right because the battery is not 4 hour as advertise its more like 3 and on top off that as you might know wifi eats your battery quick thats no secret so that brings you down to 1+ hour of battery life, but don't take my word for it if you where waiting for it, go buy it try it out then if not happy return it so Microsoft can get your point, I did it
MosquitoControl @ Nov 14th 2007 9:23AM
In all fairness, I don't think Walt is exactly the guy the wireless is supposed to appeal to.
He's about 30 years too old for it.
He's out of the primary demographic of mp3 players, period.
Which applies to many of us.
Andir3.0 @ Nov 14th 2007 4:07PM
I still don't understand MP3 players. Give me a phone with one in it (and my LG vx9900 is working just fine (though a bit loud :p) Why tote around a cell phone AND an MP3 player? It's stupid if you ask me.
booticon @ Nov 14th 2007 9:23AM
Would you look at that -- an actual review!
nate @ Nov 14th 2007 6:15PM
agreed. that wasn't actually too biased, imo.
John @ Nov 14th 2007 9:26AM
What, are you proud for sharing opinions with Walt Mossberg?
John P @ Nov 14th 2007 9:27AM
Except for that little slip of iPod touch, at least Mossberg actually reviews the Zune hardware and functionality. More than engadget can really say.
Although, honestly, coverflow is the most inefficient way of ever looking for music, and Mossberg dotes on it like its his own child. Coverflow is especially annoynig if you listen to classical music, where album art rarely graces the internet. But still, a better review. I have yet to look at cnet.
John @ Nov 14th 2007 10:08AM
My iTunes can't even find cover art for OK Computer, after it summarily deletes the album art that I myself added...
UnnDunn @ Nov 14th 2007 9:27AM
THAT was an even-handed, professional review. What Engadget posted earlier was nothing more than an anti-Zune rant. Yes, both articles reach the same conclusion, but Mossberg used clear, concise details to back up his remarks and took an analytical tone throughout, which is much more than can be said for Block's "review."
rob @ Nov 14th 2007 9:28AM
We all know that Ryan Blok's review was a farce. He ought to just leave engadget while he still has a shred of dignity left.
Preston @ Nov 14th 2007 9:39AM
Too late.
I.E @ Nov 14th 2007 10:10AM
please don't make Ryan mad or thy comments shall be stricken.
euclid @ Nov 14th 2007 10:11AM
Agreed. Block should start his own blog so that asses like him can nod in agreement to his skewed opinions.
And likewise, coming to Mossberg, I have no idea why his opinion should even matter.
Like MosquitoControl said, who gives a shit about a 60 year old fart talking about an mp3 player? Seems ridiculous to me. I mean if I wanted someones opinion on LCD TVs or Portable entertainment I'd ask someone in their twenties or thirties.
I would consult Mossberg however if I wanted to know about a Rascal or some other powerchair.
Derbeste @ Nov 14th 2007 10:29AM
I didn't get the chance to post yesterday, but I will today.
I doubt many have a problem with the conclusion Ryan came to yesterday. They may or may not agree with his conclusion, but the conclusion, in and of itself, was not the problem.
It's that there was almost NOTHING to point out HOW he came to that conclusion.
Reviews are like math. Show your work!
Case in point, posters are much more happy with this guys review even though he came to the same conclusion as Ryan.
Some still question his credibility and accuracy(as they still would have to Ryan....fanbois will be fanbois), but there is at least respect for his research and knowledge of both products.
Lastly, even though many may still disagree with Mr. Mossburg, I doubt he'll stop all comments about his paper and stick his head in the sand like an offended, two-year-old, ostrich child.
In summary:
1. Learn to back up your conclusion if you want any respect. Mossburg just showed how to do that.
2. Grow up. If you can't handle public opinion, you shouldn't be a public writer.
Quix @ Nov 14th 2007 10:35AM
Wow Ryan, it looks like you have the Redmond readers in a rage.
Of course, so does Mossberg. And anyone else with anything positive to say about Apple or anything negative to say about MS.
As for the Zune, I'll form an opinion when I actually *see someone using one*.
Johnny5 @ Nov 14th 2007 10:56AM
I thought Ryan's review was fairly accurate. MS has to give users a compelling reason to switch, considering they are second fiddle to apple in DAP land. When I look at the Zune, I see a decent device - maybe even a good device this good round - but would I get rid of my iPod for it? No, there is just nothing THAT great about it. Had Zune existed before the iPod, the roles would be reversed.
While Ryan and Mossberg may dig on Apple, their assessments on Zune seem reasonable to me (guy who has never owned a Mac...although Vista's performance has me looking). This is just the unfortunate world of the underdog.
o rly @ Nov 14th 2007 11:59AM
Quix, shouldn't you waddle back to Digg and have your usual love tussle with flag564?
Tony @ Nov 14th 2007 12:22PM
@Johnny5
Ryan didn't write a review. Infact, there was no mention of quality, or use of features in his entire "review." It doesn't even compare screen size, or battery life. What was his "review" good for?
For all we know, he hasn't even touched the new Zune yet.
mark @ Nov 14th 2007 12:29PM
Ryan does have his own blog. www.ryanblock.com
In one post he talks about engadgets comparison to cnet as unfair since they were not comparing apples to apples becuase they are so different. Strange how he did the same thing with the so called review of the zune comparing it to all of apples products. Also way to go engadget, you posted an article to make build yourself up instead of admitting you should not be doing reviews that are biased.
Zoesch @ Nov 14th 2007 12:53PM
Man aren't we quick to dismiss those who have a different opinion, I'll bring the torches and pitchforks while we're at it.
Personally I'm happy to see the Zune improve but I agree that they are perhaps aiming their efforts the wrong way around by trying to catch up (And improve) on the iPod classic/nano instead of focusing on the Touch, Sansa or Archos
David Clark @ Nov 14th 2007 1:15PM
Oh no! A large number of readers called us out on our crap-ass blog post! Quick! Find someone who agrees with us!
hn333 @ Nov 14th 2007 1:17PM
Screw Ryan
quomen @ Nov 14th 2007 2:00PM
Ryan Block is so getting served and it has been a long time coming. The bias stinks off him like the smell of garlic emanates off my korean self.
nate @ Nov 15th 2007 11:21AM
@ zoesch (sp?)
I don't think the aiming a product at the 'touch' would really be effective right now, most people going out to buy a mp3 player can't afford to blow $400 plus. Most of the market is looking at either the flash for $100-$200 or the hard drive which is on average around $250. Even then, for people who have the money for a neat toy like the touch, which is admittedly VERY cool, they're going out to buy the coolness and microsoft honestly can't compete on that. There's just too few people out there looking at stuff like the archos to make it worth microsoft's effort. All this being said, this will change in the future as more advance stuff like the touch becomes common, but I'm not sure it's microsoft's time yet.
John @ Nov 14th 2007 9:29AM
General question: how does it sound? I know it can't be worse than an iPod for sound quality (and i'm talking with my sennheiser cans, not ear buds), but does it stand up against cowans, iRivers, or Creatives? Anybody seen any comments regarding sound quality in reviews?
SteveJ @ Nov 14th 2007 9:43AM
I'm curious if you say the iPod sounds bad from experience, or from what you've read? I listen to my iPod touch with Senheiser PX-100's and Westone UM2's and it sounds fantastic. Yes, there is a slightly higher noise level (hiss) then my old iPod 60 GB, but it is still very low (and really only noticable with the in-ear-canal phones, and that barely), and overall the sound is superb. When reviewing sound quality, one has to look at more than just background hiss (especially when the level of hiss is so low.) The iPod touch sounds fantastic. I can't comment on the Zune as I've never listened to one. In any case, sound quality comparisons are difficult to do and a bit subjective. Even very slight differences in volume level can be perceived as differences in sound quality.
getz76 @ Nov 14th 2007 9:49AM
@ John, I agree. My iPod video (30gb version) is not useful for casual listening with quality headphones (Grados, Eytomotics). It's fine for the gym. I'm interested in the sound quality of the newer iPods or these Zune devices.
John @ Nov 14th 2007 9:57AM
SteveJ
I should clarify. I've owned an iPod (though not since 3gen), and have used the same senn HD470s with many players since. I've tested friends' ipods of almost every type in the hopes that sound processing has improved with newer ipod models, but have been disappointed every time. It's not that the sound is really bad. I don't notice much hiss unless I use canals. nor am I an audiophile of any serious degree. I just know that the flat eq settings on an ipod are weak in bass compared to my creative zen, or any other nice player i've had the pleasure of using. When i've tried to coax more bass out of an ipod to give it a balanced, rich sound, the bass starts to clip badly.
I guess that I could say that an iPod sounds fine, but other players on the market sound great.
Flit @ Nov 14th 2007 11:02AM
I had a 3gen iPod, and bought a $89 zune to get the 20 extra gigs for cheap. Honestly, I don't know if it's because it's new to me, or the ipod being 3-4 years old, but the zune sounds slightly better to me, using the same headphones.
The radio was the deal maker for me. It's so nice to be able to flip to the radio when I get sick of flipping through my mp3's. The Zune software is no worse than iTunes, just different annoying quirks than the annoying things about iTunes. iTunes would significantly slowdown the more music I had added, and my zune software is harder to edit track information, but has been better at tagging the correct info in the first place. Just pick your poison.
My wishlist of things that should be fixed to make this a must have mp3 player: a 5 slider (minimum) eq, a setting for an automatic smart wireless sync if new podcasts are added to your zune library, bring back the "search for album info" from zune 1.0, drag and drop album art for zune software, and a better id3 tag editor, and gapless playback. Those are my only complaints. However, none of these things would stop me from recommending the 30gig to anyone who finds it for less than $100.
SteveJ @ Nov 14th 2007 11:21AM
More bass does not equal to better sound quality. I.e. what you're really talking about is not sound quality, rather, the ability to modify (aka "distort") the sound to your liking. I agree that the iPod doesn't offer a strong EQ feature, but that's not of great importance to me. It also appears that the new Zunes no longer have an EQ feature, so it may not do you much better.
nikster @ Nov 14th 2007 10:18PM
Well if you say so. I hope you don't mind if I rather believe the various audiophile magazines and audio engineers that all agree that the iPod has fantastic sound quality - good enough to hook up to a high end stereo.
The only exception seems to be the recent Classic though it's not clear yet whether that's firmware related or otherwise.
Maybe you like your bass enhanced a lot. I enjoy my music flat, and I have no complaints about my nano.
John @ Nov 15th 2007 9:48AM
one last time for the record. I compare mp3 players using a 'flat' EQ. I'm not a basshead, i just want a nice, balanced sound. A graphic EQ exists to coax a flat, balanced sound out of a system that isn't processing that naturally. The various ipods i've tested delever that well enough for any audiophile running lossless through $10,000 worth of stereo, but i can't carry a $10,000 stereo in my pocket. with my headphones, i can hear a clear difference between ipods, and other reputible mp3 players (cowan, creative, iriver).
SteveJ: good call on the lack of a GEQ. it suggests that they either think that they have a great flat sound with the zune, or that they don't really care about sound quality at all. either way, I think i'll just wait and see what cowan comes out with in a large-format player in the next year.
Nikster: audio nuts like the ipod because it does have fantastic sound quality in the category that they require: clarity. a flat-set ipod is clear as a bell (with the same exceptions you mentioned). all they're looking for is a clear signal so that they're kick-ass stereos can provide the sweet, emotion-inspiring music that they want to hear. I'll sacrafice a bit of clarity if it means i can get a more rich, full sound out of my player (not that i'd have to make that sacrafice with any of the players i'd consider to be in the same category as the ipod).