Zune vs. iPod

We're kind of surprised it took this long to get the two of 'em side by side, but here they are. The Zune is, of course larger, but it's kinda weird how much more exaggerated those size differences are when you're really eyeing the extremely-curved corners of the iPod. Ok, we're done, go ahead, get it all out.

[O.I. @ Oct 1st 2006 10:48PM]

Well after I put an iSkin on my ipod to protect its delicate (and famously easy to scratch) surface, they are actually pretty similar in bulk.

[Zadillo @ Oct 1st 2006 10:55PM]

That's a good point.... although it seems like the iSkin makes iPods bulkier than some others (of course, the inivisbleshield is probably the best option for adding no bulk at all.... I also like the Agent18 and Contour Design Showcase cases for things that don't add as much to the bulk).

I'd be curious about the scratchability of the Zune; it appears that the rest of the surface looks like it shouldn't be too scratchable, but I'd be curious about the screen. Seems like it would at least warrant a screen protector, but I'd be curious if they've come up with a really good scratch-resistant screen technology.

[Gorgo @ Oct 2nd 2006 8:46AM]

Yeah, but they should have compared it to 30GB ipod, which is even more slim.

[chuck @ Jan 22nd 2008 10:42AM]

got rid of my ipod because i didnt like going on itunes for everything,but saying that if you want just a music player the ipod would seem the right choice,but i put pics on so i like the larger screen--

[Alex @ Oct 1st 2006 10:52PM]

Built in WiFi, and first generation model. That's all I'm going to say.

[Jeff @ Oct 2nd 2006 1:23AM]

"Built in WiFi, and first generation model. That's all I'm going to say."

that's really not saying much considering how late in the game this is.

[RKW @ Oct 2nd 2006 10:50AM]

wifi for sharing tunes with other zune users ONLY. No "real" wifi for the internet.

[C Brian @ Nov 14th 2006 11:55PM]

Its funny you mention product attributes. That is something Apple has yet to do with their advertising. They sell "sexy" and they are damn good at it. I would expect that trend to continue. With as solid of brand recognition as iPod has, they would be crazy to walk away from that. Apple has some LOYAL customers. I think they'll keep up with the Joneses and give the iPod the transfer capability. I'd be shocked if it happened in less than a year. For now, Zune has superior attributes over iPod. Apple will keep the market share because of their loyal base.

[Zadillo @ Oct 1st 2006 10:52PM]

Am I the only one surprised by the "slightly thinner" phrase used Jake Ludington to describe the difference? Maybe it is different in person, but it at least looks significantly thinner (and this is the 80GB iPod..... I'd be curious to see a comparison of a 30GB iPod with the Zune).

Interesting about the weight difference, that the Zune feels lighter. I wonder if it's a materials issue?

Also interesting to see some real photos of what stuff looks like on the Zune screen. It does look OK, although definitely shows the difference between the product mockups and promotional shots and the real product.

I wouldn't want to judge any more though without seeing it in person. I'm also kind of curious why he didn't show some side-by-side shots with both the Zune and the iPod actually on........ might be good for comparison's sake; the Zune screen looks kind of washed out to me, but I think that is probably more just poor photo quality; would be easier to tell if the iPod screen was on in the same shot for comparison's sake (seems like a standard thing to do for things like brightness comparisons, etc.).

[Gizmo @ Oct 1st 2006 10:56PM]

I don't think you get a Zune this far in advance by being a wee bit unbiased (other than winning the Engadget contest or going to the Ellen show).

IOW, he picked the "right" iPod to make the Zune look good.

[G Slusher @ Oct 1st 2006 11:37PM]

The Zune really is only slightly thinner than the 80 GB iPod, despite the deceiving (and not well done) photos. (The photos should have been done against a seamless, featureless background with diffuse lighting from both sides to eliminate the reflections--e.g., in a light tent.) Here are the published specs:

Zune 4.4 x 2.4 x 0.58 inches, 5.6 oz

iPod 30G 4.1 x 2.4 x 0.43 inches, 4.8 oz

iPod 80G 4.1 x 2.4 x 0.55 inches, 5.5 oz


So, the Zune is 0.03 inches thicker (thickness of about 6 sheets of 24 lb paper or half the thickness of an US penny) and 0.1 oz (about the weight of a typical postcard or a US penny) heavier than the 80 GB iPod.

[Jake Ludington @ Oct 1st 2006 11:38PM]

Had I known I was going to have 5 minutes with the Zune, I'd have done a million things differently - like bring a real camera.

[brendan Sheehan jnr @ Oct 2nd 2006 9:43AM]

This whole thing is a complete shambles!!

Forget about the 80Gb entirely, that's right completely forget about it altogether!

Now! Compare the the 30GB iPod with the zune, why? Well because the Zune is 30GB too. And both of them are the same price.
What do you get?

With the 30GB iPod you get a more intuitive, more minimilist player, with a more intuitive and more minimilist interface. You also get a "MUCH" slimmer more sleek, more stylish, more iconic player, with better integration with its native software, iTunes. Which in turn has much more store music, better jukebox software, and movies too, with the best way to listen to podcast ever. And you get you full music library in your pockat.

With the Zune you get a fresh, different looking alternative, with bigger screen. You get a decent looking, more customizable and reasonably easy-to-use UI, but nothing as simple as the iPod's minimalist/Clickwheel set-up. You get a store that has less content, and is less appealing. You get cool WiFi sharing capabilities, where you can share your music or get your friends for 3 days or 3plays, but you may lack a friend to share with.
With a forceful push you may get your msuic collection in your pocket, but it will most likely be difficult to fit the Zune in most pokceks (jeans).

There you have it, enjoy!

[Jill @ Sep 13th 2008 12:49PM]

I had an Ipod first (when I say "first generation" what i mean is the first version of ipod. ever. it came in 4gb and 8, it was bulky, came in electric blue, pink, and green, you know what im talkin about?) 4 years later, count them, 4 years later, my ipod (Poddrick) is still ticking. Granted he's getting a little loopy in the functioning department...sticky sensors, corrupted files, freezes more often yaddya yaddya yaddya) one day I decided id switch to Zune, just to try it out. looked interesting as hell. bought a used one off ebay for 120 (30g, not bad). good condition, scratched up a little. I had it for 3 months. and it died. no charging, no restarting, no messages, errors, nothing. just seeya. I called zune, thankfully whoever owned it before me had a good warrenty and I was able to get a brand new one (HHAAAAHAHAHA ultimate win) for free. this one starts. I don't know about the building materials, and I'm not here to make waves. simply sharing my personal view on ipod vs zune. Poddrick is 4 years old and gamely plugging on (despite being left on the side of the high way (a busy highway) for the weekend, being left at ferry terminals and dunked in a cup of old tea) meanwhile Zoey kicked the bucket without so much as a single iota of water damage or anything else in just a month. as for the zune's design, i love that it's not a touch thing. i hated having to take off my gloves to change the song on my ipod or turn up the volume using my nose)

love,
me.

[yosh @ Oct 1st 2006 10:53PM]

I hope people realise that Zune had to accomodate a larger screen (probably battery too).
-iPod owner.

[Zadillo @ Oct 1st 2006 11:02PM]

That's a good point, it certainly explains the larger size (also of course the wifi is in there). I wonder if he will post anything about the battery life either; the early reports about battery life weren't good, but those probably aren't worth much since they weren't final.

I think the question will be what do people ultimately care about with a device like this? A larger device with a larger screen, or a smaller/thinner device with a smaller screen?

How big will video capabilities be in terms of demand and desirability? And in that case, how does the Zune compare to the Zen Vision W, the Archos PMP's, etc?

Personally I have at least decided that ultimately I care about portable music more than portable video, one reason why I sold by 5G iPod and got a 2G Nano. I just realized that I didn't really have many opportunities to use it for video, and music is my primary use of a portable device.

I'm not sure if this is a new issue; the Walkman was always a lot more popular than the Watchman, for example.

[Jill @ Sep 12th 2008 11:35PM]

the video quality on zune though is phenomenal. if you have a dvd that was ripped and uploaded into zune (what pisses me off is you can't just upload the dvd like you can with a cd, you need external software to convert the data into mvw or something) the picture is hd quality. course, if you download it off lime wire and upload it THAT way (kind of sort of beats having to mes around with converter softwares) the quality's not as good.

[ZuneRox @ Oct 1st 2006 10:53PM]

As we speak, I can almsot gaurentee apple is making a widescreen ipod...Ill wait for that, even if it takes clsoe to a year..or when the new zune comes out (v2)...prob like 1 year from now...im sure theyll both kick this zunes ass

[Ben Bradley @ Oct 1st 2006 10:53PM]

note its an 80 gig ipod

[Sahil @ Oct 1st 2006 10:55PM]

im buying one!

[Phantom1219 @ Oct 1st 2006 10:56PM]

I would probably still get a Zune, provided it works with the format of music that I want and the price is right. Even though the iPod has a great design, I am just tired of everyone and their mother having one.

[tim @ Oct 2nd 2006 4:16PM]

WHY? who cares if people own ipods? does that REALLY make them bad? people started buying ipods because they are good (the best), and because of their quality people kept buying them, which eventually brought them to 'trendy' status, that however, does NOT make them less quality.

get over your 'im cool because i go against everything' lifestyle and accept quality things can still be trendy.

[Zadillo @ Oct 1st 2006 10:56PM]

Btw, about the curved corners; from looking at the other product shots, it seems like the Zune corners are similarly curved as well (although you're right, it does still seem to have a slightly boxier appearance for whatever reason).

[LittleJoe @ Oct 1st 2006 10:58PM]

I definitely dont like that black color, but id love to see some real shots of the brown/green Zune. If it werent fully "apple-integrated" right now Id consider a Zune for sure.

[Michael @ Oct 1st 2006 10:58PM]

I don't mean to sound fanboyish, but the Zune looks wicked oldschool next to the ipod.

[Edward @ Oct 2nd 2006 1:21PM]

nah i dont think you sound fanboy : )

[Scooby @ Oct 1st 2006 11:03PM]

Why are you comparing a 60g iPod to a 30g Zune? Sounds a little bias to me.

[itothepod @ Oct 1st 2006 11:05PM]

'true' ipod video for sure. when that hits the market the zune will be old news.

[musanti @ Oct 1st 2006 11:08PM]

i think someone should take the pics with a zune next to the old school scroll wheel ipod, and that still has (had) no wifi, so tape a airport card to the back too and then well talk size, still ipod is in top no matter what comes out

[sc00tert00ter @ Oct 1st 2006 11:08PM]

i am seeing some talk about "scratchability" it looks like the zune has a raised panel or lowered screen that should protect the zunes massive (compared to ipod) screen

[PEDRO @ Oct 1st 2006 11:08PM]

The iPod looks more rounded because not only are the edges around the face of the unit more rounded, you can also see in the side view that the anterior-posterior aspects (i.e., the depth) of the unit is *also* rounded. So, the iPod almost ends up looking more like a dome-shape while the Zune looks more brick-like with slightly rounded corners.

FWIW, I agree that the linked article is biased pro-Zune. I think engadget was keeping it much more real. My impression from the photograph (Before reading anything) was that the iPod is much thinner and smaller. For these types of machines, at these sizes, every tiny bit matters in terms of how it will:
-Feel in the hand
-Fit in the pocket
-Be perceived as cumbersome or not...

But please--no flames! I'm excited about the Zune and it's about time that Apple had a true competitor--the Zune really seems worthy!

:)

[Jon Niola @ Oct 1st 2006 11:09PM]

That side view makes me wonder about the plastic used in Zune. The dull sheen from it makes me think it is that rigid, crappy plastic.

[Paul @ Oct 1st 2006 11:10PM]

I want to start this post off by stating that I am not, and never have been an apple fan boy (quite the opposite really), but next to the zune in these pictures I must say that the ipod does look better superficially.

It might just be the lighting in the picture but personally I like the appearance of the ipod more than the zune.

However, if I were to choose one to carry around with me I would pick the zune just because I like the features more, and the design is nice.

Despite saying this, I will not be shelling out the $200+ to buy one, my 1 gig SD card driven MP3 players work great. (players because I have one for work, one for school.)

[tiuk @ Oct 1st 2006 11:18PM]

musanti - Do you really think it's fair to compare the Zune, which came out in 2006, to a 2001 scroll wheel ipod? That's five years man, even if this is just a first gen product, it needs to compete with *current* players.

[Sam @ Oct 1st 2006 11:20PM]

I just want to say something about the screen on the Zune that has been bothering me. It has one of those "fake out" black boarders around its screen to give the illusion that it is larger. My Motorola RAZR has the same thing and I notice most cell phones has some sort of bezel around the screen to give the illusion of a larger screen. Now notice how the screen on the iPod has no fakey boarder on it. Flip the iPod screen the other way and add a fake out boarder around it and I don't think the sceens would look all that different. I know the Zune's screen is a little bigger but there is some obvious eye trickery going on to make it seem even more that way. Not good design in my opinion.

[Jacob @ Oct 1st 2006 11:21PM]

Oh, it has a "dock connector" too.

How innovative.

[Paul @ Oct 1st 2006 11:28PM]

It's just dumb to try and compare the 2001 ipod to the 2006 zune. You are talking about 5 years of technological innovation! You don't compare your first computer to the one you have now simply because it was the first of its generation to come out... that is completely flawed logic.

I think the Zune looks very good on the front, but it really does seem much too thick compared to the ipod.


That being said, Apple really needs to come out with a widescreen ipod.

[Benson Leung @ Oct 1st 2006 11:45PM]

This iPod is a 2005/2006 model, so they're not comparing with the 1st generation iPod from 2001.

Secondly, while it would be nice to see a widescreen on an iPod, people don't really have a feel for what a widescreen really looks like. On first blush, the screen on the Zune may look like a widescreen, perfect for movies, but it's really 4:3, just like the iPod, same resolution as the iPod even.

[Dario @ Oct 1st 2006 11:30PM]

zune looks great!!! man it would be kool if i win one!! :-)

[Jimmy Khan @ Oct 1st 2006 11:31PM]

2.5 vs 3 is VERY deceiving its actually more then 40% digger which is a HUGE difference...

[Zadillo @ Oct 1st 2006 11:34PM]

How huge is the difference though when the resolutions are the same? That's one thing that puzzles me about the Zune; why put in a larger screen but use the same QVGA resolution, rather than something higher? Again, I'd want to see this in person, but at least from the screenshots it seems like this might make the screen look less crisp than it could. It seems like the Zen Vision W, for example, would be crisper overall than the Zune for video playback.

[Baffled @ Oct 2nd 2006 9:05AM]

I'm assuming you actually meant that the zune is 'bigger', rather than 'digger', because I have no idea what that means. I also have no idea where you come up with 40%. Obviously, you have never heard of this thing called math.
3/2.5=1.2 Thus, the zune screen is 20% larger. Thats really not a huge difference. And its not deceiving at all. It is just 2.5 vs. 3.

[Alan @ Oct 1st 2006 11:33PM]

its sooo gross

[Aaron @ Oct 1st 2006 11:41PM]

on the scratchability i would personally expect them to use a similar materials to the gigabeat S being toshiba is making them (which i own).

When I had a 5g ipod there was a reason they ship it to you with a protective sleeve. And everybody recommends a case for it. The thing is one of the most fragile gadgets ever.

I replaced it with a gigabeat S as soon as they were released mainly because I have a media center and the gigabeat integration to media center is awesome. The one thing I really noticed with the gigabeat S is how well it handles wear. After 6 months of use without a case (and it is carried in my bagpack and in my pocket with no covers or sleeves. The thing is still in excellent shape. Very few scratches on it which is amazing to me considering how easily the ipod scratches in comparison.

If the zune can get the same materials I think many others will be suprised with them. Im still not going to replace my gigabeat S for one though.

[Edward @ Oct 2nd 2006 1:28PM]

yeah, my 4th Gen iPod was like that and then i got one of the 5th Gen and i can totally relate. the things do scratch like a mofo. i'd get one too if i had a MCEPC (Media Center Edition PC)

[Jake Ludington @ Oct 1st 2006 11:43PM]

The plastic on the Zune feels similar to many of the iPod cases. Not rigid crappy plastic, but certainly not that sleek polished stuff we see on many of the devices either.

[ddinch @ Oct 2nd 2006 12:47AM]

the injection molding process used for the zune facecover is one of the most expensive that can be done. it is made of an extremely strong abs plastic

[billstevenson @ Oct 1st 2006 11:44PM]

G Slusher: but why are people trying to compare it to the 80 GB one. It's a 30 GB model, so the weights and dimensions should be compared to that. Thus, it is 0.3 in taller (to provide about that in additional screen size) and 0.15 in thicker, and weights nearly an ounce more. That's pretty substantially larger.

[Jimmy Khan @ Oct 1st 2006 11:45PM]

at that small size of 3 inches QVGA still looks good I have 6 computers/LCDs in my house here are the main ones for comparison:

2001FP dell 20 inch 1600 x 1200
Acer 22 inch 1680 x 1080
E1705 17 inch 1920x1280
and a Toshiba 6100 thats running 15.4 inch screen at 1600x1200

now the 22 inch Acer at 1680x1080 honestly looks amazing even though its 6.5 inches bigger, almost double the actual surface area of the toshiba, it looks looks EXTREMELY crisp and sharp.

QVGA at 3 inches is just at the brink of diminishing returns but not past that line...

My AXIM X51V has a 4 inch screen at VGA 640x480 and running at native resolution its damn hard to see things clearly...

[Richard @ Oct 1st 2006 11:55PM]

The difficulty in reading things on a screen depends on the font size.

Noone in the windows world bothers to change the dpi of windows to match that of their monitor because it breaks so many things, but if you render text at a sensable point size, and the dpi is set correctly, it will come out the same size on any res screen, but look nicer on the higher resolution ones. Also a higher res would allow for the cover art etc to look better. QVGA however is about right for a screen of this size, any higher and the ratio of pixel to the gaps between them will be getting so low that it will look more and more like a screendoor and less like a continuous image.