Microsoft is counting on its gigantic market-share to force its new mobile media player (I don't call it an "MP3" player for reasons that will become clear below) into people's homes in the same way that it forced Internet Explorer into people's homes: laziness.
First of all, the use of Microsoft's Zune player requires Windows Media Player. In the computing world, the field of competition in the "OS media player" struggle consists of two parties: Windows Media Player and iTunes. Back in college, WinAMP and MusicMatch Jukebox were viable alternatives, although MusicMatch was clunky and WinAMP 3 was beset with enough bugs to make me look for something else. And lo, there was iTunes: a simple, elegant, perfectly functional music management program that did all the things I wanted it to. By the time I graduated, most of the people I knew were using iTunes to manage their music -- and why not? For one thing, it allowed changing ID3 information for multiple files, something that's really useful if you have an entire album filled with incorrect information (which happens often). For another, the menu and interface structure is a whole lot better than WMP, which hides its menus all in the name of looking "sleek" or something like that. Apple managed to create a product that is both sleek and functional. (This, however, is not an "Apple is better than Microsoft" debate; WinAMP's interface was also sleek and functional.)
The secret to Apple's success was that it didn't bow to music industry pressure and force consumers to use its DRMed format for all of their music. Apple understood that consumers liked the MP3 format for its convenience, ease of use, and portability, and allowed consumers to put their existing MP3s on an iPod without forcing them to convert the files to AAC or some other format.
Not so much with Zune. According to Medialoper, Microsoft will try what others have tried -- and failed at -- before: namely, requiring DRMed files on the music player. Brian, who used to work at the Sony outlet store in Grove City, told me a horror story about a Sony digital music player he bought a few years ago. Apparently, once the Sony OS-based software was installed, it proceeded to go through the entire computer and convert any pre-existing music into Sony's proprietary, DRMed file format. If Medialoper is correct, Zune will behave in a similar way:
Unfortunately Zune’s wireless music sharing is turning out to be one of those features that seemed better when it was just a rumor. While Zune users will be able share music with friends, there’s a catch (isn’t there always). As Jim noted earlier, recipients of shared songs will only be able to listen to them three times or for three days, whichever comes first. It sort of sounds like a really bad tire warranty.
Zune accomplishes this amazingly stupid feat by wrapping shared music in a proprietary layer of DRM, regardless of what format the original content may be in. If Microsoft’s claims are to be believed, this on-the-fly DRM will be seamless and automatic - which must be some kind of first for Microsoft.
What Microsoft has created is a new form of viral DRM. Zune will intentionally infect your music with the DRM virus before passing it along to one of your friends. After three listens the poor song dies a horrible DRM enabled death. Talk about innovation.
Microsoft will undoubtedly claim this limitation is designed to support artists and prevent piracy. There’s just one problem. Not all artists want their music protected by DRM. Furthermore, not all artists benefit from having their music protected by DRM.
So, even if the music you wish to share is licensed under a Creative Commons License (which specifically forbids DRM), Microsoft will blatantly violate the license because it's more important to catch people trying to violate copyright than it is to allow people to use their devices in the way they want. This may alienate a lot of customers once those customers realize what's going on.
This whole "wireless functionality" business is also doomed to failure. What good is sharing music wirelessly if you get "3 days/3 plays"? This feature was imposed on Zune by music companies, who would not have given licenses to Microsoft unless they were absolutely sure the content could be completely locked down. Music companies are not in the business of letting you own your music; they're in the business of giving you licenses to your music and then telling you what you may do with the music you have a license to. Using the "license" trick also enables them to change the license at any time, so theoretically, they would be well within their rights to make it so that you can only play a song once, and then you have to re-purchase the song from Microsoft.
Wireless functionality is a neat idea ... maybe for a few times. Apple thought about it briefly for its next generation of iPod, but scrapped it because it would diminish battery life faster.
I feel that Microsoft will push Zune on Windows customers and hope that those customers will go with Zune because of inertia; "Hey, I already have Windows and Windows Media Player, why shouldn't I have a Zune?" This might have worked five years ago, but Apple is already here with a superior product. Why did I get an iPod? Because, after a thorough review of all the music players out there, I concluded that the iPod had the best features and the most functionality, and that holds true today. Microsoft also priced its Zune player on the same level as the 30 GB iPod, so the "Apple is too expensive" argument doesn't fly in the digital music player field. Since price is no longer a factor, I expect that customers will still flock to the iPod because of its functionality. And who knows? Maybe they'll be suspicious about Microsoft products after spending the last five years running weekly anti-spyware and antivirus programs to get rid of all the garbage that can be installed on Windows XP.
