Zune

Design Discussions general design discussion
21

This is a cool discussion. There is a lot of what I was hoping to get out of it when I first posted. I have missed a good chunk of the discussion and it will be hard to catch up, but here’ goes:

  1. I want Zune to succeed. I want them to shake the market up and do some stuff to drive innovation. I fully believe that the wireless is the one single thing, technologically M$ is doing right. I am so much NOT a part of that market, but I get it. It makes sense. The simplest example I can think of is the number of young teen girls I see, almost daily, listening to music from one iPod each using a single earpiece. If they could do it wirelessly I tend to think they would.

  2. Junglebrodda hits the nail on the head when he says that it would actually be COOL if M$ designed the Zune specifically to look like the iPod. I would have no problem with Zune at all if it didn’t smell like an Old School Marketing gong show. I have already stated it in this thread, Zune’s Director of Marketing can be quoted directly as stating that he does not believe Zune looks, acts, or smells like an iPod. It does. Plain and simple.

  3. csven, the Op/Ed piece you are clinging so tightly to is riddled with more holes than there is room to get into in this thread. The money quotes are:

  • “Microsoft is Hatching a Consumer Media Perfect Storm” - So is Apple. Don’t ignore their iTV announcement. There is something far bigger happening there. Some have even alluded to the idea that they are looking to tap into the gaming realm.


  • “Zune’s Screen is Better for Movies” - This is debatable at best. The arguments in the article are predicated on the fact that their screen is wide screen when viewing. It is NOT widescreen. Neither iPod nor M$ have a widescreen. The Zune screen is BIGGER, true. But the aspect ratios are the same. But from everything I have heard (from actual users) is that battery life on Zune is going to be a challenge for watching movies on it.


  • “Zune is actually pretty cool” - Mr. Elgan bases this opinion solely on styling. See the previous discussion in this thread as to why Zune is not cool because of its styling.


  • Lastly, Mike Elgan is a technology writer and former editor of Windows Magazine. This is NOT an Op/Ed piece. This is another piece of transparent M$ Marketing.

For me this last bit it what irritates me so much about Zune. Its a new product, with some cool ideas driven by Old School Marketing mentality. I hate Old School Marketing BS. Its transparent. Its infantile. Its driven by the push mentality of cramming ideas down peoples throats.

The reason the success of Zune will set Design (with a capital “D”) back 5 years is because our industry is beginning to prove that Design is more than styling. It is has more depth and ability to work with the team to create a holistic product. The styling, as Yo stated, is part of that process and is table stakes. Old School Marketers believe they know design. They believe they own design. And worst of all, they hold zero value over design. Its, as you say, just part of business.

This is a sampling of why I am so irritated by Zune. People are sick of just being part of business for the sake of business… Which, csven, as a blogger you understand.

22

You’ve missed the point. I never said it would be a success or a failure, only the consumer can decide that. I said(as you quoted) “and here is where they screwed up without a doubt”. I am only referring to the form, detailing, materials, and finishes, the physical box. Sorry I did not make that clear. In this area they did blow an opportunity. I only belabored the aesthetic issue because the way I interpreted your post, you seemed to want to dismiss it. “who cares” as you said.

Mogus is totally correct. To make it as small as possible, it pretty much has to be a rectangle with a max screen size. But did they have to rip off the iPod’s cables and connectors? Couldn’t they have explored more finishes and materials? What about detailing?

I read the op piece. I think the extra functionality is cool. It is new, and pretty cool stuff. I would think less than half of potential users would take advantage of most of those features, but that is still a lot of peeps. As far as being a market success… I think MS has a proven track record for market success, but lots of mediocre designs sell, is that what we aspire to?


If this is just an off the shelf quick strike solution, I partially understand. I’m sure the second gen will be much better. A lot of their other hardware very nicely designed and unique such as their wireless mouses.

23

But that IS my point. You say they screwed up the form. But it’s more than form the consumer is buying. So a) does the consumer care about the form more than the functionality and b) what else could MS do if the goal was to make the best product possible under their particular conditions (which I doubt either of us know)?

To (a), the answer is most likely No. They’re BOTH boxes with circular controls on the front. Big deal. I personally don’t care for Apple’s aesthetic. I liked Brunner’s work. This stuff doesn’t do it for me. Thing is, do most consumers REALLY care if the iPod was first to be a box with a circle on it? No. They don’t. They couldn’t give a damn. It’s only designers who care and Apple fanatics. This is Apple OS and Windows all over again. Remember the cries of the Apple faithful? “Copy. Cheater. No fair.” That didn’t stop people from using Windows though.

To the second:

To make it as small as possible, it pretty much has to be a rectangle with a max screen size.

You do realize that Mogus is agreeing with my comment: “Furthermore, it sounds as if they listened to all of you guys proclaiming the iPod as the best solution given the current technology and came to the same conclusion.” That would be a rectangular box.

But did they have to rip off the iPod’s cables and connectors? Couldn’t they have explored more finishes and materials? What about detailing?

Are you saying they didn’t explore other options? I don’t know what they did or did not do. Maybe those are custom and maybe they’re sourced. I don’t know. And even if they’re custom, so what? They don’t look the same as Apple’s. In fact they look sufficiently different to me if I look at the details. But the thing is, if I designed a simple box with large radii (smart engineering since it helps with impact resistance) and had similarly minimalist connectors, what am I going to do? Go all Luigi Colani on them? Make the accessories super-organic? No. And neither would you. You’d use simple geometric shapes just as they did.

Now, does a triangle work? No. Does a square/rectangle work? Depends. You have to deal with draft and oh by the way, Apple has done that too as have other companies. So MS used circular connectors. Guess what, I have some old Braun equipment from the 1980’s that are very much like Apple’s connectors. Maybe Apple was digging through some old samples for the early Macs and Apple IIs and that’s where the inspiration came from. Wouldn’t be a surprise considering they were using Frog.

Now because I don’t know exactly what MS did, I’ll give their designers the benefit of the doubt. The forms are appropriate for a box. Nothing wrong with that. And more importantly, the consumer will probably be happy.

but lots of mediocre designs sell, is that what we aspire to?

I aspire to helping my clients sell the best product they can and make a profit so they can stay in business. I’ll leave art to the artists.

24

Anyone remember the Newton? Apple was first in the PDA market. What happened? Lets hope the same thing doesn’t happen with the Ipod.

25

The Newton failed because it was a crappy product. I can’t think of anyone that has tried to claim otherwise. It wasn’t ready for prime time.

26

I aspire to helping my clients sell the best product they can and make a profit so they can stay in business. I’ll leave art to the artists.

And if that means copying other peoples IP to get it, so be it. That’s part of business.

That is the message I am getting from you csven. If that’s the case, we absoutely will have to agree to disagree.

There are a million ways from Sunday to design anything, even a box. Microsoft has consciously decided to design their box exceedingly close to that of Apple’s box.

This would be an excellent time to do a study. A good chunk of the population has no idea what a Zune is, or what it looks like. The opposite is true of iPod. Design Patents are predicated on the idea that an average consumer, can not look at a product without confusion of who manufactured the product.

If you were to go out on the street with a Zune and ask them who manufactured it…my hypothosis is an overwhelming amount of people would think Zune was an Apple product. Which constitutes a design patent infringement.

27

Then you need to learn how to read. More than anyone on this forum, I’m on record as being against IP infringement - including hacking Apple’s DRM which is why I decided not to moderate this forum anymore: designers don’t seem to respect IP and people were posting instructions on how to bypass Apple’s safeguards. That’s illegal. Yet no one here cared enough to say a thing; in fact, plenty of people gave suggestions.

Copying IP is illegal. It’s just as illegal as what it appears HP has been doing in it’s spying activities.

Are you claiming Microsoft is STEALING Apple’s intellectual property?? That’s the message I get from you - and that would be libel against MS. Careful.

There are a million ways from Sunday to design anything, even a box. Microsoft has consciously decided to design their box exceedingly close to that of Apple’s box.

I would suggest you tread very lightly. I have no doubt MS designers visit this forum. Can you afford a lawsuit over comments as decisive and damning as these?

This would be an excellent time to do a study. A good chunk of the population has no idea what a Zune is, or what it looks like. The opposite is true of iPod. Design Patents are predicated on the idea that an average consumer, can not look at a product without confusion of who manufactured the product.

I know people who get confused between Honda’s and Hyundai’s. I know people who get confused between B&D clothes irons and other brands. I could go on. I’ve even been involved in such a legal situation. It’s not quite that cut and dried.

If you were to go out on the street with a Zune and ask them who manufactured it…my hypothosis is an overwhelming amount of people would think Zune was an Apple product. Which constitutes a design patent infringement.

Wrong. A judge/court makes that decision. Not someone on the street. Apple may well sue MS. But I doubt they will. When I look at the two products I can tell the difference. And do you honestly think MS’s lawyers haven’t looked at this?

28

Now because I don’t know exactly what MS did, I’ll give their designers the benefit of the doubt. The forms are appropriate for a box. Nothing wrong with that. And more importantly, the consumer will probably be happy.

i can go with that, and i largely defer to opinions that come from people more knowledgeable than i. i do not own an ipod or have i ever had any apple products but my 1st though when i saw it was, apple and i think it says something (to me anyways) when a company that has the means to be different and lead seems content to just get in line with everyone else. it isn’t like microsoft is some 2nd, 3rd, or 4th tier company, the thing sounds like it is going to have some sweet applications so why style in a manner that makes it appears as if it is out of your competitor’s catalog?

29

When I was designing PDA’s ten years ago, guess what: it was the same rectangular box. I put some really shallow chamfers on the last one I designed, but that was wasted volume.

I suspect MS has just done what everyone including Apple has done: packed the components as tightly as possible and done the simplest skin around it. It’s efficient. It’s functional. It’s what people want.

Why are toasters usually boxes?
Why are washers and dryers boxes?
Why are refrigerators boxes?
Why are minivans mostly boxy proportions?
Why are monitors boxes?
Why are speakers boxes?
etc
etc
etc
etc

If you want to worry about this, why not start at the very beginning when designers started doing this? Why get your pants in a bunch now? Because it’s Apple?? Why the favoritism? I understand that Apple is great example of a forward-thinking, design-friendly company, but this issue is bigger than Apple. If you all truly believe this is a Design issue, then address it on the level it should be addressed. Focusing on MS as if they’re doing anything that Apple itself hasn’t done is unfair. And if you truly believe in IP, then take a good look at your own behavior. Something tells me most you fall short of living up to the standard you’re now holding others.

30

If you were to go out on the street with a Zune and ask them who manufactured it…my hypothosis is an overwhelming amount of people would think Zune was an Apple product.

I don’t think this would be the case, I think they are very different. The zune lacks finesse with that thick robust border that wraps around the screen and wheel. The top enclosure has a radius on the edge like a 2nd or 3rd gen ipod, the new one is flat and crisp.

You do realize that Mogus is agreeing with my comment: “Furthermore, it sounds as if they listened to all of you guys proclaiming the iPod as the best solution given the current technology and came to the same conclusion.” That would be a rectangular box.

I was agreeing with you in relation to your comments about the marketplace and the services aspect.

IMO The current gen ipod is a masterpiece.

when you hold it up too the light you can see the refracted thin clear layer that is like a fine piece of morano glass. The proportions are on the money, It feels great to hold and has a beautiful weight to it. it’s perfect.

31

Hence, why should we expect MS to come up with another, unique solution?

32

Copying IP is illegal. It’s just as illegal as what it appears HP has been doing in it’s spying activities.

Are you claiming Microsoft is STEALING Apple’s intellectual property?? That’s the message I get from you - and that would be libel against MS. Careful.

Quote:
There are a million ways from Sunday to design anything, even a box. Microsoft has consciously decided to design their box exceedingly close to that of Apple’s box.


I would suggest you tread very lightly. I have no doubt MS designers visit this forum. Can you afford a lawsuit over comments as decisive and damning as these?

What I am accusing Microsoft of doing is releasing a product that, in my opinion, infringes on Apple’s product image. It is stealing if they consciously did that. No more or less than it is stealing if you crack DRM. They could have just as easily made this a polypropylene box colored purple with a hexagonal D-Pad (I figured, csven, you like arguing with apples to oranges, or should I say Toyota to Hyundai comparisons when it comes to design, I may as well also). And to that point, I have already said that I would have no problem at all with Zune looking like an iPod if they would own up to it. Did they design the Zune with the mentality of Zune being a Toyota Camry and iPod being a Honda Accord? If so, why do they claim otherwise in their marketing blitz?


Are there any Microsoft Designers watching this thread? Please stand up and fill us in a bit on this. I would love to hear the process to which you designed Zune. I would love to hear your views as to why your product ended up looking the way it did. Did the Design Team drive the design language, or did Marketing? Did you have a deep exploration of what the design options were, or was it a quick hit design session driven by a Marketing Requirements Document? Do the Microsoft designers see the Zune as having visual similarities to the iPod?

33

Because, like NOT cracking DRM, it is the right thing to do.

34

Quote:
If you were to go out on the street with a Zune and ask them who manufactured it…my hypothosis is an overwhelming amount of people would think Zune was an Apple product.


I don’t think this would be the case, I think they are very different. The zune lacks finesse with that thick robust border that wraps around the screen and wheel. The top enclosure has a radius on the edge like a 2nd or 3rd gen ipod, the new one is flat and crisp.

I would say, Mogus, you are looking at it through a designer lens. Hand it to your mother, your grandmother, etc. Sit it next to an iPod. Will they be able to distinguish that one product is manufactured by someone different from the other? Those people don’t see the finesse you are referring to.

And yes, csven, a judge makes the decision. But it has to be proven that the average consumer can’t tell it apart. The onus is on the proscecution to prove that they are infringing and one manner of proving that is by showing that average consumers can’t tell the product manufacturers apart.

35

Anyone can knock off a product, but can you knock off a company?

MS might beat the current iPod, but what about future iPods? It takes a culture of innovation to do that, and right now, Apple is the company to beat. Plus where are all the innovators flocking today? Apple, Google and Web 2.0 startups, not Microsoft.

The entire reason that Apple rose from the ashes in the last decade is because they figured something out: consumers today will pay for design and image. Features and cost aren’t enough.

36

you must have me confused, trust i will lose no sleep over this. i do find it a lil’ funny that that you could say this:

Hence, why should we expect MS to come up with another, unique solution?

why do anything unique, because after all presumably someone has previously done it better? let’s just stop trying all together…

all i was trying to say is why hype it up as the “anti-ipod” when it so closley appears similar aethetically, yes, i undertand that there is only so much you can do given its desired function, but why not offer a real alternative to the ipod as far as it styling?

37

That’s different than this statement:

Microsoft has consciously decided to design their box exceedingly close to that of Apple’s box.

One is an opinion. The other is an accusation.

It is stealing if they consciously did that.

That’s a BIG “if”. It’s also the point I made about us not knowing what they did. Everyone is leveling accusations, but I don’t hear from anyone who KNOWS.

They could have just as easily made this a polypropylene box colored purple with a hexagonal D-Pad (I figured, csven, you like arguing with apples to oranges, or should I say Toyota to Hyundai comparisons when it comes to design, I may as well also).

I’m waiting for you to suggest what it should be? What form should it be, Jon? Given the current state of the technology and the functional requirements, what would you do given all the constraints the MS designers had?

And to that point, I have already said that I would have no problem at all with Zune looking like an iPod if they would own up to it. Did they design the Zune with the mentality of Zune being a Toyota Camry and iPod being a Honda Accord? If so, why do they claim otherwise in their marketing blitz?

First, does every tire manafacture own up to making their tires round?
Does every refrigerator manufacturer own up to making their refrigerators big boxes? No. So what you’re asking is worthless. Furthermore, it assumes we all design in a vacuum. We don’t.

Second, it’s Honda and Hyundai. And they do look as similar on scale as these two devices. And so do a whole lot of other products.

Third, the marketing I’ve seen doesn’t imply to me that they deliberately tried to rip off Apple’s design.

Tell me, in the interests of being fair, why don’t you acknowledge the designer who first came up with the syringe shape you use in your design? That looks really really similar to syringes I’ve seen as far back as I can remember. It looks round. Couldn’t you make it an ellipse? Why is yours the same? The function seems different enough; plenty of innovation. Yet it’s still round. It still looks like every other syringe I’ve seen. Why?

38

deep breaths everybody.

39

The question is “Why should we expect”? Not “We even bother”?

Well, why should we? Should every company stop developing product because they can’t develop a significantly better product than the competitor’s? One that can’t be confused with the original in any way? Should we expect them to do what you’re suggesting? Because if so:

  • there would be one OS right now and it’d probably belong to Xerox from whom Apple took their GUI ideas.

  • there’d be one computer mouse, and it wouldn’t be made by Apple because it was invented in 1964 by Douglas Engelbart (even the patent drawing looks really similar to Apple’s mice over the years - Link).

There might be no Apple today because there would be no Macintosh which is what kept them from dying; and the Macintosh was all about two things: The GUI and the mouse.

So Apple’s biggest claim to fame doesn’t come from what THEY themselves developed, but from what others did. Yet when I bought my first Apple in the 80’s, I didn’t see anything in the literature about Englebert. And the GUI, well, most people don’t even know it came from PARC and I’m unaware of any time when Apple admitted to using PARC’s ideas (but they certainly cried foul when MS used them).

Should Apple and MS not have bothered until they each had completely unique solutions? That seems to be what you’re saying.

all i was trying to say is why hype it up as the “anti-ipod” when it so closley appears similar aethetically, yes, i undertand that there is only so much you can do given its desired function, but why not offer a real alternative to the ipod as far as it styling?

Simple. The iPod is functionally better than anything else. Others have tried. There have been other mp3 players with lots of form. No one calls them perfect, do they?

40

So who has served up an worthy alternative to apple in the style stakes?

I think the best alternative to date is the sony NWA1200’s. The pearlecent translucent/opaque-ish plastics and sexy OLED displays are a stylish combination.