The Instigator
Rulerof52
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Spaceman
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Microsoft Zune HD is better than the comparative Apple Ipod Touch

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Rulerof52
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2010 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,627 times Debate No: 10732
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

Rulerof52

Pro

::Introduction::
Thanks and good luck to whoever accepts this debate.
This arguement is to prove that the Microsoft Zune HD is better than the comparative Apple Ipod Touch.

::Definitions::
Microsoft Zune HD - The "Zune HD" touchscreen media player that was released by Microsoft late 2009. [1]
Better - Of superior suitability, advisability, desirability, acceptableness, etc.; [2]
Comparative - Most similar in regard to storage capacity. For example, a 16gb Zune HD being compared to a 16gb Ipod Touch. Also, a 32gb Zune HD being compared to a 32gb Ipod Touch.
Apple Ipod Touch - The "Ipod Touch" touchscreen media player made by Apple. This is referring to the most recent generation of the player. [3]

::Limitations::
I do not want this argument to spread farther than the device and the software associated with it. Please do not discuss how good/bad Microsoft/apple is.

::Arguments::
1) Price
The Zune HD (32gb) costs $289.99 from the Zune originals store [4]. The Ipod Touch (32gb) costs $299.99 from the Apple store [3]. Simple math will conclude that the Zune will cost $10 cheaper. It is the more cost effective of the two.
2) Battery life
Because of its bright, power conserving oled screen, the Zune HD has a battery life of 33 hours [5]. The Ipod touch has a battery life of 30 hours [6]. The zune can last three hours longer.
3) High Definition Content
The Zune HD supports an output size of 720p high definition video [1]. It also comes with built in high definition radio [1]. The ipod touch can do neither.
4) Wireless connectivity
In addition to access to the internet [7], the Zune HD has the option to sync wirelessly with a computer [7]. This can be done from either the player or the computer. The Zune HD also has the option to search for any buy music directly from the player itself [7]. When listening to the radio, the song name appears, with the option to purchase. Wi-fi is necessary for connectivity. These are all things that the Ipod Touch cannot do.
5) Appearance
The Zune HD's dimensions are 0.35 inches by 2 inches by 0.4 inches [5]. The Ipod Touch's dimensions are 4.3 inches by 2.4 inches by 0.33 inches [5]. In my opinion, both players have a sleek appearance on the front. But the zune has more option for physical customization, including seven colors, many designs and logos, and free inscription [4]. I believe that the Ipod touch also offers inscription, but I have no reference for this. The Zune HD weighs almost half of what the Ipod Touch weighs [5].

::Conclusion::
I will save the rest of my arguments for a later time. I thank the person who accepts this debate and I wish them luck. Have fun!

::References::
[1] http://www.zune.net...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] http://www.apple.com...
[4] https://zunestore.net...
[5] http://www.zunescene.com...
[6] http://www.apple.com...
[7] http://www.zune.net...
Spaceman

Con

My critiscism is in terms of harddrive space and the zune Hd can have only have the memory of an Ipod Touch which can have 64GB harddrive. A fact that you neglected to mention in your definitions, as such, the ipod touch is superior to the zune Hd in terms of space and hence appeals to a larger market audience by having the option to have a larger harddrive.

Secondly the Ipod touch in comparison to the Zune has a larger screen at 3.5 inches in comparison to the Zune's 3.3 inch display. The ipod touch also offers a higher resolution display at 480 by 320 pixels compared to the Zune's capability of just 480 by 272 . In turn allowing for better video playback using the device. The ipod touch also supports 576P resolution for output. I would also argue that although the Zune Hd can output video at 720p this incurs an extra cost as it requires a dock, and a HDTV so isn't relevant to the devices own capabilities.

Thirdly the ipod touch has full wireless and bluetooth capability, which the zune lacks as i cannot find any reference to bluetooth, and allows the user to sync and download music from the itune store easily. I put this in contendence with your statement "4)" where you state that "These are all things that the Ipod Touch cannot do." Incorrect as the Ipod touch can, in turn this questions you sources and bias.

In regards to appearance i feel that from the images i have seen of the Zune it is not aesthetically pleasing or modern in any ways preffering a more rugged and rectangular design. I would claim that the ipod touch have a more aestheically pleasing and ergonomic design than the zune. I would also highlight that "The Zune HD weighs almost half of what the Ipod Touch weighs " my opponent is purposefully being vague as simple math s shows that the zune weight 65% the weight of the touch, and that by using this language your presenting your bias.

In other note as far as i know apple offers an inscription service on all Ipods and this does cost extra.

I also note that the Zune claims a battery life of 33 hours and you have compared this to touch of the same size at 30hours although the Zune measure this with (wireless off) and no information is availiable as to whether this is a fair comparision to the touch so cannot truly be used as prove of superiority.
Debate Round No. 1
Rulerof52

Pro

::Introduction::
My thanks go out to Con for accepting this debate.

I offer my apologies if I was incorrect on one of my statements " Iput this in contendence with your statement "4)" where you state that "These are all things that the Ipod Touch cannot do." Incorrect as the Ipod touch can...". The ipod touch does have the capabilities to buy music wirelessly from the device.

But as for having questionable sources, I encourage you to visit the websites. The error was not the fault of any of my sources, as i did not source anything in that sentence "These are all things that the Ipod Touch cannot do." Therefore, why do you question the credibility of my sources? That is an unneccesary accusation that has no grounds.

I will return the favor. You question my sources while not including any yourself. I hope you can see how that might be portrayed as hyporcritical. As far as I know, your arguements are founded on nothing farther than your own mind. But for the sake of the debate, I will assume that your arguements are legitimate.

Finally, I ask that you use better grammar next time so that I can clearly understand your points. This request is in regards to your opening line "My critiscism is in terms of harddrive space and the zune Hd can have only have the memory of an Ipod Touch which can have 64GB harddrive."

::Defence::
"the zune Hd can have only have the memory of an Ipod Touch which can have 64GB harddrive."
...........Zune HD....Ipod Touch
..8gb.........x..............$199..
16gb......$219...............x....
32gb......$289...........$299..
64gb.........x..............$399.. [2]
While I agree that the extra storage option is nice, it is outrageously priced. While it is difficult to directly compare price versus storage due to the fact that they are only both available in the 32gb size, the Zune HD has the better price in that category. Therefore, the zune gives you more storage for your dollar. Also, compare the Zune HD 16gb with the Ipod Touch 8 GB. The prices are fairly close, only $20 away. I argue that, while the 64gb Ipod Touch does appeal to a larger audience, that audience probably consists of very few people. The extra hundred dollars will turn away most consumers.

"the Ipod touch in comparison to the Zune has a larger screen at 3.5 inches in comparison to the Zune's 3.3 inch display." The Zune HD has a 16:9 resolution screen [1] and has the same pixel height. I argue that the Zune HD has the optimal size for viewing high definition widescreen content. More pixels means less battery. Therefore, the Zune HD has the better video playback. As for the output quality, a dock is not the only way to export video. A cable can be used.

"...bluetooth, and allows the user to sync and download music from the itune store easily." How exactly does bluetooth help you "sync and download music" more easily than with wireless? This is an unneccesary feature that wastes battery life.

"...from the images i have seen...". You have never seen a Zune HD in person? I question your credibility to accurately debate this arguement. I have seen and used both devices.

"...not aesthetically pleasing or modern in any ways...". I disagree. It is much better than the cluncky metallic silver of the Ipod Touch, which smears easily.

"...the zune weight 65% the weight of the touch..." Thank you for proving my exact point.

"...apple offers an inscription service on all Ipods..." Correct. Thanks for the research.

..........Zune HD...Ipod Touch. (battery life)
Music.....33h............30h.......
Video.....8.5..............6h.......
[1] [3]
Do you think that either company would test this with wireless on? No.

::Conclusion::
Vote Pro. Con fails to provide references, has never seen (in person) the Zune HD, and makes empty accusations.

::References::
[1] http://www.zune.net...
[2] http://www.zunescene.com...
[3] http://www.apple.com...
Spaceman

Con

Firstly i find your language and the tone, which you present many of your comments as rude and arrogant. I would also like to point out that while i have not physically used a Zune Hd i fail to see any relevance to your debate as it is arguing mainly in terms of harddware and software capability, and that information is easily obtainable. I would also present that I am unbiased as i neither own or plan on owning either of this devices now or in the near future. It could be seen merely as a childish reaction in an effort to bid favour against me by creating bias.

2) Your last point being that "Do you think that either company would test this with wireless on? No." an arrogant comment on your behalf as you neglect that in this debate we cannot truly make any assumptions if we regard this as a fair comparision, as we do not know the conditions in which either device was tested. So it would be prudent to assume otherwise , consequently we cannot judge based on battery life. If you are not satisfied with this answer then what distinction is there in truth between 33 hours and 30 hours mathematically one is greater yet practically it is also irrelevant as neither is capable for long durations without being charged regularly. As such i propose to you that the average user would charge either devices regularly after a days use. In turn this makes this information useless when applied in context.

3) ""...the zune weight 65% the weight of the touch..." Thank you for proving my exact point." You are also in this instance arrogant to believe your point has won as in fact i have dissproved your earlier claims that it had a weight of half that of the ipod touch, clearly there is a major difference between 50% and 65%, thus dissproving your point.

4)"...not aesthetically pleasing or modern in any ways...". I disagree. It is much better than the cluncky metallic silver of the Ipod Touch, which smears easily." In regards to this point you are mistaken in your definition of aesthetically pleasing, as you reference "clunky", which refers to the ergonomics of the ipod touch. However, i agree with you that the surface of the ipod touch does tarnish easily.

I would like to apologise in this instance for confusing the subject i am referring to both the capability of bluetooth and wi-fi, which is what i assume you are talking about in regard to wireless as bluetooth is a form of wireless also. I would also argue that the feature is not unecessary as it allows a basis for future apps to communicate between ipods, such as , multiplayer games and also allows the use of bluetooth products such as headphones and speakers. As such it surpasses the Zune Hd as a platform for multimedia applications like games.

Next i would like to ask for your souce regarding pixel height for the Zune Hd as i could only reference it from the offical site as being 272 pixels, as such it is smaller than the 320 pixels of the Ipod touch. In turn i would suggest that this allows for a better experience when using the device by providing a larger clearer display. I would also hasten to add that i personally cannot see why you would use a device such as the Zune or Touch to output video anyways seeing as they both cannot do so in full HD, and in a world where prices of blueray players and High definition streaming, that it would not be in my considerations when choosing either device.

In regards to you issue about cost i would argue that $10 is not enough to suggest the better value of one device over another as that issue would require more context. I would now also like to debate the software availiability for the Touch also as the itunes store already has a vast number of applications, video and music. According to apples site over 100 000 applications. I would say that the availiability of diverse software for the touch is a key selling point allowing a wide range of software based personalisation.

Source www.apple.com
Debate Round No. 2
Rulerof52

Pro

::Introduction::
Again, I thank Con for continuing this debate.
While I do not agree that my tone was any more arrogant or rude than my opponent, I will make an attempt to negate that problem.

::Defence::
"2) Your last point... ...with wireless on? No." Please let me expand on this briefly. It is in the best interest of both companies to test the battery feature with the wireless option turned off to save power. Battery life is extended, and the companies can post better battery life times. Neither company would hurt themselves by testing with wireless enabled. I hope this logic makes sense. As for the difference it makes, it is a 9.09% difference. While small, this is still a noticeable difference. " the average user... ... applied in context." Yes, but remember the point of the debate. Since the zune has a "better" battery life, it is fair to use as an argument that the Zune HD is "better".

"clearly there is... ...dissproving your point". Again, remember the point of the debate. However small, it can still be used as evidence.

"4)"...not aesthetically... ...of the ipod touch." I call the ipod touch clunky because of its increased weight, height, and width [see previous post]. The Zune HD is thin, light, and rests nicely in my hand.

"the feature is... headphones and speakers." I would like to remind you that we are discussing the current status of the devices. As for the use of bluetooth for headphones, I will give you that one.

"Next i would... ...larger clearer display". Pixel size for both devices can be found here [1]. I agree that the wider display is more ideal for apps and browsing, but many, including myself, prefer the common 16:9 widescreen display, especially when watching movies. The width has not been a problem for me.

"I would also... ...choosing either device." I agree. But it has been helpful on road trips, as it connects to the screen in my truck.

"In regards to... ...require more context". Yes, but again, it is still evidence.

"I would now... ...software based personalization". In regards to music, the zune marketplace and amazon.com often have the same songs for 25 cents less. As for video, any video bought through the marketplace can be watched on your zune, computer, and xbox. As for the apps, apple has a good thing going and this may be the only solid evidence against the zune, which has few apps, with more coming.

::Arguments::
As a last stance, here are my concluding thoughts. The Zune HD is/has
1. $10 cheaper
2. nvidea graphics
3. 720p hd output
4. hd radio... See More
5. wireless sync
6. hd radio
7. buy from fm
8. 3 extra hours battery
9. 7x more color options
10. option for zune pass
11. xbox live integration
12. weights almost half as much
13. smaller height and width
14. can play wmv. files and wma. audio (two standard, common, and efficient file types)
15. faster touch response
16. tattoo options
17. buy music wirelessly
18. automatically syncs band photos
19. shop online from the player for apps, videos, music
20. can show now playing, pins, history, and new items on the home page
21. 3-D animation when navigating and changing volume
22. Automatically shows slideshow of band photos and words when a song is played while connected to power

::Conclusion::
The Zune HD has many important features that the Ipod Touch lacks.
Con has yet to post more references than a vague link to the apple website.
If you would like me to provide a reference for anything that does not have one, feel free to message me or on this debate.
To leave off on a good note, both players have options that compliment the other. I am excited to see what developments will be made to both in the future.

Vote Pro.

::References::
[1] http://www.zunescene.com...
Spaceman

Con

Spaceman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by omelet 7 years ago
omelet
This is like saying that gonorrhea is better than AIDS. Enjoy justifying your unwise purchase by comparing it to an even less wise one.

Though for the record, I do find it highly unlikely someone will manage to beat you on this topic.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Rulerof52 7 years ago
Rulerof52
Rulerof52SpacemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70