"The first rule in government spending, why build one when you can have two for twice the price"
-Contact

In case you havent heard, Microsoft is finally doing something about the inability of its partners to produce a successful IPod competitor. Details have been trickling out about a suite of new products: two players dubbed Zune and Pixys, and a new music service code-named Alexandria. Not unexpectedly, reactions to early prototypes of the players have been varied to the extreme. It seems that a large number of people hate them because they are a rip off of the IPod, and about as many like them because they look so much like the IPod. Its not hard to see the chips falling along religious lines as people develop opinions. The music service, Alexandria, has largely escaped notice from the majority of commenters. Om Malik picked up on the issue, although he focused mainly on the effect it will have on Microsofts PlaysForSure partners. However, upon reviewing the details posted on Engadget, the apparent stupidity is even more startling. Apparently Microsoft will not only have a new and redundant service once Alexandria is released, but a completely proprietary one. For those who dont know, Microsoft already has two services for purchasing music online: MSN Music (Pay Per Song) and URGE (Pay Per Song or Subscription). These services and more all work well (if not flawlessly) with Windows Media Player. Alexandria on the other hand will be a separate service that doesnt work with Windows Media Player or PlaysForSure players, and Zune will only work with Alexandria and not with URGE or other PlaysForSure music stores, according to Engadget. Om accurately points out that this garbled mess of choices will likely be a turn off for potential customers. All Microsoft needed to do was make a media player that was as simple, small, and sexy as the iPod line, and make it compatible with the existing stores, but instead we get an Apple-esque proprietary triumvirate. What happened to Microsofts philosophy of consumer choice and openness?

I find myself staring up at the sky asking WHY! What could possibly be the reason? Is it the issues with the Windows Media Player UI? Was the Zune team afraid WMP would be their weak link? Or was it competition issues? Fear that PlaysForSure partners would feel Microsoft is cutting into their market? Antitrust? Maybe they were trying a little too hard to emulated the Apple iPod-iTunes model. Or is it just the kind of bureaucratic inefficiency thats inherent in a company the size of Microsoft? Has the Zune team been developing in a bubble, completely isolated from whats going on with WMP and URGE? Arg.

Personally, I believe in PlaysForSure, and I believe in URGE. If Zune & Alexandria really are completely proprietary and isolated, then I think its a gross misstep on Microsofts part. I believe it will fizzle, and it will only serve to distract people from the existing offering Microsoft has in the form of URGE and third party players (which despite the lack of a good iPod competitor, is a pretty good offering).

Zune makes me a Sad Panda.

Update: A more official release has been published on the WSJ, doesn't appear to shed any light on the issues raised here or by Om Malik.