Zune may be a little bigger and clunkier looking than iPod but most reviewers, including many negative reviewers, tend to give Microsoft high marks for producing a high quality music player with a very good user interface. A consistent theme, is one that I have used many times myself: Apple's success with iPod is at least as much to do with iTunes as it is with the player.

Probably the biggest criticism that Apple has faced with iPod is its tight DRM restriction. Legally, you can only download music for iPod from iTunes and you can't play iTunes downloads on other music players. However, iTunes is such a darned good music store and the iPod is such a darned good player, that about 80% of the market will wear the restriction.

iTunes has a good user interface, a huge selection of music, a growing selection of movies, TV shows, podcasts, ebooks - you name it. What's more, Apple has steadfastly stuck by its guns and given consumers what they want - an easy to use online cash payments system and has refused to raise prices despite pressure from the music industry.

It's true that iPod lacks some of the hardware features, such as the FM radio and wireless connectivity, of Zune. However, FM radio has been present in other music players for some time and yet non-FM enabled iPods continue to sell in record numbers.

As for the wireless features of Zune, Bill Gates doesn't need to complain about competitors trying to castrate Vista, Microsoft is doing a great job of castrating its own product. Fancy building a player with wireless capability that can't even download music from your own music store or wirelessly connect to your home PC.

I personally don't have a problem with putting a time limit or even number of plays restriction on shared music. However, what marketing genius decided that it was a good idea not to let users pass shared music around so that others could get to hear it as well?