X
Tech

Is this a photo of the Zune 2.0? What do you think?

An unbylined Zunescene editor posts that he has run into a Microsoft employee who was quite specific about a purported Zune 2.0 in the pipeline.
Written by Russell Shaw, Contributor
zune2-0rumored.jpg
An unbylined Zunescene editor posts that he has run into a Microsoft employee who was quite specific about a purported Zune 2.0 in the pipeline.

And add to that, just a little while ago Gizmodo ran a post saying that a photo of what is purported to be that same device, may not be a fake after all.

Here's what Zunescene says:

Zune 2.0 and a smaller flash based Zune will be sold this year. He would not tell me the marketing names but referred to them as the big one and little one. The hard drive version looks like the generation 1 Zune, but is thinner. It has a larger hard drive and still uses the doubleshot. The flash based player he said is about "3 by 1 1/4 by 1/4 inches" in size. It is video capable and he said the screen covers about 75% of the front, similar to the hard drive Zune. The flash player has Wi-Fi and also uses a double shot. We discussed colors, he said there were several but did not disclose them. He had some interesting points about the clamshells saying that they can't be opened easily like the current Zune.

"Both devices have completed the design phase, although some last minute minor tweaks to the hardware will occur. When I asked about memory capacity he said "you have to beat the competition you know" he also said the flash memory fills the smaller device from top to bottom. Surprisingly he gave some hard numbers: 2.4 million next gen Zunes will be fabricated prior the 2007 holiday season. About 2/3 of them are the smaller flash units. "

"A new building is currently under construction in Dao Min China, next to the one that makes the XBOX 360" he said. In Zune Scene's opinion, based on that statement, it appears the Zune 2.0 will not be another Toshiba Gigabeat based device."

Of course that is what some are holding to be the Zune 2.0 at the top of this post.

Do you think it is? 

Editorial standards