I don't get why every seems happy about the Zune "upgrade" this week. From my perspective, the tradeoffs achieve parity at best. Here's how I see the score:

Desktop software
I'm really horribly underwhelmed here. Sure, part of this is a bad feeling due to the mangling of my catalog (80% of the content was erased from my device, the collection was mangled, and no matter what I do, I seem to be stuck with a cover image from Megadeth applied to Dan Levinson & His Canary Cottage Dance Orchestra). To me the Genre and Year lists were more important than the Album lists, I'm going to miss them. They destroyed one playlist by deleting its tracks from the device, and I can't build it back up because it was generated from the Year view.

Advances

• Supports WiFi sync (which I don't use anyway)
• Ummm... I really can't think of anything else

Declines

• No more listing by Genre
• No more listing by Year
• Mangle your catalog on upgrade
  
  • Trash cover art
  • Put copies of random tracks into random albums (Ozzy under Johnny Cash? Hmmm)
  • Song ratings are left behind
• Can't see actual sync status, just a percentage

Device software
Device Firmware
The interface is more visually attractive, but it seems like they sacrificed function for form. There's still a huge missed opportunity that must be a marketing decision, that the device's file system will not be available to the desktop. This is terrible, and for what reason?

Advances

• Wifi sync that I don't use
• Slightly loosened restrictions on music sharing (that I don't use)
• Go to artist option (I think that's new), but why not other Goto's?

Declines

• Album view contains less information -- artist isn't shown unless the album is selected.
• For non-upgraders, EQ has been removed

I may have missed something in those brief lists, but if so, it's not something that's important to me.

Judging from these things that I've noticed, it seems far from clear that the situation is an improvement, more like just a ... change.

If they could give me back the desktop Genre and Year lists I would be less dissatisfied, but even so, they can't give back the 3 hours I wasted putting my collection back in order after they mangled it.

I think you're jumping to conclusions.

An agile process (at least any sane one) doesn't mean that you shouldn't document the system.

It's true that there are zealots who claim that the code (or, more to the point, the test harnesses) are the documentation; if I ever need to work with any of these people, I will shoot either myself or them. (Sorry, I'm in a grumpy mood right now with a developer arguing that she wants to use DateTime.MaxValue to indicate null)

Even once you're done with coding the whole system, having a document that describes the whole thing is invaluable. Right now I'm working on a project that's replacing a 10-year-old system that's grown like a cancer, and one of the biggest problems we have is trying to figure out exactly what the old system really is.

Anyway, the point of agile development is built things incrementally, constantly correcting course as you go. Why can't the documentation get this same treatment you're giving the code? As your codebase is evolving, keep iterating the documentation as well.

That seems to me perfectly consistent with the agile philosophy, and something that this tool ought to be able to handle.