SB2 as an OEM module?

[Aylwin]

Just wondering. With all this recent talk about modding and cutting the board into pieces, I'm thinking that it would be great if makers of A/V receivers/processors, integrated amps, preamps, and other related equipment could simply incorporate an SB2 module in their products. I think it would be cool if I could buy, for example, a Denon 380x receiver and have the SB2 built-in.

It's probably not feasible and will never happen but it's nice to dream. :)

[Dave D]

Roku is doing this. Read the OEM section of their website.

[seanadams]

Just wondering. With all this recent talk about modding and cutting the board into pieces, I'm thinking that it would be great if makers of A/V receivers/processors, integrated amps, preamps, and other related equipment could simply incorporate an SB2 module in their products. I think it would be cool if I could buy, for example, a Denon 380x receiver and have the SB2 built-in.

It's probably not feasible and will never happen but it's nice to dream. :)

Some details about the module which contains the brains and comm interfaces of Squeezebox2 can be found here:

http://www.seanadams.com/ip3k

It is actually not SB2-specific, but rather a clustering of the ip3023 processor with memory, wifi etc which could be used for many applications (printers, access points, industrial comm interfaces etc).

There is a long story behind this about a battle to get the Ubicom processor made accessible to open development (right now the SDK costs $30K). Once they pull their heads out of their butts it could be made into a really interesting development platform.

Obviously the module lends itself to embedding SB2 functionality other places. I can't comment on if, when, or from whom to expect such implementations.

[Jacob Potter]

On 8/17/05, seanadams <seanadams.1txlvb (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
> There is a long story behind this about a battle to get the Ubicom
> processor made accessible to open development (right now the SDK costs
> $30K). Once they pull their heads out of their butts it could be made
> into a really interesting development platform.

Is there any sign of them moving towards this? It looks like an
amazingly cool architecture, but yeah, 30 grand...

How sophisticated is the SDK?

- Jacob

[dean]

There's some stuff on their web site:

About the toolset (gcc, gdb, etc plus a weak windows-based GUI):
<http://www.ubicom.com/software/swdev_environment.html>

And their SDK (which is more like a whole OS and very well written):
<http://www.ubicom.com/software/ipmodule_software.html>

-dean

On Aug 17, 2005, at 4:43 PM, Jacob Potter wrote:

> On 8/17/05, seanadams <seanadams.1txlvb@no-
> mx.forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
>
>> There is a long story behind this about a battle to get the Ubicom
>> processor made accessible to open development (right now the SDK
>> costs
>> $30K). Once they pull their heads out of their butts it could be made
>> into a really interesting development platform.
>>
>
> Is there any sign of them moving towards this? It looks like an
> amazingly cool architecture, but yeah, 30 grand...
>
> How sophisticated is the SDK?
>
> - Jacob
>

[JJZolx]

Some details about the module which contains the brains and comm interfaces of Squeezebox2 can be found here:

http://www.seanadams.com/ip3k

It is actually not SB2-specific, but rather a clustering of the ip3023 processor with memory, wifi etc which could be used for many applications (printers, access points, industrial comm interfaces etc).

There is a long story behind this about a battle to get the Ubicom processor made accessible to open development (right now the SDK costs $30K). Once they pull their heads out of their butts it could be made into a really interesting development platform.

Obviously the module lends itself to embedding SB2 functionality other places. I can't comment on if, when, or from whom to expect such implementations.
Why not go beyond this and offer the SB2 guts beyond just the CPU module? As a drop-in for, say, an integrated amp? Or powered speakers. The OEM would have no software to develop and the device would be functionally identical to a standard Squeezebox. You wouldn't have to worry about cutting into your sales because you'd be selling the OEM 90% of the SB2 anyway.

[pfarrell]

On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 17:29 -0700, JJZolx wrote:
> seanadams Wrote:
> > Obviously the module lends itself to embedding SB2 functionality other
> > places. I can't comment on if, when, or from whom to expect such
> > implementations.
> Why not go beyond this and offer the SB2 guts beyond just the CPU
> module? As a drop-in for, say, an integrated amp? Or powered
> speakers. The OEM would have no software to develop and the device
> would be functionally identical to a standard Squeezebox. You wouldn't
> have to worry about cutting into your sales because you'd be selling the
> OEM 90% of the SB2 anyway.

I am guessing, but I expect that the CPU does huge amounts of the work.
It understands TCP/IP, decodes MP3, FLAC, etc.

Plus, I'd guess that in an OEM space, non-trivial work would be reguired
to make whatever display the "receiver" has show the proper stuff from
the SlimThing(tm) cpu

Nearly all consumer amp/receivers already have a DAC chip, used
for AC3 video, etc. So it is a natural match.

Sean and co are smart folks, they are probably a step ahead of us on
this, and surely can't drop any hints -- that would be very bad
business practice.


--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com