The White Elephant

[Mnyb]

But Many of the "Apps" that don't require encrypted subscriptions could be turned into local plugins if disaster strucks ? don't you think .

The bandcamp plugin is placed in the "my apps" menu for example.

! why don't they already do that to offload the servers let us run as much as possible locally. I know this is done to some extent with player menus and such (as running a server works better even when you are using an app ).

But why not run tune in and shoutcast locally ? for example.

[toby10]

Yup, agreed Mnyb. But the end of MySB means the end of SB, both hardware and SBS server. So who would write and support plugins for a defunct system? Then you get into the legal issues of streaming DRM services on SBS server, which the providers don't like apparently preferring such content be controlled better via MySB by Logitech.

The old SS server for SB did exactly as you suggest, all services were a server plugin and an app on MySB (then SqueezeNetwork). But this raised several issues:
1. was a mess for the user to maintain (add, delete, update, change) ones subscriptions on two separate servers, both local SS/SBS on PC and online SN/MySB
2. was a mess for the developers for same reason as #1
3. content providers are leery of local server DRM decoding (or so it seems)

[Mnyb]

Yup, agreed Mnyb. But the end of MySB means the end of SB, both hardware and SBS server. So who would write and support plugins for a defunct system? Then you get into the legal issues of streaming DRM services on SBS server, which the providers don't like apparently preferring such content be controlled better via MySB by Logitech.

The old SS server for SB did exactly as you suggest, all services were a server plugin and an app on MySB (then SqueezeNetwork). But this raised several issues:
1. was a mess for the user to maintain (add, delete, update, change) ones subscriptions on two separate servers, both local SS/SBS on PC and online SN/MySB
2. was a mess for the developers for same reason as #1
3. content providers are leery of local server DRM decoding (or so it seems)

My thought was to do it for the non DRM/encryption services

The thinking is that using less resources on mysb.com would make it cheaper to run thus not needing such a big userbase and sales of new players to be financed .

But with the design choice of forcing everyone to drink the coolaid at setup almost everyone is connected and registered ? I suspect this is a way to generate a seamingly large userbase to show the content providers, look we have XXXXXXX registred users !

The service is quite ok when it works as it should .

The missing piece is a way to run different versions against older fw in players (of-course without later additions that require upgrades ) the upgrade downgrade circus is a real problem but they don't see it that way.
I guess that this one of big factors that scare people away from squeezeboxes, now it cant be fixed , but if they had when they had more resources a larger userbase would have remained today I think ?

[toby10]

Yup, very true. When MySB works then all is well. I like MySB itself, one central point to control all apps & services, with or without a local server, been extremely reliable for me. My fear is that MySB will become not so reliable, or disappear someday all together. I'd guess these same fears keep existing users from buying more SB's and potential brand new SB owners from buying in the first place, which drives down sales, which further jeopardizes the whole SB infrastructure, etc... Self perpetuating spiral.

[kmr]

Yes, the Boom has been discontinued for a while, and there is no replacement. I've never seen an announcement of a discontinued SB product before, so lack of a statement isn't unusual.

The whole Squeezebox line appears to be slowly approaching the end of its life. The Touch and Radio are the only current products. It wouldn't be the least bit surprising to find one day that they've both disappeared from the Logitech web site.

I keep seeing a few people say this (JJZolx is one of the more vocal ones), but the evidence seems pretty shaky to me. The Radio in particular seems to get a lot of push from Logitech's website. Other long-time posters are noticeably silent on this. I keep wondering if some of them may be beta-testing a Boom II, based on the same platform as the Touch and the Radio...

[JJZolx]

I keep seeing a few people say this (JJZolx is one of the more vocal ones), but the evidence seems pretty shaky to me. The Radio in particular seems to get a lot of push from Logitech's website. Other long-time posters are noticeably silent on this. I keep wondering if some of them may be beta-testing a Boom II, based on the same platform as the Touch and the Radio...

With the direction that Logitech pushed the Squeezebox line, the Radio is the logical end of the line. A small, inexpensive, tabletop box to play Internet music. If they were to produce a Boom replacement it wouldn't have the same consumer appeal, as it would be larger and more expensive. If based on the same electronics and controls as the Radio, it also would require little beta testing.

[erland]

I keep seeing a few people say this (JJZolx is one of the more vocal ones), but the evidence seems pretty shaky to me. The Radio in particular seems to get a lot of push from Logitech's website. Other long-time posters are noticeably silent on this. I keep wondering if some of them may be beta-testing a Boom II, based on the same platform as the Touch and the Radio...

Or maybe the long-time posters have just decided that it's not going to make the situation any better if we announce the death of the product ourselves before Logitech have decided that's what they want to do.

Feels better to try to tell Logitech what great products they have instead of telling them that the products is about to die...

[eganders]

With the direction that Logitech pushed the Squeezebox line, the Radio is the logical end of the line. A small, inexpensive, tabletop box to play Internet music. If they were to produce a Boom replacement it wouldn't have the same consumer appeal, as it would be larger and more expensive. If based on the same electronics and controls as the Radio, it also would require little beta testing.

What? In any consumer electronics marketplace, the devices that output stereo far outnumber and outsell the mono devices, except in specific small form factor categories. Consumers definitely prefer stereo audio to monaural.

I have no doubt that a Boom II, or similar self contained stereo device, would sell very well when compared to the Radio. The stunner, so far, is that Logitech hasn't produced it yet. But I, for one, still have hope that they'll see the light.

[toby10]

The mono Radio model has outsold all other individual SqueezeBox models, past and present. Of course with no Boom II availability selling along side the Radio it is unknown if the Radio would still hold that title. I too would always prefer stereo over mono, but at the Radio's lower price point and small form factor and battery capable usage I suspect it would still have been a very strong seller for SB/Logitech regardless.

[audiomuze]

Worked outside from 8am to 6pm yesterday installing 35mm high density polystyrene ceiling board under my patio roof for thermal and aesthetic purposes. Had the Boom on a windowsill, connected wirelessly to the home network and playing at 75% volume the whole time. Controlled the lot from iPeng on my phone. Great sound, worked like a charm, not a single hiccup. Best portable player money could buy :-)