What if Logitech pulls the plug

[pippin]

But it is interesting that http://www.pv.com is one of the steering commitee members, alongside the hardware guys...

What is interesting here? They bought Twonky, who make what still probably is the most ubiquitous server SW used in many embedded devices, not really a surprise I would think.

[bluegaspode]

but maybe bluegaspode and James (who did iPeng's sync) and all the others here are simply brighter than all the other consumer electronics developers out there.

_I_ tend to believe that

I'm still wondering if I could beat PlugPlayer with my own App, but I am very very reluctant if I should really try or if I'd stumble into a can of worms of not correctly implemented renderers. And then a spec would not be a big value at all.
Then the working mode is like with Squeezeboxes - take the spec as a guideline but do a lot of reverse engineering. Fortunately Squeezeboxes all share the same codebase, the count UPnP renderers with all their quirks might be uncountable.

[pippin]

I have thought about that so many times, too.

Whenever it happens again I start PlugPlayer and have a look at the list of device types it searches for and the number of different ones that answer even on my network and then I'm cured again for a while...

[AndrewFG]

What is interesting here? They bought Twonky, who make what still probably is the most ubiquitous server SW used in many embedded devices, not really a surprise I would think.

Oh. You are not surprised that such a company is investing in active support of what you consider to be an outdated and doomed standard and a hopeless waste of time and money (??).

[pippin]

In Twonky's case it's 100% of their business, so why would they not invest in it?
Or do you mean PachetVideo? I mean: they purchased Twonky 5 years ago and completely ruined the company and the product afterwards, hardly a measure for good investment. And do they have business worth the name apart from that?

A lot of companies invest money into things that are a hopeless waste of time and money, this is not a particular strange case, isn't it?

[banned for life]

The stability of the product will vastly improve.

bfl

[pablolie]

The key here is to define "work" - would the software continue to be officially worked on and thus available for new OS updates that, over time, are sure to obsolete any application frozen in time? No.

However, the way I see it, for the foreseeable future it is easy to create a dedicated appliance that can run the music environment for many years. That appliance is self-contained, can stay frozen in time OS-wise with the last official LMS release (should it come to that) and can be controlled/accessed via a web server. One could also use free software such as VMware Player (not an endorsement) to run an old OS and the LMS application on top of a newer machine and OS if needed (for as long as said virtualization software vendor supports the old OS, that is).

So I don't worry too much. I often wonder about all of the LMS upgrades I have done over the years - were they really necessary? Why not simply stay with an old, proven version? Honestly, the only new feature I ever required on the SBS/LMS software was support for new players or in rare cases error fixes (I don't remember which version utterly screwed up synchronization, that and making the wireless usable for Duet are the only upgrades I ever recall feeling I really needed).

I think some new technology development will eventually once again yet more fundamentally change the way I listen to music. I am not *that* old, but I feel my way of listening to music (relatively high end *stereo* system in a dedicated environment) relegates me to dinosaur status.

[slimfast]

The key here is to define "work" - would the software continue to be officially worked on and thus available for new OS updates that, over time, are sure to obsolete any application frozen in time? No.

However, the way I see it, for the foreseeable future it is easy to create a dedicated appliance that can run the music environment for many years. That appliance is self-contained, can stay frozen in time OS-wise with the last official LMS release (whould it come to that) and can be controlled/accessed via a web server. One copuld also use free software such as VMware Player (not an andorsement) to run an old OS and the LMS application on top of a newer machine and OS if needed (for as long as said virtualization software vendor supports the old OS, that is).

So I don't worry too much. I often wonders about all of the LMS upgrades I have done over the years - where they really necessary? Why not simply stay with an old, proven version? Honestly, the only new feature I ever required ion the SBS/LMS software was support for new players or in rare cases error fixes (I don't remember which version utterly screwed up synchronization, that and making the wireless usable are the only upgrades I ever recall feeling I really needed).

I think some new technology development will eventually once again yet more fundamentally change the way I listen to music. I am not *that* old, but I feel my way of listening to music (relatively high end *stereo* system in a dedicated environment) relegates me to dinosaur status.

Very much agree.

I run my main Squeezebox system with an old QNAP NAS and the endless upgrading of Slim Server/ Squeeze Center/ Squeezebox Server/ LMS/ whatever they are calling it this month has caused me many headaches. I can't say I've ever noticed any major improvements with any of the upgrades but they did frequently break the system and leave me without music, in some cases for weeks until I could get the time to figure out how to fix things.

The only ones that were worthwhile were when I needed to do so to access a specific service, like when Napster was taken over by Rhapsody.

Whereas the open nature of the system where you roll your own server hardware is flexible, they probably should have got something like the Squeezebox Touch with it's integral server capabilities out much earlier (only with beefier processor power). Then you could buy the Touch as the initial player and base the rest of the system around that.

[MrSinatra]

i have to say that my exps with upnp and DLNA are not overwhelmingly positive, but it does mostly work to some degree, just not usually elegant.

interestingly, thats exactly what i think of the squeezebox paradigm.

neither one is elegant.

by far, the single best thing about apple is airplay. i'm not an apple guy, i typically do not like their stuff or their hardware or the choices they make. but airplay IS elegant. airplay IS robust. airplay IS flexible. i mean, audio, video, computer, TV, tablets, handhelds, mirroring, streaming, local, online, it does it ALL and it does it even with everything in wifi. and the adapters are CHEAP. apple tv = $99. i mean, come on!

the problems with it don't bother most people, but do me. itunes is, for me, a non-starter. i won't use it. and there are some technical questions regarding the quality of apple hardware adapters and how they do their airplay magic that again, are for me, an obstacle, but for the vast majority, are not.

also notice how airplay is going into other companies products.

does anyone really believe that an audio product should exist today whose main/native UI is webui? i would bet most people still using server are using some other UI.

i hope logitech sells slim to someone else. i thought they'd be good for slim. i was WAY wrong.

[ModelCitizen]

i hope logitech sells slim to someone else. i thought they'd be good for slim. i was WAY wrong.

Logitech misunderstood this product and messed up development in so many ways. They could have really made something of it but they blew it, concentrating on the hardware and missing the bigger picture. I hope they sell it too, to a company that has imagination to realise it's potential. I don't think the boat has sailed just yet.