What if Logitech pulls the plug

[jhonsberger@msn.com]

Well if they pull the plug my setup at the office would not work . We have no computers and only use tablets for our business. The Touch is directly
connected to the router and only MySqueezebox is being used to play music.

[alfista]

Well if they pull the plug my setup at the office would not work . We have no computers and only use tablets for our business. The Touch is directly connected to the router and only MySqueezebox is being used to play music.

On the other hand, seeing as the Touch (as the only SB to date) has its own rudimentary server it would still be able to perform a lot of its entertainment duties even if mysqueezebox was axed.

[TheLastMan]

I doubt there will be any new and exclusively audio SqueezeBox based hardware in future. We might see an upgraded version of the Touch and/or radio but nothing totally new. I think it is most likely, however, that the “Squeezebox” branded Radio will go and be replaced with a much simpler and less ambitious Logitech branded internet radio that incorporates SB player circuitry that would allow you to utilize LMS or MySqueezebox without being dependent on either. I am sure Logitech will eventually drop the Squeezebox “brand” but keep the Squeezebox functionality.

To me the blindingly obvious clue is the transformation of Squeezebox Server into Logitech Media Server with its dual DLNA and Squeezebox capabilities.

I foresee Squeezebox functionality being built into future streamers / players that are likely to have a dual audio and video streaming role. I am sure Logitech will find a use for LMS’s ability to play a multitude of codecs (either natively or trans-coded) as well as its multi-room and gapless playback abilities. They would be fools not to!

SqueezeBox circuitry (or at least logic) is likely to be utilized in future products. LMS and MySqueezebox (MyLogitech?) will live on in order to provide links to people’s private music collections (locally or in the Cloud) as well as to the online services like Rhapsody and Spotify. However, Logitech will allow their players to also utilize users other DLNA servers as well in order to maximize their compatibility.

[jhonsberger@msn.com]

On the other hand, seeing as the Touch (as the only SB to date) has its own rudimentary server it would still be able to perform a lot of its entertainment duties even if mysqueezebox was axed.

Yeah I see your point,but that server has a lot to be desired.very slow,etc. Maybe a upgraded touch will
come out with a more robust server if they axe my squeezebox.

[aubuti]

Yeah I see your point,but that server has a lot to be desired.very slow,etc.

Most of the issues with the Touch's built-in server are related to scanning. That's not an issue if you are mostly listening to outside streams, as you are now with mysb.com. You don't say what services you're using on mysb.com at present, but even if mysb.com disappears you can still listen to internet radio via the built-in server. That may be small consolation if you are presently using mysb.com for things like Spotify or MOG, but it's something.

[mortslim]

Logitech is laying off employees and losing money.

Here is a link about the layoffs:
http://allthingsd.com/20120608/strug...-lays-off-450/

It is not in a position to be pursuing niche markets. It is refocusing on the mainstream user with simple products that are easy to use and have widespread appeal. Its not going to be doing anything involving "servers". Most people don't know what a server is and don't care about them.

The future is cloud services. The future is renting rather than owning. If you don't own anything, you don't need a local server.

The original squeezebox was developed when there were no streaming audio resources, no cloud services. It filled a need when some consumers started ripping their own CD's to their computers and wanted an easy way to listen to them. The original squeezebox was just a step up in the evolution of music listening from the multi-carousel CD player.

Now consumers don't buy CD's. Why should they? They can get any track, any artist, any genre, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for just $10. per month without the hassle of maintaining a server, or ripping CD's, or any of the other chores associated with collecting and maintaining your own music collection. And you'll never own even a fraction of the albums that the big boys have, e.g. Rhapsody, Spotify, etc.

Look at the movie industry. DVD sales are down because it is easier to rent a movie on demand from your cable TV company, or though Amazon Video on Demand, or the several other movie rental services. Same thing has happened to the music industry.

Why do you think Roku is so successful? Because it is open source, easy for a new company to put its "app" onto Roku and then stream to the public. And it is easy for the public to use a Roku. (A lot easier than Google TV) (And Roku, being open rather than a walled garden like Apple TV, offers much more choice).

The public wants easy. If there is any future for Logitech to help deliver music, it will be on the Roku model, if at all.

[erland]

I foresee Squeezebox functionality being built into future streamers / players that are likely to have a dual audio and video streaming role.

In my mind "Listen to music" and "Watch a video" is two use cases with very different characteristics, not just from a functional perspective but also a hardware perspective. With music I need advanced browsing and search functionality and I need to be able to build and play albums and static/smart playlists with multiple tracks, with video I basically just need to find the single movie I want to see and then I'll watch it for 2 hours and then touch the remote control the next time to turn of the device. The common parts is basically only that you need to be able to output sound through speakers in both use cases.

Can someone mention one stationary device which supports both audio and video which actually works good both for watching movies and browsing and listening to music ?

I've seen some of these devices but their music browsing/listening support has always been pretty bad, so the result have been a video device which you can also use to listen on a song now and then. The closest thing that comes to mind that might work is AppleTV, but what kind of support do you really have in that for more advanced music related things ?

Now, it could make sense to have a video support in a music player, because there are music videos and consert videos which are music related and could be of interest, but the issue is that everyone that tries to do such device tends to do a video device and then just add some minimal functionality to also make it possible to play music tracks on it.

I believe Logitech Revue was a device that could do both things, but it was abandoned fairly quickly and I also believe its music support was fairly limited.

[erland]

Logitech is laying off employees and losing money.

Here is a link about the layoffs:
http://allthingsd.com/20120608/strug...-lays-off-450/

And hiring new people:
http://hire.jobvite.com/CompanyJobs/...edium=jobclick
http://hire.jobvite.com/CompanyJobs/...edium=jobclick
http://hire.jobvite.com/CompanyJobs/...edium=jobclick

It is not in a position to be pursuing niche markets. It is refocusing on the mainstream user with simple products that are easy to use and have widespread appeal. Its not going to be doing anything involving "servers". Most people don't know what a server is and don't care about them.

Agreed 100%

The future is cloud services.

Agreed 100%

The future is renting rather than owning. If you don't own anything, you don't need a local server.

I think you are correct, the only thing that makes me doubt a little bit is the fact that Apple still only allows us to buy music and not rent it. It only gives me some doubts since they have done most other things right during the last years.

The original squeezebox was developed when there were no streaming audio resources, no cloud services. It filled a need when some consumers started ripping their own CD's to their computers and wanted an easy way to listen to them. The original squeezebox was just a step up in the evolution of music listening from the multi-carousel CD player.

We have also seen a switched focus during last years from SBS/LMS to mysqueezebox.com where more and more things have been focused at making it easy to use mysqueezebox.com even if it makes it harder to use a local server.

Now consumers don't buy CD's. Why should they? They can get any track, any artist, any genre, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for just $10. per month without the hassle of maintaining a server, or ripping CD's, or any of the other chores associated with collecting and maintaining your own music collection. And you'll never own even a fraction of the albums that the big boys have, e.g. Rhapsody, Spotify, etc.

I believe you are right but it's also important to remember that a significant part of the population still likes to buy/collect things, they don't want to rent it as it means they might have to pay again if they want to use it sometime later. However, for the general population I believe you are still correct, the future is streaming services like Rhapsody, Spotify and similar.

[jhonsberger@msn.com]

Most of the issues with the Touch's built-in server are related to scanning. That's not an issue if you are mostly listening to outside streams, as you are now with mysb.com. You don't say what services you're using on mysb.com at present, but even if mysb.com disappears you can still listen to internet radio via the built-in server. That may be small consolation if you are presently using mysb.com for things like Spotify or MOG, but it's something.

Well we mostly listen to MOG and Radio Paradise .80 percent MOG , 20 percent Radio Paradise .

[Philip Meyer]

>> The future is renting rather than owning. If you don't own anything,
>> you don't need a local server.
>>
>I think you are correct, the only thing that makes me doubt a little bit
>is the fact that Apple still only allows us to buy music and not rent
>it. It only gives me some doubts since they have done most other things
>right during the last years.
>
I disagree that the future is with renting music - well isn't my future anyway.

I own my house (well still paying for it, but will eventually own it...), and will not change to start renting my house.
Similarly, I own a lot of CDs, which I have invested a lot of time ripping to a media library. I'm not going to start paying a monthly fee to rent that music at a lower music quality, and the thought of uploading it all, probably involving compressing to a lower quality, such that I can stream/download it for playing seems backward. I don't fancy paying a monthly fee to be able to play stuff and not own that content that I cannot do with as I please.

I also have a lot of obscure music, which I would not be able to rent from any on-line service. I can't believe that any single future on-line service will have 100% of all music available on demand in high quality.

I agree that cloud services and music rental may appeal to some people, and maybe this is an increasing percentage, but surely a large percentage of people like me are still not going to comit to a subscription based service to play music that they already own.