PDA

View Full Version : Original Slim Devices?



cliston
2016-01-07, 22:45
Who created the original Slim Devices? Who sold to Logitech? Slim Devices was way ahead of its time IMO. Streaming music is now the preferred way to listen to music, but at the time of Slim Devices is was not the way most people listened to music. And Logitech....totally missed the boat. They had a wonderful product that they have abandoned.
I would guess that the original owner or Slim Devices signed some sort of non-compete clause when they sold to Logitech. But how many years would that last? Can this group of loyal Squeezebox owners track down the originators of Slim Devices and gain any knowledge from them, or persuade them to try again, with new and improved Squeezeboxes? Is this a ridiculous idea?

mherger
2016-01-08, 01:00
> Who created the original Slim Devices? Who sold to Logitech? Slim

Here's the press release:

http://www.logitech.com/de-ch/press/press-releases/2763

Sean as well as Dean have moved on and are no longer in the industry.
From what I've heard Dean is still busy cleaning up his basement.

--

Michael

ModelCitizen
2016-01-08, 01:09
Who created the original Slim Devices? Who sold to Logitech? Slim Devices was way ahead of its time IMO. Streaming music is now the preferred way to listen to music, but at the time of Slim Devices is was not the way most people listened to music. And Logitech....totally missed the boat. They had a wonderful product that they have abandoned.

You are of course right. Logitech bought something they did not really understand and with software that errr.... surprised them.

I believe Sean can sometimes be seen riding a bicycle, having given up attempting to park his car elegantly.

local.bin
2016-01-11, 09:33
Its seems that streaming hardware is all the rage these days, while Logitech decided to get out of the business!

Will Logitech ever stage a streaming hardware come back @Michael?

cliston
2016-01-16, 10:14
I wish they would. I'd like to see an updated Transporter that plays DSD files.

Julf
2016-01-16, 11:11
I wish they would. I'd like to see an updated Transporter that plays DSD files.

Isn't it easier to add a DSD-capable DAC to a touch (or raspberry pi)? That way you only need to change the DAC when the Next Great Format comes along (OK, DSD wasn't even the Next Great Format back in the 90's, but...)

Mnyb
2016-01-17, 00:49
I wish they would. I'd like to see an updated Transporter that plays DSD files.

That is very very niche .

An updated Touch 2 and a new reciever 2 and boom 2 , there are tons of stuff new hardware could do and new software . More massmarket more in line what Logitech can do ? A high end hifi product is not very Logitech .

It would for example be no problem designing a player that supported several protocols and servers . Like LMS dlna roon AirPlay and Bluetooth in one box .

For the niche DSD need a 24/192 or USB output to a DSD capable DAC ? But heck it's software so decoding it a Touch 2 would also work .

Osamede
2016-01-28, 06:57
Who created the original Slim Devices? Who sold to Logitech? Slim Devices was way ahead of its time IMO. Streaming music is now the preferred way to listen to music, but at the time of Slim Devices is was not the way most people listened to music. And Logitech....totally missed the boat. They had a wonderful product that they have abandoned.
I would guess that the original owner or Slim Devices signed some sort of non-compete clause when they sold to Logitech. But how many years would that last? Can this group of loyal Squeezebox owners track down the originators of Slim Devices and gain any knowledge from them, or persuade them to try again, with new and improved Squeezeboxes? Is this a ridiculous idea?

Logitech didnt as much miss the boat as they got on it early, bought the boat, took over it... but didnt understand where to steer it.

The original gang were music enthusiasts first and foremost, which ultimately is not so relevant today - music enthusiasts are almost extinct in the mass music consumer landscape. It's all decline from here, as music has gone the way of "fast food" - people are happy with renting 128kbps streams direct to their phone as loudspeaker.

And the people selling music dont really want you to own or control your own music - they want you as one big always-online wallet and data stream. Squeezebox was the opposite of that.

chill
2016-01-28, 09:37
An updated Touch 2 and a new reciever 2 and boom 2

A Boom 2 definitely - not so sure about the others as there are easy ways to make your own Receiver-equivalent these days, and with the various phone-based controllers I think the touchscreen in the Touch is becoming a little redundant. Don't get me wrong, I love my Touch, and I have a BNIB replacement in the loft for when it fails, but I'm not as pleased with that purchase as I am with my BNIB Boom (bought the other day!) that's going to join it in the loft. I rarely get up from my seat to operate, or even look at, the Touch now that I have iPeng.

The sound quality and overall package of the Boom are things that aren't as easy to achieve independently and cheaply (unlike an RPi 'Receiver'). It's a true hifi enthusiasts 'kitchen radio' in the way that the Radio never was. A new Boom, with Bluetooth, Airplay etc etc (and a built-in battery pack), and the same attention to sound quality, would be a killer I reckon. And it would be more in line with Logitech's market segment (apart from the bit about sound quality :), and provided they could get some kind of vacuous celebrity endorsement.....).

Mnyb
2016-01-28, 12:57
There is a difference between raspi solutions and buy of the shelf :) I have seen attempt at something like a reciever 2 off the shelf it lacked analog out thou ( sonic orbiter or some such )

Actually a major benefit with Touch is that the setup is so much better when the device has its own UI . The Bisare two tier setup of reciever doesn't very good . It should had a rudimentary web UI for setup.....

chill
2016-01-28, 14:18
There is a difference between raspi solutions and buy of the shelf :)

True - a Pi based player isn't for everyone. I guess an off-the-shelf easily configurable device would have a place.

I completely agree with the OP - I still feel bitter at Logitech's mishandling of the product line. SONOS have proven that the market was there for the taking, and with Slim Devices' head start and Logitech's reach it should have been a doddle. I have a vague recollection of someone from Logitech taking over the reigns and canvassing for opinions on the product line. I doubt anyone suggested starving it of investment and advertising. I too would like to see the concept/name/product rights sold to an enthusiastic development company, but it feels like Logitech will never allow that.

The really great thing now though is that the concept has survived despite the product line being strangled. Thanks to continued LMS and player software development from a dedicated few, we can now build our own players and servers for pocket money. Long may it continue.

Mnyb
2016-01-28, 14:51
Yes the existence of sonos tells that there is a market this kind of thing and there are a bunch more in this productniche aimed at music enthusiasts . So even if we are a minority we are big enough to drive sonos and bunch more companies . That's something is it not ?

Osamede
2016-01-28, 18:26
Squeezebox is more of a hifi enthusiast thing. Sonos is like for people who like music but buy Bose radios. Both for me are aimed at people late 30 and older.

At this point both are going to have their lunch eaten by Spotify, Tidal, Apple etc. Not to mention Google Music + Chromecast audio. I wouldnt see much of a future in it.

Squeezebox had a brief window of opportunity under Logitech but that's gone now.

dasmueller
2016-01-28, 19:18
Logitech didnt as much miss the boat as they got on it early, bought the boat, took over it... but didnt understand where to steer it.

The original gang were music enthusiasts first and foremost, which ultimately is not so relevant today - music enthusiasts are almost extinct in the mass music consumer landscape. It's all decline from here, as music has gone the way of "fast food" - people are happy with renting 128kbps streams direct to their phone as loudspeaker.

And the people selling music dont really want you to own or control your own music - they want you as one big always-online wallet and data stream. Squeezebox was the opposite of that.

Of course I may be wrong, but I think this is a pretty accurate assessment of what has transpired. That being said I applaud those who continue to maintain the LMS system.

Not being the fan of the numerous subscription music "systems", they hold no interest for me. Call me a dinosaur but I choose to have the music I want to listen to, be it vinyl, Cd's or computer files all of which I can play when I choose. There are myriad music providers, television providers, cellphone providers etc. For me the older way just works better. Oh, and I do save a few $ in the process.

w3wilkes
2016-01-28, 22:01
@Dasmueller, I agree with owning and controlling my own music. When I'm on Lake Powell up in the Escalante river arm on the houseboat the closest thing to selecting a stream is satellite radio which you may not get because of the multi hundred foot sandstone walls... Cell service, yea right, spotty at best. This is typical in the American West, lots of wilderness as large as whole countries in Europe. When the gang wants to rock to "Talkin' Care of Business", they want it now and they will probably want it one more time! With a laptop loaded with LMS, Squeezeplay, music, a cheap USB DAC to the stereo we have that capability. We could use WMP, but why switch when we all know and use the LMS WebUI at home.

dasmueller
2016-01-28, 22:30
I have 2 Squeezebox Touch units. I bought them to be able to more easily manage the music that I already had. Sifting through physical media was and continues to be a pain when one chooses to do so. Certainly there is a large maintenance component to a digital music library. Luckily, I have the time and inclination to do so. Streaming music services have never had any appeal to me, so that is not an important facet of LMS/Squeezeboxes for my purposes. From my other recent post one could also see that I am adverse to paying for something I feel I do not need. It seems that many/most these days think that such a method of obtaining what they want to hear is the way to go. That's fine with me, just not my style.