PDA

View Full Version : Why Can't Slim support Play For Sure???



Chop
2005-05-17, 09:25
Why is it that Roku, iRiver, Creative, etc. can all support Play For Sure formats, but Slim cannot??

I just went through the entire Play For Sure thread and never found a simple answer to that question.

I can't imagine services like Rhapsody and Yahoo Music don't want as many people to be able to use their service as possible (especially since Roku supports those services).

Microsoft has never been shy about spreading their technology anywhere they can.

I can't imagine this isn't feasible from a technical standpoint (once again, Roku supports it).

So what's the deal?? Does Slim not want to support these formats? Is this something in the works and the software just isn't there yet? Is the licensing a significant cost that Slim feels could hurt profits if absorbed or hurt sales if its passed on to the customer?

We can debate the merrits of Play For Sure formats all day, but I'm sure I'm not alone in just wanting to know what does the future hold for Squeezebox users and these formats??

mherger
2005-05-17, 09:50
> Why is it that Roku, iRiver, Creative, etc. can all support Play For
> Sure formats, but Slim cannot??

Do they on Linux, MacOS X, FreeBSD, You Name It? They do it on Windows.

> Microsoft has never been shy about spreading their technology anywhere
> they can.

Except if it's on their competitors systems.

--

Michael

-----------------------------------------------------------
Help translate SlimServer by using the
StringEditor Plugin (http://www.herger.net/slim/)

Jim
2005-05-17, 10:02
No need to create a new thread on the subject, it's not going to make the idea of implementing this feature carry more weight - and is only going to annoy us users who couldn't give a.....

John Hernandez
2005-05-17, 10:02
Chop wrote:
> Why is it that Roku, iRiver, Creative, etc. can all support Play For
> Sure formats, but Slim cannot??
>

The bottom line is that the SB2 hardware probably can, but it doesn't
_today_. I'd be very surprised if the people at Slim Devices aren't
actively investigating this. At a minimum, this would involve firmware
changes (for native Protected WMA support), licensing agreements, and
extensive testing. I doubt Slim would announce any such support until
it's ready for release or close enough to be a certainty.

If you're eager, maybe you could submit a feature enhancement request
via the bug tracker and inform the list how to vote for it.

Chop
2005-05-17, 10:07
So is this the issue then - that Play For Sure formats are not supported across different OS's?

Btw, I started a different thread to narrow the focus. I'm not trying to be harsh. I'm just really curious as to why Slim isn't supporting these services?

Danny Rego
2005-05-17, 10:12
> Why is it that Roku, iRiver, Creative, etc. can all support Play For
> Sure formats, but Slim cannot??

Do they on Linux, MacOS X, FreeBSD, You Name It? They do it on Windows.

There's nothing wrong with implementing a windows-only feature, is there? I
would love to see this, even though I understand it's not multi-platform.
But I don't see it as being any different than having an option for iTunes.
(which is multi-os, but NOT multi-platform)

> Microsoft has never been shy about spreading their technology anywhere
> they can.

Except if it's on their competitors systems.

Of course they have a vested interest in their own OS. I would expect
nothing less. It's no different (again) than iTunes not supporting WMA, or
if Apple chose to only make iTunes for MacOS.

If anyone IS listening out there....I would LOVE to see support for plays
for sure....along with NATIVE WMA decoding on the SB2 at least. I mean, not
supporting these things can (and maybe WILL) be the difference between me
continuing to love and support the SB, or going elsewhere for my needs. I
think the folks at slim devices need to consider this, and realize that for
better or for worse, windows rules the PC world. (and maybe even that MS is
not all-evil like many like to preach)

Anyways...I'll probably be jumped on for my opinion, but oh well....I've sat
quietly, and let everyone else have their say.

(and of course this email is not meant to offend anyone...just my opinion)

Danny Rego

seanadams
2005-05-17, 10:16
On May 17, 2005, at 10:07 AM, Chop wrote:

>
> So is this the issue then - that Play For Sure formats are not
> supported
> across different OS's?

Sort of - certain DRM features require a Windows PC communicating by
UPNP.

> Btw, I started a different thread to narrow the focus. I'm not trying
> to be harsh. I'm just really curious as to why Slim isn't supporting
> these services?

As you know Squeezebox2's new design incorporates a very fast
processor which allows us to implement any new audio decoding or
encryption schemes we want. Feel free to take that as an indication
that FLAC is just the first, and that others are under consideration
and/or in development. Specifically what else we'll support and when
we'll support it is yet to be announced.

Danny Rego
2005-05-17, 10:23
Thanks Sean....I'll take that at face value, and remain confident that you
guys know what you are doing, and how to satisfy the masses. Thanks for a
great product, and awesome support. I look forward to the future.

Now, if someone could just ensure that Kawartha TV gets a few wired units,
I'd be happy to throw some $$$ down for an SB2.

Danny Rego



>> So is this the issue then - that Play For Sure formats are not supported
>> across different OS's?
>
> Sort of - certain DRM features require a Windows PC communicating by
> UPNP.
>
>> Btw, I started a different thread to narrow the focus. I'm not trying
>> to be harsh. I'm just really curious as to why Slim isn't supporting
>> these services?
>
> As you know Squeezebox2's new design incorporates a very fast processor
> which allows us to implement any new audio decoding or encryption schemes
> we want. Feel free to take that as an indication that FLAC is just the
> first, and that others are under consideration and/or in development.
> Specifically what else we'll support and when we'll support it is yet to
> be announced.
>
>

kdf
2005-05-17, 10:23
Quoting Danny Rego <danny (AT) rego (DOT) com>:

> There's nothing wrong with implementing a windows-only feature, is there? I
> would love to see this, even though I understand it's not multi-platform.
> But I don't see it as being any different than having an option for iTunes.
> (which is multi-os, but NOT multi-platform)

that depends. If the use of a 'plays for sure' logo costs money, then a lot of
linux users would be pretty irate to have to pay extra money for a feature that
is completely unavailable to them.

> > Microsoft has never been shy about spreading their technology anywhere
> > they can.
>
> Except if it's on their competitors systems.
>
> Of course they have a vested interest in their own OS. I would expect
> nothing less. It's no different (again) than iTunes not supporting WMA, or
> if Apple chose to only make iTunes for MacOS.
>
> If anyone IS listening out there....I would LOVE to see support for plays
> for sure....along with NATIVE WMA decoding on the SB2 at least. I mean, not
> supporting these things can (and maybe WILL) be the difference between me
> continuing to love and support the SB, or going elsewhere for my needs. I
> think the folks at slim devices need to consider this, and realize that for
> better or for worse, windows rules the PC world. (and maybe even that MS is
> not all-evil like many like to preach)

well, as a user of SB who runs the server on linux, I'd have to go elsewhere if
support for linux had to go. But I'm used to this kind of crap. (oh, and
calling it crap...is must my opinion)

-kdf

-kdf

John Hernandez
2005-05-17, 10:30
Chop wrote:
> So is this the issue then - that Play For Sure formats are not supported
> across different OS's?
>

Not necessarily. It might be feasible for an SB2 to connect to
Slimserver and/or Widows Media Services, and perhaps even switch between
them on-the-fly. In theory, such a design would not impact non-Windows
people (such as myself). From what Sean has stated, the new SB2
hardware was designed to be very flexible, so we'll see.

Danny Rego
2005-05-17, 10:33
> There's nothing wrong with implementing a windows-only feature, is there?
> I
> would love to see this, even though I understand it's not multi-platform.
> But I don't see it as being any different than having an option for
> iTunes.
> (which is multi-os, but NOT multi-platform)

that depends. If the use of a 'plays for sure' logo costs money, then a lot
of
linux users would be pretty irate to have to pay extra money for a feature
that
is completely unavailable to them.

>>> I suppose I shouldn't be paying for co-ax out, or a headphone jack,
>>> since I don't need, or use them either? We all pay for things we don't
>>> use...that would be no different.

> > Microsoft has never been shy about spreading their technology anywhere
> > they can.
>
> Except if it's on their competitors systems.
>
> Of course they have a vested interest in their own OS. I would expect
> nothing less. It's no different (again) than iTunes not supporting WMA,
> or
> if Apple chose to only make iTunes for MacOS.
>
> If anyone IS listening out there....I would LOVE to see support for plays
> for sure....along with NATIVE WMA decoding on the SB2 at least. I mean,
> not
> supporting these things can (and maybe WILL) be the difference between me
> continuing to love and support the SB, or going elsewhere for my needs. I
> think the folks at slim devices need to consider this, and realize that
> for
> better or for worse, windows rules the PC world. (and maybe even that MS
> is
> not all-evil like many like to preach)

well, as a user of SB who runs the server on linux, I'd have to go elsewhere
if
support for linux had to go. But I'm used to this kind of crap. (oh, and
calling it crap...is must my opinion)

>>> I'm not suggesting dropping multi-OS support, but if SOME features are
>>> only available for SOME OS's.....there's NOTHING wrong with that. As
>>> for crap...one man's crap is another man's Oh! Henry bar.

kdf
2005-05-17, 10:46
Quoting Danny Rego <danny (AT) rego (DOT) com>:

> >>> I suppose I shouldn't be paying for co-ax out, or a headphone jack,
> >>> since I don't need, or use them either? We all pay for things we don't
> >>> use...that would be no different.

difference is, that cost has been there from launch, not added later. If it
could be incorporated at a time when build costs drop, then that would be one
option.

> >>> I'm not suggesting dropping multi-OS support, but if SOME features are
> >>> only available for SOME OS's.....there's NOTHING wrong with that. As
> >>> for crap...one man's crap is another man's Oh! Henry bar.

ack...thats a haunting visual :)

Danny Rego
2005-05-17, 10:52
> >>> I suppose I shouldn't be paying for co-ax out, or a headphone jack,
> >>> since I don't need, or use them either? We all pay for things we
> >>> don't
> >>> use...that would be no different.

difference is, that cost has been there from launch, not added later. If it
could be incorporated at a time when build costs drop, then that would be
one
option.

How/why would they add a cost later? I could see the price of new SB2s
going up by a few bucks...that's the worst that could happen here, or am I
missing something?!

radish
2005-05-17, 11:20
Or how about people who want PFS pay $20 or something for a "compatibility pack" which includes a SlimServer plugin and a special firmware update. There's no reason anyone should have to pay for stuff they don't need if everything is nice and modular.

markmun
2005-05-17, 12:29
I am kind of caught between a rock and a hard place. I'd like to wait for Slim to support PlayForSure...and I can still use the old version of Rhapsody. But I really want the to-go...I want to try out new music when I am out walking and in my car. If I upgrade Rhapsody I can no longer use Slim.

I know just what is going to happen...the day after I buy a Roku, Slim is going to announce Rhaposody support!! :-)

Aaron Zinck
2005-05-17, 12:52
> I know just what is going to happen...the day after I buy a Roku, Slim
> is going to announce Rhaposody support!! :-)

Yeah...and there's another bit of irony that actually keeps me with the
squeezebox: when using RealSlim my Squeezebox actually has more "complete"
Rhapsody support than any other device on the market. No other device has
the ability to search and browse the entire Rhapsody catalog from the
player. I love this as it allows me to drag up any song at any moment. I
hope that, even if Plays For Sure support is added, that the RealSlim
program is updated to allow me to interface with the Rhapsody library
directly.

I know, I know, KDF, RealSlim's only waiting for someone to give it some TLC
:). But as I'm not qualified/able to do this, I just wanted to express this
point because, for me, RealSlim in many ways meets my needs better than
Plays For Sure support would. I do realize, however, that this is not the
case for users of the other subscription services.

kdf
2005-05-17, 13:01
Quoting Aaron Zinck <azinck3 (AT) ufl (DOT) edu>:


> I know, I know, KDF, RealSlim's only waiting for someone to give it some TLC
> :).

I had intended to try to take part as well (depite not being a windows
user)...but as a Canadian, Rhapsody is totally useless to me since I'm barred
from using the service :)

I guess I have my own opinion of who should be getting abused right now.

-kdf

Aaron Zinck
2005-05-17, 13:11
> I guess I have my own opinion of who should be getting abused right now.

I don't entirely understand what you meant by this statement but I hope you
didn't take any offense at my comment. I only meant to acknowledge you and
the sentiments that you've already repeatedly expressed about the status of
RealSlim--to indicate that I understand that we all need to pitch in if we
can to provide the functionality that we each desire.

Your knowledge and hard work have certainly done this community an enormous
service, the benefits of which I believe we've all reaped.

kdf
2005-05-17, 13:30
Quoting Aaron Zinck <azinck3 (AT) ufl (DOT) edu>:

>
> > I guess I have my own opinion of who should be getting abused right now.
>
> I don't entirely understand what you meant by this statement but I hope you
> didn't take any offense at my comment.

none at all. I'm just suggesting that the problem as I see it is not as much a
lack of realSlim progress as is it Rhapsody being so closed off. Even if I
could fake being in the US and were to manage to elevate myself to the level of
being able to understand Vidur's code, and fix realSlim, I'd expect I would
then face a release of version 4 of Rhapsody which would break everything,
forcing another cycle of reverse engineering.

Some postings are askig why such a low priority, why is there no support or
interest. Well, I should hope that these same people are knocking on
Rhapsody's door asking the same questions. The saddest part of this whole
thing is that I feel I can expect that this is not the case. If for no other
reason than the fact that I believe most people already realise that the vast
majority of companies are simply not responsive on the level of Slim Devices.
As much as Slim may be missing sales due to lack of Rhapsody support, Rhapsody
is missing out on customers from around the world by being US only, and missing
out on fee from loyal slimserver users. But, maybe they dont care.

-kdf

Victor Brilon
2005-05-17, 17:55
On May 17, 2005, at 11:50 AM, Michael Herger wrote:

>> Why is it that Roku, iRiver, Creative, etc. can all support Play For
>> Sure formats, but Slim cannot??
>>
>
> Do they on Linux, MacOS X, FreeBSD, You Name It? They do it on
> Windows.
>
>
>> Microsoft has never been shy about spreading their technology
>> anywhere
>> they can.
>>
>
> Except if it's on their competitors systems.
>
> --
>

Amen! And this is why I am a loyal Slim customer. Their adherence to
open standards and understanding of what's best for their customers
is what keeps me buying Slimdevices gear.

Victor

JimB
2005-05-17, 18:25
Just my two cents but I think everyone needs to take a time out.

How many consumer electronic products do you own that the CTO of the company that makes the product actually acknowledges your posts (rants) and comments with careful support?

My experience so far has been great. The features that we need will be there in time. If you are really unhappy, go buy a prismiq and then you may see what pain really is.

FLMike
2005-05-17, 18:59
Jim,
Quite well said. Following this list has shown me that Slim is one of the most customer focused and responsive technology companies I have ever seen.

As for "Plays for Sure", it seems that it will play for sure in any device that accepts all of the DRM provisions that MS wants to impose--Forgive me if I'm a little cautious about asking SLIM to make the SB compliant with "Plays for Sure" DRM without knowing all of the small print involved.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: JimB [mailto:JimB.1p7ek0 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com]
Sent: Tue 5/17/2005 9:25 PM
To: discuss (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com
Cc:
Subject: [slim] Re: Why Can't Slim support Play For Sure???




Just my two cents but I think everyone needs to take a time out.

How many consumer electronic products do you own that the CTO of the
company that makes the product actually acknowledges your posts (rants)
and comments with careful support?

My experience so far has been great. The features that we need will be
there in time. If you are really unhappy, go buy a prismiq and then you
may see what pain really is.


--
JimB