PDA

View Full Version : Why doesn't Slim have a "VS the competition" page as part of it's sales propaganda?



Jim
2005-11-24, 11:52
We all know which is best, we all know maybe the Sonos could be better than the Slim but don't know anyone rich enough to have one so will never know for sure!

But why doesn't Slim make an honest comparison table between it's competitors products? It's allowed isn't it? If "they" do the same then as long as you're sure you're better and won't look silly in the comparison then do it. Yeah for fairness include stuff like the Sonos but then if someone was going to buy Sonos the money in their wallet decided that anyway regardless of Slim being open source etc...

seanadams
2005-11-24, 15:19
One of my favorite marketing trueisms is: "Your biggest competitor is the status quo".

I.e. the umpteen other products out there aren't squat compared to the challenge of switching the masses over from old way of doing things - CD players etc.

Hmmm that would be an interesting competitive comparison to write actually.... CD player vs Winamp vs Squeezebox

rudholm
2006-02-27, 21:38
I intend to write comparison of the Squeezebox (I have a v2 wired and a v3 wireless) and the Sonos Zone Player 100. Sonos has a deal in which they are actually loaning equipment to "trusted friends" of selected customers. They extended this offer to a friend of mine who, naturally, sent them my name :) Two ZP100s, a remote, and a pair of speakers should arrive at my office tomorrow or Wednesday.

I'm a very happy Slim Devices customer, but I do intend to give the Sonos a fair shake since the review won't be worth much if it is prejudiced.

If anyone has specific areas that you feel I should examine/compare/contrast, please let me know and I'll do my best.

Some basic differences I'm already aware of:

- Cost
- Controller format
- Box format
- Integrated server vs. outboard server
- I/O (S/PDIF out, Auxilliary input)
- Integrated amp vs. outboard amp

For testing, I'll be using the Sonos bookshelf speakers, floor-standing Acoustic Research speakers, and floor-standing Vandersteen speakers with ADCOM, Onkyo, and AudioSource amps. I'll be testing stuff in my office and at home. I'll be testing with Linux and MacOS (I use no MSFT product at home or work). My music library is FLAC with some MPEG Audio Layer 3 and a handful of MPEG Audio Layer 2.

This should be fun...

jonheal
2006-02-28, 13:39
One of my favorite marketing trueisms is: "Your biggest competitor is the status quo".

I.e. the umpteen other products out there aren't squat compared to the challenge of switching the masses over from old way of doing things - CD players etc.

Hmmm that would be an interesting competitive comparison to write actually.... CD player vs Winamp vs Squeezebox
Just make sure you don't open any cans of worms that you end up having to eat ;-)

tyler_durden
2006-02-28, 17:04
There is no competition, that's why!

TD

Pale Blue Ego
2006-02-28, 19:08
Just keeping track of every network media player would be a task. They seem to come and go pretty quickly. Several CE companies have tested the waters then pulled out.

Slim seems kinda like Linux. They stay focused, address problems, listen to their userbase, and keep a steady pace of improvement.

Jon
2006-02-28, 20:02
Turtle Beach had a good approach to this for their Audiotron ... rather than doing a direct comparison, they had a "top ten" list of the things that one should look for when purchasing a Digital Audio Receiver (see http://www.turtlebeach.com/site/products/audiotron/comparisons.asp ... strangely, they still maintain this web site even though the product has been discontinued). I thought this was a very effective approach ... it gets the point across without requiring lengthy direct comparisons.

They are actually the reason why I own a Squeezebox (er ... make that four Squeezeboxes); They got me jazzed about the idea of a DAR that could be controlled through an http interface, and I would have bought one except they had already stopped selling them; but having that capability became my primary requirement, and how I am a happy Squeezebox customer.

dean
2006-03-01, 00:03
On Feb 28, 2006, at 7:02 PM, Jon wrote:

>
> Turtle Beach had a good approach to this for their Audiotron ...
> rather
> than doing a direct comparison, they had a "top ten" list of the
> things
> that one should look for when purchasing a Digital Audio Receiver (see
> http://www.turtlebeach.com/site/products/audiotron/
> comparisons.asp ...
> strangely, they still maintain this web site even though the
> product has
> been discontinued). I thought this was a very effective
> approach ... it
> gets the point across without requiring lengthy direct comparisons.

http://www.slimdevices.com/pi_moreinfo.html

docbee
2006-03-01, 00:31
@rudholm:
one of the major drawbacks of the sonos is that it
- has a number of songs limit (40k)
- is a closed source product (you get what they give you)
- a strange user community (I don't like the "digital expert" attitude of the most prominent posters in their forum - as well as the way the sonos staff articulates themself there)

Apart from that, the the sonos controller (rf + graphical interface) is a really great idea. I don't know if any pda/770 solution for the slim will ever work that seemlessly. BTW, the price was my number 1 reason not to give it a try. As a former owner of an audiotron and actual owner of a sbwm, a slimp3 and a sb3 this might have completed my collection ;-) However, at the moment I am completely happy with my sb3.

Jon
2006-03-01, 07:42
http://www.slimdevices.com/pi_moreinfo.html


Yeah, that's what I meant :-)

oktup
2006-03-01, 08:21
http://www.slimdevices.com/pi_moreinfo.html

"Internal antennas significantly reduce the distance that the player can be placed away from the wireless router and decrease the reliability of the connection the server."

Isn't this part a bit, um, inappropriate since the SB3 arrived? Or does it deliberately show commendable honesty? ;)

(And, just noticed - shouldn't it be "... the connection to the server" anyway?)

seanadams
2006-03-01, 08:54
"Internal antennas significantly reduce the distance that the player can be placed away from the wireless router and decrease the reliability of the connection the server."

Isn't this part a bit, um, inappropriate since the SB3 arrived? Or does it deliberately show commendable honesty? ;)


d'oh! yes we'll probably want to change that. :)

rudholm
2006-03-01, 17:14
d'oh! yes we'll probably want to change that. :)

Or you could simply append something about now "the increased performance of 802.11g, the vertical orientation of the SB3, and our dual-antenna design make this a non-issue in almost all situations" or somesuch. Perhaps a mention of how an internal antenna is less likely to suffer damage and provides for a cleaner overall aesthetic would be in order as well.