PDA

View Full Version : Looks like Apple are joining the party



CardinalFang
2006-09-12, 11:19
http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/12/live-from-the-steve-jobs-keynote-its-showtime/

At the end, the iTV, plays music, video, photos etc and plugs into your stereo and TV. Just goes to show that the Transporter was a good strategic move...

Paul

radish
2006-09-12, 11:22
More importantly, they've finally realised iPods should be gapless. Makes me think about buying one...

CardinalFang
2006-09-12, 11:25
More importantly, they've finally realised iPods should be gapless. Makes me think about buying one...

I need to update mine and that new 80gig model should hold a decent amount of high quality recordings.

Paul

dnighorn
2006-09-12, 11:30
That 80gig unit will hold about 250 full albums encoded with Apple Lossless! At $349, I am definitely in. My 40gig unit has served me well but the backlight has stopped working. Add in the gapless playback and this is an automatic sell.

David

Smiley Dan
2006-09-12, 11:49
http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/12/live-from-the-steve-jobs-keynote-its-showtime/

At the end, the iTV, plays music, video, photos etc and plugs into your stereo and TV. Just goes to show that the Transporter was a good strategic move...
I'm interested as to how you think the Transporter plays with this. Looks like Apple are basically doing what I've been trying with mini-itx and I believe a lot of people want - get rid of clients with small screens and reuse what most people have as their stereo; the one connected to the TV (or the TV itself).

To me Transporter is the total opposite, it is more audiophile than pragmatic.

radish
2006-09-12, 11:50
I'm interested, but I'm going to hold off until someone I trust tries the gapless out. There are far too many variables for me to just take Steve's word for it ;)

CardinalFang
2006-09-12, 11:56
I'm interested as to how you think the Transporter plays with this.
To me Transporter is the total opposite, it is more audiophile than pragmatic.

That was my point, the SB3 will look very poor value next to this new Apple device, so it was a smart move for Slim to go more audiophile. The transporter doesn't work with the Apple device, it serves a different, more discerning community.

The new Apple player will make a big dent in Sonos sales I would imagine. I would buy one for my kids to use and if that's a digital out on the back, it might sound pretty decent through a DAC.

Paul

Drel
2006-09-12, 12:28
CardinalFang wrote:
> That was my point, the SB3 will look very poor value next to this new
> Apple device, so it was a smart move for Slim to go more audiophile.

At first glance, the Apple prototype iTV doesn't appear to be of much in
the way of competition to the Squeezebox. All they share is the ability
to transport music from a computer to a receiver/stereo/entertainment
center. The iTV is a general purpose device designed to work in
conjunction with a video display. The SB3 is primarily a device to
bring high quality music to you, with no reliance on a video display
other than its built-in VFD. In terms of value, the iTV has video
output hardware, the SB3 adds a built-in high resolution VFD. I suspect
that the components of the SB3 are probably more expensive.

The iTV seems to be a marriage of Apple's old Airport Express product +
video. It's about as competitive with the SB3 as the stereo out on the
Airport Express was, though the iTV improves on Airport Express by
requiring you to use your TV to listen to music, probably located near
your stereo, rather than iTunes, probably not located near your stereo.

> The new Apple player will make a big dent in Sonos sales I would
> imagine. I would buy one for my kids to use and if that's a digital out
> on the back, it might sound pretty decent through a DAC.

I agree. It does appear to have an optical digital out:

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2006/09/dsc_0999.jpg

A lot could change between now and product release, of course.

Nick

--
Nick Silberstein
Senior Developer
Flying Machine Development, Inc.

CardinalFang
2006-09-12, 12:41
CardinalFang wrote:
> That was my point, the SB3 will look very poor value next to this new
> Apple device, so it was a smart move for Slim to go more audiophile.

At first glance, the Apple prototype iTV doesn't appear to be of much in the way of competition to the Squeezebox. All they share is the ability to transport music from a computer to a receiver/stereo/entertainment center.

I think you underestimate the brand power of Apple, plus the iTV will play video, music, shows photo albums etc. To most people this is far more functional than Sonos or SB3. A nice big TV screen also allows you to browse music using a nice big display and everyone has a TV or two in the house, so it makes a lot of sense. In fact you could hook up a cheap colour monitor to it just for audio playback in a small room and that would work a lot better for me than the SB3 display. Sure the SB3 has audiophile kudos, but so does Apple - it's used a lot in recording studios so this is going to be a natural step for a lot of Apple devotees.

Don't get me wrong, I like my SB2 for the audio quality, but if the iTV comes close, I can't see how SB3 would ever become more mainstream.

Paul

andyg
2006-09-12, 12:44
I found it interesting that the thing has no composite video out! Won't hook up to just any old TV you have laying around...

gwak
2006-09-12, 12:55
is a 'component out' the same as a 'composite out'?
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2006/09/dsc_0999.jpg

regardless i hate the idea of having my watt sucking flat screen tv on just to play or listen to music


-gwak

olof
2006-09-12, 12:57
...and everyone has a TV or two in the house

Sorry no tv in my house ;-))

Another point, my SlimServer database is in sync with my iTunes library. Can I migrate to iTunes 7 without problem ???

Thanks

bklaas
2006-09-12, 12:58
A nice big TV screen also allows you to browse music using a nice big display and everyone has a TV or two in the house

I don't. In fact, not relying on a TV for display was a principal requirement I had when scoping out the purchase that ended up being the squeezebox. I have a TV, but it's nowhere near where I listen to music, nor will it ever be.

iTV functionality-- See also: modded X-Box (http://www.xboxmediacenter.com/info_project.htm).

Mark Lanctot
2006-09-12, 13:03
Ehh, I don't know. These multipurpose devices just end up never doing anything all that well.

I'd rather have a dedicated device.

'Course the general public won't see it that way, I'm sure it will be a big seller. All the sheeple with white cords hanging from their ears will want one.

CardinalFang
2006-09-12, 13:10
I found it interesting that the thing has no composite video out! Won't hook up to just any old TV you have laying around...

But an old monitor would work. We shall see, I think it's an important device and I hope that Slim can hold onto their market.

Paul

bklaas
2006-09-12, 13:12
a nice little blurb on ehomeupgrade sums up my feelings on iTV well.
http://www.ehomeupgrade.com/entry/3018/is_apple_late

I thought exactly the same thing when I read Jobs' pitch of "near DVD quality" when describing 640x480 movie downloads (and DRMed movie downloads, at that). I think Jobs could unveil a plate of dog turd on a clean white plate, call it iPoo, and the apple fan boys would go crazy.

mikerob
2006-09-12, 13:14
I'm interested, but I'm going to hold off until someone I trust tries the gapless out. There are far too many variables for me to just take Steve's word for it ;)

Well you certainly shouldn't trust me ; ) but it seems to work ok.

iTunes 7 introduces a new tag for gapless tracks. I set this on a few albums and the gapless playback seemed ok.

CardinalFang
2006-09-12, 13:17
Ehh, I don't know. These multipurpose devices just end up never doing anything all that well

Absolutely - I have a special PC for word processing, one with a bigger screen for spreadsheets and one with an graphics card for games.. :-)

And combination DVD/CD players are all rubbish too...actually a lot of them are, but some high end ones work pretty well.

I buy dedicated audio gear and hate music centres, so I'm on your side, but I don't write off Apple so fast, the iPod works really well and I've had many happy hours usage from my old series 2 player. Horses for courses, if it ties in nicely with iTunes, then they'll have a very nice seller there.

Paul

JJZolx
2006-09-12, 13:33
Just goes to show that the Transporter was a good strategic move...
By getting out of the consumer audio market as fast as they can and jumping head-first into the high dollar boutique audiophile market? You may be right.

rhyzome
2006-09-12, 13:36
Muhahahahaha. I knew ditching the Squeezeboxes and going the Mac way was a good idea. Waiting in anticipation for the iTV, exactly what I wanted. A silent Front Row front end.

All of you guys yammering about displays - got no remotes on your flat screen tellys?

A Robot
2006-09-12, 13:54
The SB still has a market for the few of us left that enjoy a good stereo system. Audiophile snobs not included. They belong in the basement. I don't watch TV, and certainly don't need every form of entertainment stuffed in every orifice 24/7 via 17-channel four-dimensional surround LCD plasma audio-video panels with direct HD sattelite link for only $89.99 per month. Quite frankly, with Slim Devices' non-existent marketing it won't go any further than the linux nerd market that just happens to stumble across its website (like I did.)

Apple likes to think they're ahead of Microsoft with OSX, but they're just now catching up to Media Centre, and how many years has that been out now?

The new iPods are nice, especially the shuffle... that thing is ridiculously small.

ModelCitizen
2006-09-12, 13:56
a nice little blurb on ehomeupgrade sums up my feelings on iTV well.
http://www.ehomeupgrade.com/entry/3018/is_apple_late

I thought exactly the same thing when I read Jobs' pitch of "near DVD quality" when describing 640x480 movie downloads (and DRMed movie downloads, at that). I think Jobs could unveil a plate of dog turd on a clean white plate, call it iPoo, and the apple fan boys would go crazy.

Hear hear, what a very depressing presentation that was.. aimed at barely sentient sheep. Work hard all your life just to buy the latest ultimately unsatisfying slickly marketed crap and then die. The end.
MC

Pale Blue Ego
2006-09-12, 14:03
I found it interesting that the thing has no composite video out! Won't hook up to just any old TV you have laying around...

Apple has a tradition of weaning users off outdated connectors. Serial ports and floppy drives have been gone from Macs for years.

Still, what would it have cost to include a composite jack? $1? You can't take this iTV to Grandma's house and hook it to her old console TV, that's for sure.

radish
2006-09-12, 14:34
Muhahahahaha. I knew ditching the Squeezeboxes and going the Mac way was a good idea. Waiting in anticipation for the iTV, exactly what I wanted. A silent Front Row front end.

All of you guys yammering about displays - got no remotes on your flat screen tellys?

Thanks for your insightful contribution.

Mark Lanctot
2006-09-12, 14:40
Muhahahahaha. I knew ditching the Squeezeboxes and going the Mac way was a good idea. Waiting in anticipation for the iTV, exactly what I wanted. A silent Front Row front end.

All of you guys yammering about displays - got no remotes on your flat screen tellys?

If only more people were like you. Steve Jobs could finally afford that hemisphere he always wanted.

Maybe this means you'll finally leave this forum? Bye!

JohnnyLightOn
2006-09-12, 16:04
Like gwak and bklaas said, I have no desire to have a TV on just to listen to music. I don't want an extra TV just for this, and I definitely don't want to be using up an expensive flat-screen just to browse my music. Plus, having the TV on would often be very distracting and bothersome.

chiphart
2006-09-12, 18:36
rhyzome wrote:
> Muhahahahaha. I knew ditching the Squeezeboxes and going the Mac way was
> a good idea. Waiting in anticipation for the iTV - exactly what I
> wanted. A silent Front Row front end.

It's exactly what many of us here didn't want: a GD television
or CRT in our living rooms.

I don't know what you're cackling about, either, it's hardly a
new or revolutionary concept. I've friends whose networkable DVD
players were doing the same (using Twonky or something) for years.
Same price, too.

If I were willing to have a TV or computer near my stereo, and
didn't care about sound quality, I wouldn't have gone with a SB.
Oh, and I suppose if I didn't care about the development of my
toy being community-based, either.

Enjoy your DRM!

--
Chip Hart - Pediatric Solutions * Physician's Computer Company
chip @ pcc.com * 1 Main St. #7, Winooski, VT 05404
800-722-7708 * http://www.pcc.com/~chip
f.802-846-8178 * Pediatric Software Just Got Smarter.
Your Practice Just Got Healthier.

Sleestack
2006-09-12, 18:50
The iTV is something I might throw in my HT system, but I doubt it. It defintely won't go anywhere near my 2 channel setups.

Give me my Transporters in a week and I'll have exactly what I've been waiting for.

sebage
2006-09-12, 19:21
I don't have a TV anywhere near my stereo either. Neither shall I have - and I am not a niche audiophile type either. Just someone who has a nice comfortable living room that I don't feel I need to watch TV in the whole time!

Let's wait to see how it sounds.

Can you control the unit by a web inteface or it's own remote (extra$$?)? Is there an IR eye?

I guess they are really going for the video market - and once you are there, I presume the audio is pretty easy to include as well. So as a one stop shop and for the AppleHeads, it's a home run.

I'm holding off judgement until I know about useability and sound quality. And yes, that mini, mini, mini shuffle does look nice. It made me think of the SNL sketch...

mkozlows
2006-09-12, 21:53
Muhahahahaha. I knew ditching the Squeezeboxes and going the Mac way was a good idea. Waiting in anticipation for the iTV, exactly what I wanted. A silent Front Row front end.

All of you guys yammering about displays - got no remotes on your flat screen tellys?

Wait until you actually try it to start talking about how great it is. The Xbox 360 plus XP Media Center gives (and has given for a year now) basically the same experience that Front Row plus the iTV will give, and I find it to be substantially less usable than the Squeezebox for simple music listening.

For photo viewing on an HDTV, the 360/MCE combination is excellent; for HD movie trailers, it works wonderfully (and I hope that HD-DVD's managed copy functionality gets a solid implementation once things are more shaken out, so I can watch all my movies streamed off a server); but for music, having to use a TV is just a pain.

)p(
2006-09-12, 23:36
but for music, having to use a TV is just a pain.

Can you elaborate a bit what you feel the pain is as I am thinking on going the tv route.

peter

planetsweet
2006-09-12, 23:45
Like gwak and bklaas said, I have no desire to have a TV on just to listen to music. I don't want an extra TV just for this, and I definitely don't want to be using up an expensive flat-screen just to browse my music. Plus, having the TV on would often be very distracting and bothersome.

When my CD player broke, I was forced to use my PS2 for playing CDs. (It is surprisingly good when using its optical output.) However, having to turn the TV on and off to see what I was doing was a pain.

Instead of buying a CD player, I bought a Squeezebox, which is why I am here. Generally, I copy any CDs immediately to my PC for playback with the SB3. If I really can't wait, then I can, at a pinch, use the PS2.

CardinalFang
2006-09-13, 02:57
Can you elaborate a bit what you feel the pain is as I am thinking on going the tv route.
peter

I must admit that I'm thinking it would be good too - after all I've often read on these fora the benefits of having the web interface for music selection, so why the sudden dislike of a LCD screen for browsing music? It would allow display of album art and needn't be huge. All my family use iTunes in preference to SoftSqueeze, so it would keep them happy.

I do agree with the sentiment that the iTV is unlikely to match the Transporter for audio quality, but hooked up to a decent DAC it might well be not half bad. I remain open minded about it - the iPod is a fine device and does the job for many millions of people, so the iTV may well do the same.


Paul

)p(
2006-09-13, 03:28
I must admit that I'm thinking it would be good too - after all I've often read on these fora the benefits of having the web interface for music selection, so why the sudden dislike of a LCD screen for browsing music? It would allow display of album art and needn't be huge. All my family use iTunes in preference to SoftSqueeze, so it would keep them happy.

Paul

Indeed. I already have a nice lcd screen between my speakers, http://www.i-modernist.com/temp/samsung.JPG , why not take advantage of it, readability is better from the sweetspot then the sb3 and it can display so much more. It also can be switched on and off from standby instantly. I can see mostly pro's in regard to usability. That's why I am so interested in the practical pains mkozlows encountered when using a tv for an interface.

peter

Grumpy_Git
2006-09-13, 03:59
well they're calling it the iTV then are they?

Not in this country they won't, theres no way that the venerable working class tv channel we have over here will lie down and let that happen, it should be a fun court case to keep an eye on anyway.

Nick.

Smiley Dan
2006-09-13, 04:19
Look: if you have a TV in your front room, and you want to play music in the front room, you may as well use the TV to display your collection than some poxy monochrome display a couple of inches wide. How can anyone claim they'd rather surf their music connection on a squeezebox and arcane remote than the Fisheye skin and relevant input mechanism, let's say, or one of the kiosk style skins with touchscreen control?

I want slim to succeed. I like their approach and most of their solutions. Thing is I'm not an audiophile, I'm a techie who wants control over his music collection and a decent way of playing it. Aside from the techie bit, this is where Apple are pitching: as a coherent media platform story. Slim aren't providing that coherent story at a low level.

A Robot
2006-09-13, 05:47
I find surfing the library via remote is quite easy on the SB. I just Browse Artist > select album > play.

Slim REALLY needs to fix up the web interface. It was designed by linux nerds and it shows.

Mark Lanctot
2006-09-13, 06:03
I was thinking: Apple's success in this arena is not exactly assured.

Anyone remember Apple's last "Squeezebox killer"? It was some sort of overpriced boombox you could plug your iPod into. Well I've seen one mention of it since but it's so obscure only 4-6 months after its release I can't even remember its name.

Airport Express generated a bit more buzz but it was never as ubiquitous or desirable as an iPod.

And Apple are desperately trying to promote a Mac as being the same sort of experience as an iPod, with some success but nothing earth-shattering. Perhaps their ad campaign is misfiring: I don't know about you but on those TV spots I find the geeky PC persona much more funny and likeable than the smug, patronizing, unfunny Mac guy.

Just about every other "media extender" has a TV interface and they haven't captured the public's imagination as much as the iPod.

It's strange that in one thread a few months ago someone was complaining about the SB drawing ~0.5 W on standby. Now we have people being enthused about using a 200-300 W display along with their music.

The masses like video much more than audio and they would never have been interested in an SB anyway. I've seen a lot of people comment about the SB: "there's no video out?" No, there's no video out, and that's partly the point.

Kyle
2006-09-13, 06:20
well they're calling it the iTV then are they?

Not in this country they won't, theres no way that the venerable working class tv channel we have over here will lie down and let that happen, it should be a fun court case to keep an eye on anyway.

Nick.

Jobs said in his presentation that "iTV" was, in effect, a working title until they come up with something better.

mherger
2006-09-13, 06:34
> Slim -REALLY- needs to fix up the web interface. It was designed by
> linux nerds and it shows.

Patches are most welcome.

--

Michael

-----------------------------------------------------------
Help translate SlimServer by using the
SlimString Translation Helper (http://www.herger.net/slim/)

radish
2006-09-13, 06:55
I too used to think that a full screen TV based music browser was The Way Forward (tm), but having tried it, I was wrong. In fact - I know several people who went the HTPC route and they've all gone back to much simpler solutions, most involving Squeezeboxes. Some obvious issues:

* Navigating most GUIs using a remote control is an exercise in frustration. Even when well designed, there's a tradeoff between simplicity and feature-richness. When you have a huge display the temptation is to throw in bells and whistles (otherwise, why bother?) and that makes the UI overly complex. Think how annoying DVD disc menus are to select a scene. Now imagine that every time you wanted to play some music.

* TVs make noise. It's not always significant but I can clearly hear any kind of CRT and my plasma has a cooling fan.

* TVs use power, lots of it. I see people on here complaining about the 5W a SB3 uses, well that's nothing compared to a honking great flat panel.

* Many TVs have a finite lifespan. It always felt dumb to me wasting the rated hours on my panel just so I could see the currently playing track in 3 inch high letters.

* Unless you have a _very_ good programmable remote, then listening to music requires you to switch on the player, the amp, and the TV, and then switch them to the correct inputs and potentially adjust the aspect ratio. Even _with_ a very good remote (like my Harmony) that was a lot of steps and the more steps, the more likely that something would go wrong.

* Complexity. KISS. 'nuff said.

In short, it was just too much of a pain to listen to music, so I pretty much stopped doing so. Finally cracked, bought another SB, threw out the $2k HTPC and have never looked back.

Oh, and forget about using wireless for streaming video to this thing. Look at how many problems people here have streaming just audio...

Duane Byram
2006-09-13, 09:12
On Sep 12, 2006, at 6:55 PM, olof wrote:
>
> Another point, my SlimServer database is in sync with my iTunes
> library. Can I migrate to iTunes 7 without problem ???
>
I upgraded to iTunes 7 on my Mac without incurring problems with
SlimServer.

Kudos to SlimDevices for making this so seamless through so many
iTunes updates. The last time I recall an iTunes update causing a
problem with SlimServer was with iTunes 4.2 or so.

- duano!

SoftwireEngineer
2006-09-13, 09:36
Radish,
Very good points. I considered a HTPC, even the little Apple etc and finally chose the Squeezebox.
It is still possible that Apple's product will become popular. Maybe Slimdevices can consider adding a video out as an OPTIONAL feature, where the Cover Art or Photo Albums can be watched. Ultimately videos can be streamed too.

radish
2006-09-13, 11:32
It is still possible that Apple's product will become popular.
I have no doubt it will become very popular - it's a great price and it will appeal to a lot of people. But as every slimdevices fan knows, "popular" isn't always equivalent to "best" :)

Kyle
2006-09-13, 12:33
But as every slimdevices fan knows, "popular" isn't always equivalent to "best" :)

How true. I'm amazed at how many people believe that Bose is high-end audio. The power of advertising ...

chiphart
2006-09-13, 13:43
Chip Hart wrote:
> I don't know what you're cackling about, either, it's hardly a
> new or revolutionary concept. I've friends whose networkable DVD
> players were doing the same (using Twonky or something) for years.
> Same price, too.

Following up on myself. A friend told me about a toy he bought
a while ago that he really likes:

http://www.hauppauge.com/pages/products/data_mediamvp-w.html

Boy, $149, list.

--
Chip Hart - Pediatric Solutions * Physician's Computer Company
chip @ pcc.com * 1 Main St. #7, Winooski, VT 05404
800-722-7708 * http://www.pcc.com/~chip
f.802-846-8178 * Pediatric Software Just Got Smarter.
Your Practice Just Got Healthier.

SteveEast
2006-09-13, 14:47
Chip Hart wrote:[color=blue]

Following up on myself. A friend told me about a toy he bought
a while ago that he really likes:

http://www.hauppauge.com/pages/products/data_mediamvp-w.html

Boy, $149, list.



S-Video and composite only though, so no HD.

Steve.

mkozlows
2006-09-13, 17:27
Can you elaborate a bit what you feel the pain is as I am thinking on going the tv route.


Here's a way to get the TV/no-TV experience yourself: If you've got a cable service that has digital music channels, compare using those to using the Internet radio stations on the Squeezebox.

You'll find that it takes longer to get started with the cable music, because 1) you need to turn more stuff on and wait for the TV to warm up, and 2) the cable box (like the 360 or the iTV) is a multi-purpose device, so you have to navigate through a bit of stuff to get to the music.

You'll also probably find that it feels weird to just leave the TV sitting there lighting up the room while you put background music on (unless you're the sort of person who puts background TV on for the noise, I suppose); and that it's basically impossible to just relax at night by lying down on the couch and listening to some music, what with the TV fluorescing at you.

And while the TV-based UI in theory could be more usable than the Squeezebox's, you'll again find that's not really the case. The SB is more optimized for music listening than Media Center, your cable box, or Front Row. It's not that any of those are bad UIs (except probably the cable box), it's just that they're general purpose UIs competing with a specialized device.

Michaelwagner
2006-09-13, 19:24
Slim -REALLY- needs to fix up the web interface.

Patches are most welcome.
I know this is the conventional thing people say here for this kind of comment.

However, in this case, the things that most people don't like about the web interface will need more than patches. I think substantial rethinking is necessary, and some re-architecting.

stinkingpig
2006-09-13, 20:02
On 9/13/06, Michaelwagner <
Michaelwagner.2e3rrn1158200701 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Slim -REALLY- needs to fix up the web interface.
> Michael Herger;135787 Wrote:
> > Patches are most welcome.
> I know this is the conventional thing people say here for this kind of
> comment.
>
> However, in this case, the things that most people don't like about the
> web interface will need more than patches. I think substantial
> rethinking is necessary, and some re-architecting.
>
>
Okay, how about this: mockups welcome. Draw what you want to see and post a
picture.

Everyone who complains says something similar to "substantial rethinking",
but no one has said what they want, aside from a couple of people who liked
Pandora's interface and some people who want it to use a specific technology
(Flash, AJAX, cans and string). Then there's the folks who want it to be
jettisoned in favor of a native app...

I'm quite happy with the web interface as it is in 6.5, particularly
Fishbone. The performance issues that dogged it in 6.3 are all better, and
the gallery view option is just what I wanted. Nokia770 is also a nice skin,
but not really to my taste (too clearly designed for small screen).
--
"I spent all me tin with the ladies drinking gin,
So across the Western ocean I must wander" -- traditional

Michaelwagner
2006-09-13, 20:17
Okay, how about this: mockups welcome.

Certainly much less intimidating.

mherger
2006-09-13, 23:40
>> Patches are most welcome.
> I know this is the conventional thing people say here for this kind of
> comment.

It's just so boring: everybody's complaining ("It's done by nerds and it
shows") and knows so much better, but nobody takes the time to do anything.

BTW: I totally disagree with that statement. Just because it isn't flashy
as mediaplayers have to be today it isn't nerdy. In fact (and I'm
repeating myself): the web interface was the first thing I ever saw from
SlimDevices (I didn't want to buy a device), and that's what draw my
attention some years ago. It's simple and nifty. Default is still my
favorite though eg. Fishbone offers so much more functionality.

> However, in this case, the things that most people don't like about the
> web interface will need more than patches.

Ok, from know on I'll ask "where can I download your solution?" :-)

--

Michael

-----------------------------------------------------------
Help translate SlimServer by using the
SlimString Translation Helper (http://www.herger.net/slim/)

mherger
2006-09-13, 23:41
> Okay, how about this: mockups welcome. Draw what you want to see and
> post a picture.
>
> Everyone who complains says something similar to "substantial
> rethinking", but no one has said what they want,

Thanks. Exactly what I meant - but in English :-)

--

Michael

-----------------------------------------------------------
Help translate SlimServer by using the
SlimString Translation Helper (http://www.herger.net/slim/)

cunobelinus@mac.com
2006-09-14, 00:30
If it weren't Elgato might also have something to say about it, given
the name of their own EyeTV product.

Is the iTV so very different from the Elgato EyeHome? Seems to do
much the same to me. If so, the only exciting things about it seems
to be that it's being produced by Apple and that it looks neat (or
even neater - EyeHome isn't unpleasing). EyeHome, which enables media
content (including music, photos and TV recorded on the EyeTV) held
on a Mac to be transmitted wirelessly to a television has been out
for several years. Unless there's an agreement between the two
companies going on behind the scenes, Elgato won't be too pleased.



On 13 Sep 2006, at 14:20, Kyle wrote:

>
> Grumpy_Git;135766 Wrote:
>> well they're calling it the iTV then are they?
>>
>> Not in this country they won't, theres no way that the venerable
>> working class tv channel we have over here will lie down and let that
>> happen, it should be a fun court case to keep an eye on anyway.
>>
>> Nick.
>
> Jobs said in his presentation that "iTV" was, in effect, a working
> title until they come up with something better.
>
>
> --
> Kyle
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> Kyle's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2541
> View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27325
>
>

Nostromo
2006-09-14, 00:40
I'm quite happy with the web interface as it is in 6.5, particularly
Fishbone. The performance issues that dogged it in 6.3 are all better, and
the gallery view option is just what I wanted. Nokia770 is also a nice skin,
but not really to my taste (too clearly designed for small screen).

I'm curious, what's the gallery view?

kdf
2006-09-14, 01:03
On 14-Sep-06, at 12:40 AM, Nostromo wrote:

>
>> I'm quite happy with the web interface as it is in 6.5, particularly
>> Fishbone. The performance issues that dogged it in 6.3 are all better,
>> and
>> the gallery view option is just what I wanted. Nokia770 is also a nice
>> skin,
>> but not really to my taste (too clearly designed for small screen).
>
> I'm curious, what's the gallery view?
>
the gallery view replaces "browse artwork".

The advantage is that now any album listing can be shown as a list of
album titles,
or a grid of album covers. A cookie stores the choice, so it
persistent per-browser, per-server,
and per-skin.

it also means that they both use the same code, so no more mistakes
keeping the two album lists in sync.
-kdf

Michaelwagner
2006-09-14, 04:20
It's just so boring: everybody's complaining ("It's done by nerds and it shows") and knows so much better, but nobody takes the time to do anything.

It reminds me of an old line from Mark Twain:

Everyone complains about the weather, but no one does anything about it.


I totally disagree with that statement. Just because it isn't flashy as mediaplayers have to be today it isn't nerdy. In fact (and I'm repeating myself): the web interface was the first thing I ever saw from SlimDevices (I didn't want to buy a device), and that's what draw my attention some years ago. It's simple and nifty. Default is still my favorite though eg. Fishbone offers so much more functionality.

I'm not part of the crowd that thinks flashy = good.

In fact, I think flashy often = bad (for example, flash itself can be misused to be very bad, as I pointed out in another thread).

(and I too like default - despite the extra functionality of fishbone, I find the colours not relaxing, almost jarring).

But *my* problems with the web interface are not layout issues, not skinable issues, but responsiveness issues. I wouldn't particularly want to change the look of Default, or perhaps only a bit - one or two things from Fishbone are quite nice, modulo the colour scheme.

But the fact that every interaction takes 5 seconds puts it in the same class as the Audiotron - which was slower than the second coming. And that takes more than a few cosmetic skin patches to change.

I gather 6.5 is better - I haven't had a chance to download it yet. So maybe I'd better wait and see. Maybe this weekend if time permits.

Ben Sandee
2006-09-14, 05:28
On 9/14/06, Michaelwagner <
Michaelwagner.2e4gro1158233102 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
>
>
> I gather 6.5 is better - I haven't had a chance to download it yet. So
> maybe I'd better wait and see. Maybe this weekend if time permits.


Michael,

You really should -- and soon! It's been in development for a long time and
is a bigger leap forward than the 0.19 bump in decimal version number would
indicate, in my opinion.

Ben

Mark Lanctot
2006-09-14, 06:15
BTW: I totally disagree with that statement. Just because it isn't flashy
as mediaplayers have to be today it isn't nerdy. In fact (and I'm
repeating myself): the web interface was the first thing I ever saw from
SlimDevices (I didn't want to buy a device), and that's what draw my
attention some years ago. It's simple and nifty. Default is still my
favorite though eg. Fishbone offers so much more functionality.

I agree. Call me easily impressed, but when I first saw SlimServer it seemed like the coolest thing ever.

"You mean this is a webserver running on my own PC that I can see from other PCs on my network AND I can use it to control a Squeezebox AND it will play streams to a streaming client?!?"

That first time that I used it to control a media player in another room seemed like voodoo.

That was a few years ago when I was a little more naive, a little inexperienced about PCs and especially about LANs, but still.

I guess kids today are jaded. :-P

bklaas
2006-09-14, 07:24
But the fact that every interaction takes 5 seconds puts it in the same class as the Audiotron - which was slower than the second coming. And that takes more than a few cosmetic skin patches to change.

Your mission, if you choose to accept it: download 6.5 and try out Nokia770 or Touch. Select some tracks to play and then perform some typical actions (pause, stop, next track, previous track, change volume, etc.). Go to the playlist page and play around with moving tracks around in the list. Let me know what you think of the responsiveness, preferably in this thread.

#!/ben

Nostromo
2006-09-14, 09:11
the gallery view replaces "browse artwork".

The advantage is that now any album listing can be shown as a list of
album titles,
or a grid of album covers. A cookie stores the choice, so it
persistent per-browser, per-server,
and per-skin.

it also means that they both use the same code, so no more mistakes
keeping the two album lists in sync.

Interesting.

Are the album covers labeled now? The name of the album should be underneath the album cover, IMO. Or it should be an option.

Michaelwagner
2006-09-14, 09:16
You really should -- and soon! It's been in development for a long time

OK, OK.

I've been working between 60 and 80 hour weeks at work, trying to keep my little company afloat, so at the end of the day I haven't had time to download the latest and greatest. I'm still running 6.2.2 at home.

Like I said, I'll give it a whirl this weekend if time permits.

Ben Sandee
2006-09-14, 09:21
On 9/14/06, Nostromo <Nostromo.2e4u6z1158250501 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Are the album covers labeled now? The name of the album should be
> underneath the album cover, IMO. Or it should be an option.
>
>
They are labeled. It's quite nice now.

Ben

earthbased
2006-09-14, 09:22
http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/12/live-from-the-steve-jobs-keynote-its-showtime/

At the end, the iTV, plays music, video, photos etc and plugs into your stereo and TV. Just goes to show that the Transporter was a good strategic move...

Paul

640x480 on a flat panel plasma/lcd tv? This is progress? If the cable/dish companies can start streaming inDemand HD movies, the iTV will go nowhere. But I really wish the cable/dish companies would be a little like Slim Devices and understand that their box should be network friendly so families can play their home-made he-res videos through the cable box.

bklaas
2006-09-14, 10:09
On 9/14/06, Nostromo <Nostromo.2e4u6z1158250501 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Are the album covers labeled now? The name of the album should be
> underneath the album cover, IMO. Or it should be an option.
>
>
They are labeled. It's quite nice now.

Ben

Since this thread is largely derailed from discussions of Fruity Tech companies, a further question on gallery view.

Anyone know why you can't use gallery view when browsing by artist? Well, you can once you drill down to the individual artist, but not when you are viewing, say, artists that start with "R".

I've added the new gallery view stuff to Nokia770, and I mostly love it, but it bothers me that it's not available for Browse->Artist. If I want to select an album by cover artwork, artist is the logical top-level grouping I'd want to do my browsing. Seeing R.E.M.'s "Life's Rich Pageant" next to the soundtrack to "Life Aquatic" doesn't make much sense to me...

This might be better asked in the dev forum, but I'll start here...

#!/ben

TiredLegs
2006-09-14, 10:16
Jobs said in his presentation that "iTV" was, in effect, a working title until they come up with something better.
The "iTV" name is destined to be replaced with something else, because Apple can't trademark it. (No company can claim exclusive use of the term.)

aubuti
2006-09-14, 10:23
Anyone know why you can't use gallery view when browsing by artist?
It's a bit counter-intuitive, especially at first, but if you start browsing by album there's a drop down menu that let's you select sort order. There's various combinations of artist, album, year, and genre -- including the ever-popular artist/year.

kdf
2006-09-14, 10:25
Quoting bklaas <bklaas.2e4wqn1158253801 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>:

> Anyone know why you can't use gallery view when browsing by artist?
> Well, you can once you drill down to the individual artist, but not
> when you are viewing, say, artists that start with "R".

simple answer, an artist doesn't have cover art.

However, what you CAN do is change the sorting for Browse->Albums.
Have them sort by Artist, Year if you like. The Nokia skin needs to
add the galleryselect pulldown. As a workaround, setting the sort from
another skin will set a cookie
that will still affect the nokia skin.

-k

bklaas
2006-09-14, 11:55
Quoting bklaas <bklaas.2e4wqn1158253801 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>:

> Anyone know why you can't use gallery view when browsing by artist?
> Well, you can once you drill down to the individual artist, but not
> when you are viewing, say, artists that start with "R".

simple answer, an artist doesn't have cover art.

However, what you CAN do is change the sorting for Browse->Albums.
Have them sort by Artist, Year if you like. The Nokia skin needs to
add the galleryselect pulldown. As a workaround, setting the sort from
another skin will set a cookie
that will still affect the nokia skin.

-k

I'll look into adding the pulldown. FYI-- setting a cookie from a different skin for album sort order doesn't do the trick. Hopefully I can get something in place to make that a moot point.

thanks for the input!

#!/ben

kdf
2006-09-14, 12:06
Quoting bklaas <bklaas.2e51tz1158260401 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>:


> I'll look into adding the pulldown. FYI-- setting a cookie from a
> different skin for album sort order doesn't do the trick. Hopefully I
> can get something in place to make that a moot point.
>
ah, how odd. its sorted for me. I guess I must have put the pulldown
in there during a fit of experimentation and ended up with the right
path for the cookie :)
-k

Nostromo
2006-09-14, 13:49
It's just so boring: everybody's complaining ("It's done by nerds and it
shows") and knows so much better, but nobody takes the time to do anything.


I'm somewhat new to the open source scene. And I think I understand your point of view, up to a certain point. You put a lot of "blood and sweat", to improve SlimServer and we're all greatful for it. And you were not paid for it.

But try to understand our point of view. We bought the Squeezebox to listen to music. That's our hobby. We expect it to work reasonably well as is. And if there's a bug or a feature we want, we have the right to point it out. And we don't want, nor feel morally obliged to take the time to do anything about it. Like any other product, we expect the company to take care of these issues. Fortunately for us (and Slimdevices), we have you guys helping out, free of charge. Hell, a lot of us here can't even help you guys. I certainly can't program, I don't have the time to learn to program, and I don't want to learn to program. All I can do is point out bugs or features I'd like. So are you asking us to shut up?

Make no mistake, I love my Squeezebox. But I'm not perfectly happy with SlimServer, version 6.3.

bklaas
2006-09-14, 14:14
I'm somewhat new to the open source scene. And I think I understand your point of view, up to a certain point. You put a lot of "blood and sweat", to improve SlimServer and we're all greatful for it. And you were not paid for it.

But try to understand our point of view. We bought the Squeezebox to listen to music. That's our hobby. A lot of us here can't help you guys. I certainly can't program, I don't have the time to learn to program, and I don't want to learn to program. All I can do is point out bugs or features I'd like. So are you asking us to shut up?

I don't think that's what he's asking. I think the statement "nobody does anything" goes beyond just writing code. I think what's trying to be said here is that complaints are often thrown around in the general forum by those who won't even spend the time to formulate a well crafted idea for a solution. Saying things like "god, the web interface sucks" isn't constructive. And there's a lot of that which flies about.

I would, however, strongly disagree with the statement that no one ever does anything. Examples:

Wouldn't it be great to be able to use slimserver's capability in a responsive application on a PC? A: Softsqueeze

I'd really like a native GUI app to be written to control my squeezebox. A: SlimRemote, Moose, TelCanto

I want to see the Minnesota Twins score update on my squeezebox display. A: SuperDateTime

The web interface feels so 1990s, and page refreshes are for the birds. A: Fishbone, ExBrowse, Nokia770 (had to toot my own horn somewhere)

the list goes on an on. Sure, there's 10 complainers and a 100 non-coders for every 1 that ends up writing something to extend the squeezebox/slimserver feature set, but IMHO it's truly amazing what's been done by a community of hackers.

For the record, don't shut up. Just be nice, offer ideas, and watch things move forward.

#!/ben

Nostromo
2006-09-14, 14:34
For the record, don't shut up. Just be nice, offer ideas, and watch things move forward.


For the record, I didn't plan to shut up. I'm always nice and I always try to be constructive. ;-)

mherger
2006-09-14, 14:34
> I think what's trying to
> be said here is that complaints are often thrown around in the general
> forum by those who won't even spend the time to formulate a well
> crafted idea for a solution. Saying things like "god, the web interface
> sucks" isn't constructive.

I just spent 15 minutes on my own answer just to give up on it and say:
thanks. That's what I wanted to say :-)

> I would, however, strongly disagree with the statement that no one ever
> does anything.

Yes, that was a little too much. My fault. (Sometimes it's frustratingly
hard to precisely express yourself in a foreign language :-/)

--

Michael

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

Michaelwagner
2006-09-14, 15:30
I can attest to the fact that, sometimes things just don't really come out the way you meant them. Even when it is your native language.

As an (infrequent) contributer to the German language forum on this board, I can say, and more so when you're writing in a foreign language.

So let's be a little gentle on those of us who are doing us the favour of contributing in our language, when it isn't their native language.

Nostromo
2006-09-14, 16:20
Well, if I sounded harsh, I'm sorry. English isn't my native language either. :)

Michaelwagner
2006-09-14, 16:28
For the record, I didn't plan to shut up.
Good.

I'm always nice and I always try to be constructive. ;-)

So one thing that's been tried here and seemed to work was, someone took a paint program and said "I'd like to see a squeezebox that looked like this".

Then at least we know what you're thinking about.

Nostromo
2006-09-14, 17:37
Good.


So one thing that's been tried here and seemed to work was, someone took a paint program and said "I'd like to see a squeezebox that looked like this".

Then at least we know what you're thinking about.

Like I said, I love the Squeezebox, but I'm not perfectly satisfied with SlimServer, version 6.3.1 (default skin). I was deliberatly vague, because I didn't want to sound like a whiner. It seems I did sound like a whiner after all :lol:

bklaas
2006-09-15, 08:23
Quoting bklaas <bklaas.2e51tz1158260401 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>:


> I'll look into adding the pulldown. FYI-- setting a cookie from a
> different skin for album sort order doesn't do the trick. Hopefully I
> can get something in place to make that a moot point.
>
ah, how odd. its sorted for me. I guess I must have put the pulldown
in there during a fit of experimentation and ended up with the right
path for the cookie :)
-k

this is fixed and checked in for Nokia770 and Touch skins, in both trunk and 6.5. Will update Nokia770 thread with further details.
#!/ben

Michaelwagner
2006-09-15, 08:53
It seems I did sound like a whiner after all :lol:

You sounded a lot like someone else who came only a few weeks before you and managed to anger practically everyone.

Perhaps unfortunate timing as much as anything else.

Michaelwagner
2006-09-16, 18:50
OK, OK. [...]
I'll give [6.5b3] a whirl this weekend if time permits.

Well, I downloaded it and it's currently scanning.

I see 2 processes, a slim and a scanner. The scanner is eating the CPU and the slim is snoring with one player playing. No sound skipping despite scanning.

I tried to lower the priority of the scanner from the services panel. No go. I don't have the authority (despite being in the administrator group - so who on earth has the authority then?). From the server/performance pane, no one tells me I can't do it, but it doesn't actually do anything.

Oddly enough, I can raise the priority of slimserver, although most of the increments it offers me don't actually do anything, but the one called "above normal" works.

Why offer me options that don't work?

It upgraded the flash in the SB3, couldn't care less about the flash in the SB1. Not sure if that's right or not.

There's no way I can see to find out the progress of the scanner ...

OK, the scanning finished.

There are 3 processes total, a mysqld process, a slim process and a scanner process.

The Slim process is now 84MB. The mysqld process is about 20MB, and the scanner, when it was running, was 40MB or so.

Shutting off a bunch of plugins I don't use, like iTunes, Moodlogic, etc, seems to have only saved 1/2 a MB. I expected more. Maybe I have to shut down the server and restart it.

Yes, that seemed to save 8MB. Now we're at 76.5MB

Changing the name of the player interrupts the music. I'm sure that didn't use to happen.

2.5 seconds isn't a valid entry for cross-fade time. Shouldn't the text say so? Better yet, why is 2.5 seconds not a valid value?

The number of pixels to scroll setting seems not to be connected.

Hmm...and the memory crept back up to 84MB

All-in-all, more responsive than it was.

I'll have to see if the things I found are already reported as bugs, and if not, report them. But for now I'm exhausted and going to bed.

New thing found ... on my SB1, holding the volume up/down buttons advances by 2.5 each increment. On my SB3, it's only 1 per increment. For both systems, a single button push, up or down, is only worth 1, but holding down the button on the SB1 causes increments of 2.5, and you can end up with odd volume values like 51.5

I assume this is a mistake ... although I could be wrong, I suppose.

Nostromo
2006-09-16, 19:00
Man, can't wait to try out 6.5. But I prefer to wait till official release.

Michaelwagner
2006-09-16, 19:10
Man, can't wait to try out 6.5. But I prefer to wait till official release.

Well, according to the schedule, official release is supposed to coincide with availability of the transporter, and that's supposed to be Monday the 18th, isn't it?

So official release isn't far off.

radish
2006-09-17, 18:22
New thing found ... on my SB1, holding the volume up/down buttons advances by 2.5 each increment. On my SB3, it's only 1 per increment. For both systems, a single button push, up or down, is only worth 1, but holding down the button on the SB1 causes increments of 2.5, and you can end up with odd volume values like 51.5

I assume this is a mistake ... although I could be wrong, I suppose.

I believe the volume control was changed from 0..40 to 0..100 in 6.5. Obviously in SB2/3 that's just a firmware change - maybe the fact that there are 40 steps is somehow hardcoded in SB1 so they have to make it 40 steps on a 0..100 scale, giving the 2.5 per step you see? I don't know any of this for sure, just a WAG :)

SoundBoy
2006-09-17, 18:47
Apple likes to think they're ahead of Microsoft with OSX, but they're just now catching up to Media Centre, and how many years has that been out now?

The new iPods are nice, especially the shuffle... that thing is ridiculously small.

Well - I use Mac @ home and Windows boxes @ work, agreed MediaCenter is more mature then FrontRow - but OSX looks great next to XP - let me tell you that much. But again, that's more personal taste - so that does not count anyway. I use my SB3 only for InternetRadio - I could not care less about the rest. SB3 does an OK job in streaming music - but hey - for 90% of the customers, ITV and IPods are doing a great job.

Cheers

Steven Moore
2006-09-18, 04:17
I like the look of this itv thing but only if it plays dvd movies at full resolution.
The idea of ripping most of my dvd collection onto a big hard drive/drives and playing movies from here rather than sifting through boxes of dvd boxes. In fact exactly what the squeezebox did for my cd collection appeals to me.
I don't know if this device will be capable of this but if it is then they should sell pretty well.