PDA

View Full Version : duet impression



mik63
2008-01-13, 15:07
To have the display removed from the squeezebox was long overdued, but:
1) Price for the remote is crazy
2) Launcing a new product with 802.11g instead of 802.11n or even with both g,n and a is also crazy (especially after the tons of issues with wireless connectivity..)
3) The audio specs are not better at all.

you can keep it, I pass on this one.

pnielsen
2008-01-13, 15:42
To have the display removed from the squeezebox was long overdued, but:
1) Price for the remote is crazy

Compared to what? I had planned to get a Nokia 770 on eBay for this sole purpose. It would be clumsy, far from optimal, and require quite a bit of tinkering. And it would be fairly expensive too, considering the purpose (~$200 on eBay). I'm not sure about this, but the 770 probably does not come with a convenient cradle for charging like the Controller does... I'm so glad I did not pull the trigger on the 770 purchase!

$300 is a fair price for a remote uniquely designed for use with the Squeezebox and/or Transporter.


2) Launcing a new product with 802.11g instead of 802.11n or even with both g,n and a is also crazy (especially after the tons of issues with wireless connectivity..)

Consider the competition. What other music players are offering 802.11n today?


3) The audio specs are not better at all.

I'm sure you have already noticed that the Receiver is simply a Squeezebox without screen in a black box at half the price ($149 vs $299).

I think both the controller and receiver (=Duet combined) are a very smart marketing move:

1) It does not annoy customers that recently spent $300 on a Squeezebox or $2000 on a Transporter. These owners can simply buy a controller to get the added functionality. This will put them at a step beyond a simple Duet setup, and most people will probably not agonize about losing out.

2) The Receiver adds a truely missed component to the line of Squeezebox products: an inexpensive way to add additonal players to locations where you don't care about (or want) seeing a display, like in a kitchen setup.

I will buy the Controller for $299 as soon as it is available. It's a small price to pay compared to the amount of work I spent on meticulously scanning all my 1,500+ CD album covers in 700x700 pixel resolution (150dpi).

Peter

kdf
2008-01-13, 15:52
On 13-Jan-08, at 2:42 PM, pnielsen wrote:

>
>> 2) Launcing a new product with 802.11g instead of 802.11n or even
>> with
>> both g,n and a is also crazy (especially after the tons of issues
>> with
>> wireless connectivity..)
>
> Consider the competition. What other music players are offering
> 802.11n
> today?
>
Not to mention that 802.11n is a DRAFT. Interoperation is not
guaranteed among different manufacturers
and I for one am glad to avoid the screaming that would ensue over
that and over upgrades to official 802.11n if/when that EVER happens.
Whining about the lack of n pales in comparison.

> mik63;258170 Wrote:
>> 3) The audio specs are not better at all.

It was not intended to be better. It was intended to be cheaper, and
it is for the Receiver alone.
It's not for everyone, and it's nice that you have been able to
choose. I'm sure many others will be very happy for the option.

-kdf

autopilot
2008-01-13, 16:05
People need to get over the fact that this is not the Squeezebox 4.

Anne
2008-01-14, 14:38
I didnt buy it yet, but I think the new remote is a clever, and overdue move.
Having the display on the remote makes finding music easier, I fumble quite a bit with the little display on the SB3, and frankly, there is a lot of times where I choose music from SlimServer instead.
Ever since the Sonos came out we have been waiting for this remote, looking forward to see user feedback.
And besides, after a bit of initial fumbling with Windows XP, and a new router with outdated firmware I havent had any trouble whatsoever.