PDA

View Full Version : DLNA Support



struts
2008-03-10, 09:22
Does Slim Devices have a statement of direction relating to DLNA?

Specifically, can I use A Squeezebox Controller to control non-Slim DLNA-compliant Media Players, now or in a future release? If not, could this functionality be added by a third party developer using any of the SDKs Slim provides?

Spent a while searching around here but I couldn't find an answer to this specific question. Apologies if I missed it.

dean
2008-03-11, 07:50
SC7 already can browse and play UPnP audio servers.

Further DLNA support is definitely being considered.

And yes, all the APIs and source code is available to allow somebody to build a plugin or applet to do more DLNA.

We'd love to hear more feedback from everyone about how they are using DLNA, what features are important, etc.

MrSinatra
2008-03-11, 11:17
i just want to chime in that i support the notion.

people who argue against upnp and dnla seem to have the "closed circuit" mindset, which i illustrate like this:

prior to converting to intel, mac users were bitterly divided over what the conversion would mean for apple, with the "closed" folks believing it could only be bad for apple and help apple to lose users, while the "open" crowd thought the opposite.

i can tell you from my own exp, i would def NOT have a mac today if it wasn't also win-compatible.

and i think that argument has been won clearly by the "open" mindest, with sales being proof of that.

so say someone has a ps3 and for a while, maybe even a long while, they just use SC and never buy a thing. so what? it seems to me better to expose them to it and drum up the possibility of a future sale, rather than keep the circuit closed and deny exposure.

i mean if that was the prevailing wisdom, why include softsqueeze?

options mean adoptions, imo.

Ben Sandee
2008-03-11, 11:22
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:17 PM, MrSinatra <
MrSinatra.364enb1205259601 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:

>
> options mean adoptions, imo.


Unless it's volume control in the SB of course...

radish
2008-03-11, 11:25
I don't disagree with your main point, I wouldn't have any objection to DNLA server support in SC (in fact I even thought of writing such a plugin as I currently have to run twonky for my 360 & ps3). However, to play devil's advocate...


so say someone has a ps3 and for a while, maybe even a long while, they just use SC and never buy a thing. so what?


...the problem is support. People using SC is great, but people generate support load and if you're not directly getting sales out of that it can become a concern. Look at Roku, they (claim to) support SS on their devices and once in a while a Roku user comes over here asking for help because it doesn't work. All we can generally say is "go talk to Roku". Now imagine that x10,000. Logitech certainly won't actively support these users (i.e. via the helpdesk) so it really comes down to the forum to take the load.

MrSinatra
2008-03-11, 11:37
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:17 PM, MrSinatra <
MrSinatra.364enb1205259601 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:

>
> options mean adoptions, imo.


Unless it's volume control in the SB of course...

just to be clear, your point here is for someone elses benefit, not me correct? b/c i am all for said volume control.

MrSinatra
2008-03-11, 11:44
I don't disagree with your main point, I wouldn't have any objection to DNLA server support in SC (in fact I even thought of writing such a plugin as I currently have to run twonky for my 360 & ps3). However, to play devil's advocate...



...the problem is support. People using SC is great, but people generate support load and if you're not directly getting sales out of that it can become a concern. Look at Roku, they (claim to) support SS on their devices and once in a while a Roku user comes over here asking for help because it doesn't work. All we can generally say is "go talk to Roku". Now imagine that x10,000. Logitech certainly won't actively support these users (i.e. via the helpdesk) so it really comes down to the forum to take the load.

well, is that not now the case anyway? can't they DL and use it and generate support as is? are you saying you don't want to make SC even more open to being used to avoid support?

seems to me the smart play is for slim to roll the dice and make the fairly safe assumption that more people being exposed to it in some form will not only create more adoptions, but do so at a pace that outpaces increased support costs.

as an example, lets say i have a ps3 and i want to try SC7 with it. lets say i fall in love with it, (a deep passionate love ;-)

then maybe, just maybe i am now a lot more likely to get a SB to put in another room, whereas before, when SC7 did NOT support the ps3, i never even would have considered it.

i don't see how a product can come this far, and not then go all the way. it seems counter to the whole philosophy of the product to begin with.

imo, open systems (just like open networks) are ultimately more valuable and win out over closed ones, given time and all other things being roughly equal. in other words, its an advantage to tap.

Ben Sandee
2008-03-11, 11:44
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:37 PM, MrSinatra <
MrSinatra.364fkn1205260801 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:

>
> Ben Sandee;278482 Wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:17 PM, MrSinatra <
> > MrSinatra.364enb1205259601 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > options mean adoptions, imo.
> >
> >
> > Unless it's volume control in the SB of course...
>
> just to be clear, your point here is for someone elses benefit, not me
> correct? b/c i am all for said volume control.
>

Yes, I know you are 'for' volume control. Just a joke everyone...

Ben

radish
2008-03-11, 12:18
well, is that not now the case anyway? can't they DL and use it and generate support as is?

Anyone can, but the majority of people using it now are using it with an SB product. Only a few people use it purely to stream to winamp or something like that. If you made DNLA support standard you'd get the reverse - a lot of people could dump twonky or whatever and start using SC. Great publicity for sure, but it would change the user demographic a lot. We (as SB users) could end up in the minority. This is only a "could happen" case - like I said I'm playing devil's advocate and so intentionally considering worst case :)



are you saying you don't want to make SC even more open to being used to avoid support?


I don't see what "open-ness" has to do with it. There's nothing in any way closed about SC now. You or I could add DNLA support if we were so inclined and that would be fine (and as I mentioned in my original post, I'd even considered it). I'm simply talking through what I see as some of the possible ramifications of such an action, not whether it's possible or permissable.



seems to me the smart play is for slim to roll the dice and make the fairly safe assumption that more people being exposed to it in some form will not only create more adoptions, but do so at a pace that outpaces increased support costs.


Personally, I don't actually think that would happen. As great as SC is, most of that greatness is in it's integration with the hardware. Take that away and you end up with a pretty generic media server of which there are many similar examples. So if I were Joe Gamer with my PS3 and someone recommend I try SC instead of Twonky I'm not sure what I'd see that was so great other than a ton of options which don't do anything and a lack of video support :) I don't see why it would encourage me to buy a device I hadn't previously considered - particularly as it costs about the same as my console and only plays music! However, maybe we're talking the wrong audience. Maybe it would have some impact with people who use DNLA compliant devices like receivers etc.



imo, open systems (just like open networks) are ultimately more valuable and win out over closed ones, given time and all other things being roughly equal. in other words, its an advantage to tap.

Agreed 110%. I just don't get how SC isn't open, and how supporting DNLA would make it more open. Example - LAME is an open source application which encodes mp3 files. It could support encoding FLAC, but it doesn't. That doesn't make it any less open.

m1abrams
2008-03-11, 12:24
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:17 PM, MrSinatra <
MrSinatra.364enb1205259601 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:

>
> options mean adoptions, imo.


Unless it's volume control in the SB of course...

You must not know the rule. "What happens in the audiophile forums, STAYS in the audiophile forum" ;) Damn sorry I just notice that thread was NOT in the audiophile forum, hmm thread is in wrong forum ;).

Besides that I am all for UPNP support. Trying to get my slimserver to work with my MC via UPNP and right now it is a little spotty at best.

Ben Sandee
2008-03-11, 12:52
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 2:24 PM, m1abrams <
m1abrams.364hnn1205263501 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:

>
> Ben Sandee;278482 Wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:17 PM, MrSinatra <
> > MrSinatra.364enb1205259601 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > options mean adoptions, imo.
> >
> >
> > Unless it's volume control in the SB of course...
>
> You must not know the rule. "What happens in the audiophile forums,
> STAYS in the audiophile forum" ;)


Yes, if that thread WERE in the audiophile forum that would be great....
:-) I stay out of there, probably good thing since I use the volume control
on ONE of my five slim devices.

Ben

Taxcheat
2008-03-11, 13:00
I'm running Twonky to feed MP3 files to my PS3 -- can I use the DLNA support to create essentially a separate library for MP3s? Currently, I'm only hosting FLAC files for Squeezecenter. I'm assuming the DLNA files would not be integrated into the SC database.

This might be a way to segregate libraries without using a plugin, if I'm correct in understanding how this might work.