PDA

View Full Version : Controller or not



sand
2008-10-14, 04:11
Hi all,
Sorry for this stupid question, but what is the difference between using a controller and accessing the web gui using another wifi device (i.e. an iPAC, Windows Mobile, or other)?
Will I miss out on anything?

mattybain
2008-10-14, 04:24
Hi all,
Sorry for this stupid question, but what is the difference between using a controller and accessing the web gui using another wifi device (i.e. an iPAC, Windows Mobile, or other)?
Will I miss out on anything?

In my experience (Nokia 810 and other devices) speed, they simply are not quick enough to make the whole thing enjoyable.

Now the native application on a iPhone that is different, speed and easy to use. Much prefer that to my SC.

sand
2008-10-14, 04:50
In my experience (Nokia 810 and other devices) speed, they simply are not quick enough to make the whole thing enjoyable.

Now the native application on a iPhone that is different, speed and easy to use. Much prefer that to my SC.

OK, so there is custom software in the controller - not just a browser?
Is it open source?

mherger
2008-10-14, 05:11
> OK, so there is custom software in the controller - not just a
> browser?
> Is it open source?

Yes, it is. You'll find the squeezeplay repository here:
http://svn.slimdevices.com/7.3/trunk/squeezeplay/src/?root=Jive

--

Michael

sand
2008-10-14, 05:17
Supercool! Thanks, Michael!

MeSue
2008-10-14, 08:27
what is the difference between using a controller and accessing the web gui using another wifi device (i.e. an iPAC, Windows Mobile, or other)?
Will I miss out on anything?

I asked a similar question not very long ago: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=52909

Now that I have a controller, I must say, those who responded were right. It is so much faster and just a more polished experience. And did I say so much faster? I'm very glad I got one.

sand
2008-10-15, 00:55
I asked a similar question not very long ago: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=52909

Now that I have a controller, I must say, those who responded were right. It is so much faster and just a more polished experience. And did I say so much faster? I'm very glad I got one.

Thanks. I think the controller's screen is too small. Also (I think) it's not touch sensitive. I'll think about it some more..

Skunk
2008-10-15, 07:11
> OK, so there is custom software in the controller - not just a
> browser?
> Is it open source?

Yes, it is. You'll find the squeezeplay repository here:
http://svn.slimdevices.com/7.3/trunk/squeezeplay/src/?root=Jive

--

Michael

Open Source or Source-Available?

Beyond the fact that they let you look at it, the license seems pretty strict to me: http://svn.slimdevices.com/repos/jive/7.3/trunk/squeezeplay/src/squeezeplay/LICENSE

radish
2008-10-15, 21:30
There's a diagram on this page which explains which parts are truly open vs readable: http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.php/SqueezeOSArchitecture

It's not as open as many would like, but it's not as closed as the player firmware (which is a good thing IMHO).

erland
2008-10-15, 22:59
Beyond the fact that they let you look at it, the license seems pretty strict to me: http://svn.slimdevices.com/repos/jive/7.3/trunk/squeezeplay/src/squeezeplay/LICENSE
Basically you can do any modifications you like for your personal use but you can't redistribute them beside sending them privately to Logitech for inclusion in a future release.

The main limitation with this in my opinion is:
- You can't port SqueezePlay to third party hardware and redistribute it without permissions from Logitech. This kind of make sense since Logitech really only earn money on the hardware, so it isn't strange that they like to avoid competitors making money on their free software.

The other limitations are more theoretical, sure it doesn't allow you to make and redistribute your own version of SqueezePlay but the number of persons willing to do that and spend time maintaining their own version are probably pretty close to zero anyway.

When you think about it, the licensing is pretty logical. Most parts of SqueezeCenter is GPL but it can't be used with third party hardware players anyway so there is no reason to restricting the license. SqueezePlay would be possible to use with third party hardware similar to Controller, so restricting the license makes sense from a business point of view.

Skunk
2008-10-16, 05:03
Thanks. I think the controller's screen is too small. Also (I think) it's not touch sensitive. I'll think about it some more..

Doesn't having to use a touch screen imply using two hands as well? I actually like that it's small and can be operated with one hand while lying down. I've tried using a smallish touch screen tablet PC, but it was far too cumbersome for use as a remote. I haven't tried the iPhone though, so apologies if it only takes one hand to use.

sand
2008-10-16, 05:06
Doesn't having to use a touch screen imply using two hands as well? I actually like that it's small and can be operated with one hand while lying down. I've tried using a smallish touch screen tablet PC, but it was far too cumbersome for use as a remote. I haven't tried the iPhone though, so apologies if it only takes one hand to use.

It depends on the design and weight and user I guess, but I can easily use a three inch touchscreen phone with one hand.
I be interested in a larger screen and maybe fewer hardware buttons.

Skunk
2008-10-16, 05:28
Basically you can do any modifications you like for your personal use but you can't redistribute them beside sending them privately to Logitech for inclusion in a future release.

The main limitation with this in my opinion is:
- You can't port SqueezePlay to third party hardware and redistribute it without permissions from Logitech. This kind of make sense since Logitech really only earn money on the hardware, so it isn't strange that they like to avoid competitors making money on their free software.

The other limitations are more theoretical, sure it doesn't allow you to make and redistribute your own version of SqueezePlay but the number of persons willing to do that and spend time maintaining their own version are probably pretty close to zero anyway.

When you think about it, the licensing is pretty logical. Most parts of SqueezeCenter is GPL but it can't be used with third party hardware players anyway so there is no reason to restricting the license. SqueezePlay would be possible to use with third party hardware similar to Controller, so restricting the license makes sense from a business point of view.

Thanks Erland. I agree that SqueezePlay should only run on Controllers, and whatever license requirements are needed for that should be enforced. OTOH making it easy for plugin authors or skin writers to contribute also makes sense from a business pt of view.

Perhaps the two are mutually exclusive, but it would be nice if the skin could be modified through one file, like CSS, which could be distributed by the author (even if only not-for-profit). Or if a plugin could somehow be written and posted by the author, rather than being submitted and ending up in a Logitech desk drawer.

erland
2008-10-18, 07:39
Perhaps the two are mutually exclusive, but it would be nice if the skin could be modified through one file, like CSS, which could be distributed by the author (even if only not-for-profit).

I'm not familiar with SqueezePlay skins so I can't comment on this.



Or if a plugin could somehow be written and posted by the author, rather than being submitted and ending up in a Logitech desk drawer.

This is not a problem, you are allowed to redistribute both third party SqueezeCenter plugins and third party SqueezePlay applets. I'm not sure exactly how this is described in the license, but I know that Logitech earlier has stated that you are free to redistribute third party Squeezeplay applets without asking Logitech. Unless I've understood it wrong, third party SqueezePlay applets are installed in SqueezeCenter in the same way as a SqueezeCenter plugin and downloaded by SqueezePlay when needed.

sand
2008-10-20, 05:13
I would really like a larger lcd, say around seven inches or so, with touch or a couplo of hardware buttons. It could rest on the table or hang on a wall..

lrossouw
2008-10-20, 08:29
Porting SqueezePlay to windows mobile or other mobile phones would of course help with the speed etc issues and still allow the use of another device. it would also allow the streaming of your music to yourself when you are in another wifi zone (say at work \ coffee shop \ hotel) or via 3G/HDPSA.

Wish I had the skills to do this...

peterw
2008-10-20, 16:30
Basically you can do any modifications you like for your personal use but you can't redistribute them beside sending them privately to Logitech for inclusion in a future release.

And if Logitech asks you for your modifications, you must hand them over, and grant Logitech a broad range of intellectual property rights to your personal changes, including license to sell your work to others.


The main limitation with this in my opinion is:
- You can't port SqueezePlay to third party hardware and redistribute it without permissions from Logitech. This kind of make sense since Logitech really only earn money on the hardware, so it isn't strange that they like to avoid competitors making money on their free software.

...

When you think about it, the licensing is pretty logical.

Logitech *could* modify the license to allow public discourse & code sharing while disallowing binary distribution for non-Logitech hardware and distribution of source code changes & derivatives designed to allow the software to run on non-Logitech hardware. I don't know why they don't do that, as it'd give them plenty of leverage against both corporate hardware competitors and hobbyist leaching (unwanted iPhone, iPod Touch, and Windows Mobile ports). I imagine they may see this as a support issue -- they may fear taking support requests from customers running 3rd-party Controller firmware, and have decided that a slower, more expensive development process for the Controller is worth the expected support savings of not having to first ask users if they're running the official firmware (and to deny support to those who aren't).

I should note that Logitech has begun to publish more information on the applet APIs (for those who're content with the underlying software), and has even re-released some Lua sample applet code to the public domain! So they seem serious about wanting 3rd party applets, even as they maintain a tight grip on their core Lua code.


Most parts of SqueezeCenter is GPL but it can't be used with third party hardware players anyway so there is no reason to restricting the license. SqueezePlay would be possible to use with third party hardware similar to Controller, so restricting the license makes sense from a business point of view.

SqueezeCenter is very usable with non-Logitech hardware. For more than a year, I used a Hauppauge video client that I bought new for $40 USD to play my music thanks to Slimp3 emulation software. Roku used to advertise SlimServer support as a feature of their networked music players.

It'll be interesting to see if projects like Moose and iPeng will make common devices like the iPod Touch and iPhone/Windows Mobile/Android handsets viable challengers to the Controller. I think there's a real risk that the SqueezePlay license will stifle Controller improvements and make those other devices more attractive to carry, costing them some sales. I personally carry a wifi-equipped PDA around most of the time, but still reach for the Controller because it's so much easier to use. If there were a really nice interface for my PDA, I might never use my Controller.

-Peter

erland
2008-10-20, 17:11
It'll be interesting to see if projects like Moose and iPeng will make common devices like the iPod Touch and iPhone/Windows Mobile/Android handsets viable challengers to the Controller. I think there's a real risk that the SqueezePlay license will stifle Controller improvements and make those other devices more attractive to carry, costing them some sales. I personally carry a wifi-equipped PDA around most of the time, but still reach for the Controller because it's so much easier to use. If there were a really nice interface for my PDA, I might never use my Controller.

I partly agree, I think the iPeng/iSqueeze native applications definitely will be a challenger to the Controller. The Apple license is at least as restricted as the Logitech version, so the reason is IMHO not the licensing but the hardware it self. The iPod/iPhone hardware is better than the Controller hardware in so many ways and the iPod Touch is actually cheaper for the end user than the Controller.

The Apple licensing is IMHO even worse than the Logitech license, it requires you to purchase a Apple computer with Leopard OS to even be able to compile the code and it requires you to pay additionally $99 to be able to even install the compiled code on your own iPod/iPhone hardware.

The iPeng skin version which is easier to modify for a third party developer is a bit too slow to challenge the Controller. The latest version is a lot closer than the 0.4.x versions but the Controller still feels a bit faster.

Goodsounds
2008-10-20, 17:15
It'll be interesting to see if projects like Moose and iPeng will make common devices like the iPod Touch and iPhone/Windows Mobile/Android handsets viable challengers to the Controller. I think there's a real risk that the SqueezePlay license will stifle Controller improvements and make those other devices more attractive to carry, costing them some sales.


I don't think this is much of a risk. And if the company thought so, it could easily end the risk, which hasn't happened.

I suspect that there are a lot of people who just buy products, use what comes in the box, and are happy with whatever functionality is built in. Most people don't screw around with stuff they get, in the way I suspect you and some of your cohorts do. Nothing wrong with that, have fun. But understand most people don't approach things the same way.

The technical user market is small and probably already pretty saturated.