PDA

View Full Version : Is the Squeezebox Classic discontinued?



dip
2009-10-12, 08:01
The Squeezebox Classic is neither shown in the product comparison table on www.logitechsqueezebox.com nor on www.logitech.com under Audio->WLAN music player.

Does that mean that the Classic will be discontinued and replaced by the Touch? I would really not be happy if this comes true since the Touch is much more expensive than the Classic (the Classic is available on amazon for 150 Euro, the Touch is announced for 299 Euro). Presently, all my Classics are positioned that I cannot reach them from my usual listening position. So I use the remote and love the huge characters on the display which can bee recognized from several meters distance. For me the Touch is therfore really not a replacement for the Classic but only an additional option.

What do you think. Do we have to start a petition for the Classic?

Teus de Jong
2009-10-12, 08:05
The Squeezebox Classic is neither shown in the product comparison table on www.logitechsqueezebox.com nor on www.logitech.com under Audio->WLAN music player.

Does that mean that the Classic will be discontinued and replaced by the Touch? I would really not be happy if this comes true since the Touch is much more expensive than the Classic (the Classic is available on amazon for 150 Euro, the Touch is announced for 299 Euro). Presently, all my Classics are positioned that I cannot reach them from my usual listening position. So I use the remote and love the huge characters on the display which can bee recognized from several meters distance. For me the Touch is therfore really not a replacement for the Classic but only an additional option.

What do you think. Do we have to start a petition for the Classic?

1. The Classic's price is so low because it is an end of life product now; earlier it was the same price as the new Touch.
2. The price of the Touch will, like that of almost all mass market products, go down over time.

Teus

iPhone
2009-10-12, 10:35
The Squeezebox Classic is neither shown in the product comparison table on www.logitechsqueezebox.com nor on www.logitech.com under Audio->WLAN music player.

Does that mean that the Classic will be discontinued and replaced by the Touch? I would really not be happy if this comes true since the Touch is much more expensive than the Classic (the Classic is available on amazon for 150 Euro, the Touch is announced for 299 Euro). Presently, all my Classics are positioned that I cannot reach them from my usual listening position. So I use the remote and love the huge characters on the display which can bee recognized from several meters distance. For me the Touch is therfore really not a replacement for the Classic but only an additional option.

What do you think. Do we have to start a petition for the Classic?

To answer the title of your post, Yes the SB3 is being discontinued and replaced by the SB Touch. And I don't think a petition will do any good. Logitech is moving on to a new style of NMP that is "Smart" to replace the older technology of the low powered "dumb" player.

aubuti
2009-10-12, 10:54
As I understand it, production of the SB3 has already stopped. Up until now Slim Devices and Logitech have had an outstanding record of supporting older equipment, all the way back to the original SliMP3 player. These legacy players have actually gotten better over time through improvements in the player firmware and server software. It remains to be seen if this track record will continue, and for how long, especially considering the big changes to the SB hardware platform that iPhone mentioned above. I am not hinting at any "doomsday" for original SBs -- I simply don't know.

If you really want to ensure personal availability of SB3/Classic, buy as many as you need now while they are still available. When Logitech bought Slim Devices I promptly bought another SB, but now I think my fears were unjustified.

TiredLegs
2009-10-13, 14:05
To answer the title of your post, Yes the SB3 is being discontinued and replaced by the SB Touch. And I don't think a petition will do any good. Logitech is moving on to a new style of NMP that is "Smart" to replace the older technology of the low powered "dumb" player.
Does that imply that a future version of the server software will leave SB3/Classic users stranded?

Mitch Harding
2009-10-13, 14:10
Past history indicates that this will not be the case.

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 4:05 PM, TiredLegs
<TiredLegs.400jnz1255467962 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
>
> iPhone;471183 Wrote:
>> To answer the title of your post, Yes the SB3 is being discontinued and
>> replaced by the SB Touch. And I don't think a petition will do any good.
>> Logitech is moving on to a new style of NMP that is "Smart" to replace
>> the older technology of the low powered "dumb" player.
> Does that imply that a future version of the server software will leave
> SB3/Classic users stranded?
>
>
> --
> TiredLegs
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> TiredLegs's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6201
> View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=69660
>
>

kdf
2009-10-13, 14:21
Does that imply that a future version of the server software will leave SB3/Classic users stranded?

No. Even Slimp3 functions the same way with the current Squeezebox Server as it did when Slimp3 Server was the name of the software. Eventually, you will no longer get new features and access to newer services may be limited, but it should stay working as it does now for good while longer.

-kdf

dip
2009-10-13, 14:36
Aren't the Boom and the Transporter in principle the same as the classic. At least they have the same "old" display type and style. Doesn't that mean that the classic is at least completely supported as long as these two products are? Or are the Boom and the Transporter different so that they may get new features and access to new services which the Classic can't get?

kdf
2009-10-13, 14:46
>
> Aren't the Boom and the Transporter in principle the same as the
> classic. At least they have the same "old" display type and style.

Display are the same technology and thus suport much the same features.
Boom uses a DSP in the audio path, so there are some different features
that may come along in time, depending on whether any time is available to
develop them. I suspect that with the newer technology becoming available
and the demands for new product to add to the portfolio, it may be hard to
expand the feature set at this level unless the same hardware gets reused
along the way.

-k

iPhone
2009-10-13, 15:10
Does that imply that a future version of the server software will leave SB3/Classic users stranded?

Not at all. The older players work fine with SBS 7.4 and I would say that will be the same with SBS 8.0. Where the issue is with first generation players (Slimp3 and SB1) and using the built in TinySC on the Touch. The Touch only has so much power avavilable where as a PC Server based program now and in the future has plenty of extra processing power.

TiredLegs
2009-10-14, 04:45
The older players work fine with SBS 7.4 and I would say that will be the same with SBS 8.0.
I'm not particularly concerned about the SB3/Classic being supported in v8.0. I'm more concerned about what might happen when it gets to 10.0 or 11.0. Logitech might not be as committed to maintaining backward compatibility as the original Slim Devices management was.

Sike
2009-10-14, 05:34
I'm not particularly concerned about the SB3/Classic being supported in v8.0. I'm more concerned about what might happen when it gets to 10.0 or 11.0. Logitech might not be as committed to maintaining backward compatibility as the original Slim Devices management was.

That would be the day I would ditch Slimdevices.

I presume that the current thin-client model will continue and therefore the support for the older devices. The SB3 is not a massive leap from the Slimp3. Apart from the better screen, wireless and the audio handling, it's pretty much the same device.

Ben Sandee
2009-10-14, 07:03
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Sike
<Sike.401qpz1255523761 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
> I presume that the current thin-client model will continue and
> therefore the support for the older devices. The SB3 is not a massive
> leap from the Slimp3. Apart from the better screen, wireless and the
> audio handling, it's pretty much the same device.

You might want to clarify what you mean by this. I suspect you mean
in terms of high-level UI and capabilities of the device (e.g. they
both have a rectangular screen and both produce audio). From a
technical perspective it is a massive leap. I doubt the SB3 and the
SliMP3 share even one single hardware component. They are separated
by years of development and two (arguably more) product generations.
They definitely don't share the same network protocol.

But, as you suggest, good software development practices have made it
relatively easy to keep support for the older devices. Indeed, this
latest round of synchronization improvements actually improved sync
for the oldest of devices as well. I'm sure that the effort was very
real and measurable to include slimp3 in that work, but Alan either
volunteered it or got paid for it.

One final note: there will come a time when there are no more slimp3
devices being used. I had three of them, but they are all retired.
It might be beneficial for a release of the server to encourage
optional reporting of the number of older devices that are in use.
Then there would be concrete information about how many of these
devices are actually in use on servers that are being upgraded. One
can always run an old version of the server software if necessary.

Ben

mrfantasy
2009-10-14, 11:55
Not at all. The older players work fine with SBS 7.4 and I would say that will be the same with SBS 8.0. Where the issue is with first generation players (Slimp3 and SB1) and using the built in TinySC on the Touch. The Touch only has so much power avavilable where as a PC Server based program now and in the future has plenty of extra processing power.

I wouldn't think it unreasonable to require a PC-based server to continue to support pre-Touch equipment. It might be cool if the Touch could control other players, but that's not what it's designed to do, and it's not like requiring PCs for the older players is a loss of functionality.

iPhone
2009-10-14, 14:09
I'm not particularly concerned about the SB3/Classic being supported in v8.0. I'm more concerned about what might happen when it gets to 10.0 or 11.0. Logitech might not be as committed to maintaining backward compatibility as the original Slim Devices management was.

Just exactly why would that happen? Its Server software after all. There is plenty of room on a Server to have a larger program that supports the "Dumb" players. Where I see changes is in the "Smart" players and TinySC. TinySC can only be so big. That is why it is already stripped down and probably will not support Slimp3 and SB1.

peterw
2009-10-14, 15:29
Just exactly why would that happen? Its Server software after all. There is plenty of room on a Server to have a larger program that supports the "Dumb" players.

Every feature Logitech includes is one it would feel compelled to support. It'd reduce their ongoing costs to remove all support for the Slimp3 protocol, for instance (assuming that ongoing code maintenance and QA costs more than fielding calls from Slimp3 owners).

pfarrell
2009-10-14, 15:37
iPhone wrote:
> Just exactly why would that happen? Its Server software after all.
> There is plenty of room on a Server to have a larger program that
> supports the "Dumb" players. Where I see changes is in the "Smart"
> players and TinySC. TinySC can only be so big. That is why it is already
> stripped down and probably will not support Slimp3 and SB1.

If you check the archives of the forums, there have been a lot of
complaints over the years about the hardware requirements for the
server. People want to run it, whether it be squeezecenter, slimserver,
squeezeboxserver or whatever it is named, on assorted old crock
computers, tiny embedded systems, even the Shiva plug.

While I personally think these complaints are misguided, one has to
acknowledge that a vocal minority already complaints that the server is
too big with too much feature bloat.

I've bought three SB1 units, but I would not lose any sleep if some
later server stopped supporting them -- as long as the ancient crock
server code that did support them was available forever.

I won't even complain if "support" is dropped for these ancient versions
at some time. The SB1 is prehistoric for a consumer electronic device.

--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

dip
2009-10-14, 16:28
When I started this thread I didn't want to start a discussion about support of old devices. Sorry about that. I agree that until now in my opinion support for all squeezeboxes (even the first ones) is very good.

My point was that almost all my squeezboxes are arranged that I either cannot access them directly because they are e.g. positioned on top of a cupboard (and I am not carrying a ladder with me all the time) or that they are at least several meters away from my normal listening position so that I use the huge font 90% of the time. Both facts make the Touch useless for me since the squeezboxes are too far away to be touched and the width of the display of the Touch is smaller than that of the Classic.

Although I would like to have a display showing album art, the relatively small display of the Touch seems not to be reasonable for my needs. Thus for me the more expensive Touch is not an option and I would prefer that the Classic is maintained for applications as described above for which it is (in my opinion) more suitable than the Touch.

unclemat
2009-10-14, 16:35
When I started this thread I didn't want to start a discussion about support of old devices. Sorry about that. I agree that until now in my opinion support for all squeezeboxes (even the first ones) is very good.

My point was that almost all my squeezboxes are arranged that I either cannot access them directly because they are e.g. positioned on top of a cupboard (and I am not carrying a ladder with me all the time) or that they are at least several meters away from my normal listening position so that I use the huge font 90% of the time. Both facts make the Touch useless for me since the squeezboxes are too far away to be touched and the width of the display of the Touch is smaller than that of the Classic.

Although I would like to have a display showing album art, the relatively small display of the Touch seems not to be reasonable for my needs. Thus for me the more expensive Touch is not an option and I would prefer that the Classic is maintained for applications as described above for which it is (in my opinion) more suitable than the Touch.


My thoughts exactly. That's why I rushed and bought a Classic after finding about Squeezeboxes and seeing Touch press release. I read tons of horror stories about Controller so I decided to stay away from it. My bad experience with recently acquired Radio makes me to send it back and buy another Boom.

I think all the color LCD interface is more of a distraction from music listening experience and in many ways downgrade in user experience department.

peterw
2009-10-14, 18:21
My point was that almost all my squeezboxes are arranged that I either cannot access them directly because they are e.g. positioned on top of a cupboard (and I am not carrying a ladder with me all the time) or that they are at least several meters away from my normal listening position so that I use the huge font 90% of the time. Both facts make the Touch useless for me since the squeezboxes are too far away to be touched and the width of the display of the Touch is smaller than that of the Classic.

The width of the Touch display is smaller, but the overall display is more than twice as large as the Classic. It's more readable than I think you expect it to be. I wrote more on this topic a while back: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?p=458577#post458577

That said, the new SqueezePlay displays do make me think of this headline from The Onion: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/report_90_of_waking_hours_spent ;-)

TiredLegs
2009-10-15, 05:19
That said, the new SqueezePlay displays do make me think of this headline from The Onion: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/report_90_of_waking_hours_spent ;-)
Perhaps someone should make video screens that are circular?