PDA

View Full Version : What would make it easier to recommend a Squeezebox ?



erland
2011-07-21, 23:38
This poll is a bit similar to the one I posted yesterday, but this time I'd like to know what the biggest improvements would be that will make it easier for you to recommend the Squeezebox system to someone who doesn't own a Squeezebox today.

Note, the question is not related to what make yourself buy another Squeezebox, it's about what would make it easier for you to recommend it to someone else.

I'll post a separate thread about what would make you to get another Squeezebox later, but I'd like to see the answers on this one first to make it easier to list appropriate poll options. However, feel free to add information as comments in this thread if you feel that a lot different things would be needed to get yourself to get another Squeezebox than your friends.

Try to avoid checking all the checkboxes, try to limit yourself to check the top 3 or something similar.

Also, if you haven't already answered on the related polls, please do so, you will find them here:
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=89397
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=88915
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=88916

JJZolx
2011-07-22, 02:24
Simplified installation and initial configuration

Absolutely the #1 most insignificant and least important reason. Users go through bazillions of software installations, each a bit different, each a bit more or less complicated than the next. Dealing with Squeezebox server's installation is a breeze. It needs to be more powerful, not simpler. The simplification of the installation only leads to added headaches. What's been done to the installer has been the brainchild of some idiots in marketing, not that of an interface designer.


Simplified usage after initial installation/configuration

That's rather a broad requirement, isn't it? No, usage has evolved for many years, and I don't see that it can be simplified significantly. Simplifying it only makes it less flexibls, less useful, even to users with little technical knowledge.


Integrated support for ripping music from CD and tagging it

No. Zero. Zilch. Zip. Nada.

Please: Never go this direction. EVER.


Support for more online streaming services

Don't give a damn. Never have, never will. Squeezebox's support for existing services has been so buggy, spotty, and ill-maintained, that it's like a bad joke. And there isn't a single service that is so compelling that it would be a must have.


Improved stability of mysqeueezebox.com

Mysqueezebox.com is a virus. Are we looking for a better virus, or what exactly? Avoid it at all costs.


Improved stability and/or less bugs in Squeezebox Server/Firmware

Ding! That's the one.


New Squeezebox hardware which have reliable support for local music without a computer

Which essentially means a better, more stable server and more powerful processing. That would be the Touch fully realized. That would in many ways be Sonos.


New Squeezebox hardware with built-in speakers and stereo support

More junk along the lines of Boom and Radio. That would be where Logitech takes Squeezebox, not where Slim Devices would take it. And not something I'd pay a nickel for, nor recommend to anyone I care about.


New Squeezebox hardware with support for video

Even bigger junk.


New entry level Squeezebox hardware with a lower price

It's always been a bit overpriced. But that was mostly a function of being the product of a tiny company, or a tiny product of a giant one.

andynormancx
2011-07-22, 02:32
The Boom, junk ! I think not.

My Booms are excellent, beautifully designed and realised bits of kit. My Radio is pretty good too, though not as good as the Booms I'll admit.

toby10
2011-07-22, 03:23
I'd also add better documentation and a very well designed FAQ covering the more common aspects/issues users seem to run in too.
I'd bet 1/3 of the posts in the basic forums here (General, Touch, Radio, Duet, Boom, MySB) are simply variations of the same ten issues.

dasmueller
2011-07-22, 04:03
+1 on toby 10's comment regarding documentation and FAQ it is an area I found to be severely lacking.

I would also add making Tiny SBS a bit more robust and less finicky for those who want to attach a drive directly to the Touch.

nicolas75
2011-07-22, 05:10
Absolutely the #1 most insignificant and least important reason. Users go through bazillions of software installations, each a bit different, each a bit more or less complicated than the next. Dealing with Squeezebox server's installation is a breeze. It needs to be more powerful, not simpler. The simplification of the installation only leads to added headaches. What's been done to the installer has been the brainchild of some idiots in marketing, not that of an interface designer.



That's rather a broad requirement, isn't it? No, usage has evolved for many years, and I don't see that it can be simplified significantly. Simplifying it only makes it less flexibls, less useful, even to users with little technical knowledge.



No. Zero. Zilch. Zip. Nada.

Please: Never go this direction. EVER.



Don't give a damn. Never have, never will. Squeezebox's support for existing services has been so buggy, spotty, and ill-maintained, that it's like a bad joke. And there isn't a single service that is so compelling that it would be a must have.



Mysqueezebox.com is a virus. Are we looking for a better virus, or what exactly? Avoid it at all costs.



Ding! That's the one.



Which essentially means a better, more stable server and more powerful processing. That would be the Touch fully realized. That would in many ways be Sonos.



More junk along the lines of Boom and Radio. That would be where Logitech takes Squeezebox, not where Slim Devices would take it. And not something I'd pay a nickel for, nor recommend to anyone I care about.



Even bigger junk.



It's always been a bit overpriced. But that was mostly a function of being the product of a tiny company, or a tiny product of a giant one.

Strongly agree with everything
(expect may be with overpriced, price would be fine, but with stable and user friendly software)
Forget about mysqueezebox.com, it isn't reliable.
Make the few minor changes (stop that ridiculous autoscan ... ) which would make TinySBS acceptable.
Don't loose time with pictures and videos ( Logitech Media Server or LMS ... ) while audio is not fixed, fast and user friendly.
It isn't by now, it should compare to others popular music softwares (don't tell it makes more things than others softwares, normal users won't care and won't accept poor behavior and performance just because it also makes coffee ...)

Nostromo
2011-07-22, 06:49
I would recommend Squeezebox to anyone if it was more user-friendly. Now, I would only recommend it to someone who knows his or her ways around computers.

I never tried a Sonos. Why do they say their products are more user-friendly than Squeezebox products? Is it because of the mesh network thingie?

spile
2011-07-22, 07:09
Better support for use with external hard drives.

aubuti
2011-07-22, 07:28
Far and away, #1 for me is "Improved stability and/or less bugs in Squeezebox Server/Firmware". When my system was only two SB2s and an SB3, it was much more robust. Things started getting flaky a lot more often when the Duet came on the scene, particularly with regard to the SBC. Perhaps not coincidentally, this change also coincides with Logitech's acquisition of Slim Devices. Everything wasn't perfect with Slim Devices, but everything was much, much more robust. They were simpler devices, and they worked reliably. I think now the complexity of the devices has outstripped the development and QA needed to make them robust.

My second choice, "New Squeezebox hardware which have reliable support for local music without a computer", is somewhat at odds with my first. Even friends who know their way around computers and already have a computer on 24/7 are put off by the idea of running a "music server". Why do that when you can just stick your iPod in a dock? The trick is making a Touch2, or any SB device with internal software that can play from USB, and do it robustly enough to satisfy the "Improved stability" criterion. The Touch with TinySBS isn't close.

I also ticked "Simplified installation and initial configuration", but I think what is really needed in this department is better documentation, especially in describing to potential users how it all works. That is, more info about the "big picture", that can show what the advanatages are over just plugging an iPod into a dock. At one point early in the Logitech era the web site actually had reasonable explanations about how one could use different SBs in different settings, how SBS and mysb.com worked, and so forth.

kc5f
2011-07-22, 07:33
I don't know that new streaming services are needed, but the ones that are there are what grabs the attention of people I run into, not the ability to play local music. I can understand why someone who has thousands of CDs burned wants to listen to his $$$ investment, but with music services people don't have to invest that kind of money.

And in my house, Last.fm, Slacker, Pandora, Shoutcast and various online radio stations streamed via mysqueezebox.com without a local server have been quite stable with my Duet and Boom. So my vote is for Logitech to replace the Boom with something that impresses folks as much as the Boom I now have.

TheLastMan
2011-07-22, 07:55
I agree with the poll result. SqueezeBox would sell a dedicated NAS type server by the bucketload:
- Intel Atom processor
- Flexible storage (internal or external hard drives)
- 512mb+ memory
- CD drive for ripping (optional, some of us prefer to do that on PC and upload)
- Basic Linux OS
- SBS pre-installed with easy upgrade or reinstillation with backup / reinstall of user settings
- Full support for all plugins and transcoding
- No need for graphics or sound chips, just a basic web interface.

Basically a vortexbox but made in quantity at a lower price and supported by Logitech.

Can't see it happening myself, but one can dream!

Mnyb
2011-07-22, 09:54
Simplified install huh ? how

98% of the potential snags are outside of the sbs server software or squeezeboxes ? it rather not be simplified .

Way better documentation, ding !
Carefully outline how firewalls must be configured on one of the first pages, in the SBS manual (where is that one ;) )

That should be mentioned on the box go here to get the manual !
(delivered paper copy will be outdated).

I voted for less bugs in the fw software !!
This is critical, it works very well on my platform but on win7 or OSX there seems to be no end...

Load, the current fw on everything before shipping !!
This is a problem people get squeezeboxes with barely functioning fw (pin code anyone) that gets them into a catch 22 the prototype fw loaded into the product at delivery is so broken that you cant get it to work and hence not easily upgrade to working fw.

Include current fw in the sbs installers so that people don't need to wait for hours for the upgrade prompt, nowdays size is not an issue the installer can get 10 times bigger I wont care.

Then it would be breeze to install, for everyone

JJZolx
2011-07-22, 10:04
One thing they need to do is completely revamp how firmware is updated and figure out a way to avoid the up/down update cycling of firmware caused by mysqueezebox.com. That embarrassment alone is a very large reason that I would be hesitant to recommend a Squeezebox to a friend.

I have no problem recommending the Touch to someone I know will run a local SBS server, will listen mainly to their own music, and will probably never use mysqueezebox.com and music services.

GeeJay
2011-07-22, 20:57
I chose simplification before and after installation as a reason not to recommend the system, because that is precisely why I haven't recommended it to most of my friends. Unless you have a technical bent, you better have a passion for listening to music before investing in the product.

your momo
2011-07-23, 04:13
Streaming FLAC music w/o a running computer was the enabler deciding me to go for SB line. However I have to admit that this was not easy going in the late 2006 as NAS based solutions where either over expensive or under powered …or both.
I can barely recommend normal people to try this way.

In the mean time Logitech released SBTouch, which is per spec capable of acting as a server, unfortunately the HW choice driven first by cost makes it being under powered to do this job reliably. FW/SW also makes out of the box experience being very confusing for a none techie guy.

So I vote for having such an SB that reliably and seamlessly support local music (USB or LAN) streaming w/o a computer …BTW it should also being able to tune on web radio avoiding the need of mySqueezebox.com mess that just confuse everybody that is not SB customer since the early 2000.

Such a product can be easy recommended and will allows my friend staying my friend after their purchase ;-)

nicolas75
2011-07-23, 05:28
I think Touch hardware could be enough.

The real problem is the software.
The scanner is really too slow, even in 7.6
I think developers team wanted something too ambitious and too much automatic.
They should really have a look at the interface and performance of others softwares.
Logitech scan is really not even close to popular softwares.
There is really nothing to "invent" there.
The real point people should care about is the quality of the user interface.
It is not normal that pure scan performance is so slow, may be wrong development choices concerning scanner and database schema.

In this case, people should stop for a while, and try to understand how other softwares are developped, there is no "huge secret" there.

When you read posts where customers say they waited for "hours" (I even read "days") to perform a scan, it is simply a complete nonsense.
Nobody can accept such a performance.

The real problem with TinySBS is the scan, and the nightmare which makes it unusable is that you cannot prevent undesired and unnecessary rescan.

From the beginning, I suggested several times, and it is certainly quite simple to develop, a behavior in which you can perform external HDD scan on a computer, and use the database as it is when you connect it to the Touch, without any rescan.
(This doesn't mean you must suppress the possibility to perform a scan with TinySBS)

I am quite sure that this way, we would be close from something acceptable.

I am trying Logitech Media Server.
I really do worry a lot about Squeezebox product line future when I see them working on Videos and Pictures scan, more or less in the same direction they perform music scan, and with obviously quite limited resources.

GeeJay
2011-07-23, 21:38
I just realized the paradox arising from my answer to this poll question (Simplification), and Erland's question as to why I continue to use Squeezebox (Flexibility). Most of my friends aren't as passionate about how they listen to their music as I am. They will not invest the time I do in tagging, artwork, etc. I fear that if Logitech tries too hard to make the system simpler, it would lose the flexibility that makes me such a fan.

erland
2011-07-23, 22:51
I just realized the paradox arising from my answer to this poll question (Simplification), and Erland's question as to why I continue to use Squeezebox (Flexibility). Most of my friends aren't as passionate about how they listen to their music as I am. They will not invest the time I do in tagging, artwork, etc. I fear that if Logitech tries too hard to make the system simpler, it would lose the flexibility that makes me such a fan.

Yes, combining flexibility and simplicity is the challenge which nobody has been able to solve yet. Personally, I think plugins/apps is the key to have a chance to get close to solving this. A simple core with support for add-ons, where some users choose to only use the core and other users want the flexibility and install some add-ons.

But this poll is about what would make it easier to recommend a Squeezebox to your friends which don't own a Squeezebox, I'll add a separate poll later on regarding what features that would make existing users buy another Squeezebox and I suspect that poll result is going to be a bit different from this poll. I just wanted to wait a bit with this as I'd like to adapt the poll options based on what users answers in the existing polls.

Meridion
2011-07-23, 23:08
I would also vote for "<1W standby power consumption".