PDA

View Full Version : Calling Sean Adams?



jhonsberger@msn.com
2012-08-30, 06:19
Now that Logitech has destroyed the Squeezebox product line,will someone with the capabilities of Sean Adams
pick up the pieces and continue to develop this product?What is the likelihood of that?

Slim Devices rises from the ashes?

I don't think this is the situation that Sean envisioned when he sold the company to Logitech.

bernt
2012-08-30, 06:33
Yes, bring back Slim Devices.

My silver SB3 with SlimDevices logo still outperform everything else out there.

epoch1970
2012-08-30, 06:43
Yes, bring back Slim Devices.

My silver SB3 with SlimDevices logo still outperform everything else out there.

I beg to differ. MY silver SB3 is the best. :)

michael123
2012-08-30, 11:51
Yes!

Give us Transporter 2 with USB input and 384/32 processing :)

jp73
2012-08-30, 21:19
Yes, keep the squeezeboxes alive !

Since it seems there is no real alternative for the Squeezeboxes there must be a market for them....

erland
2012-08-30, 23:27
Now that Logitech has destroyed the Squeezebox product line,will someone with the capabilities of Sean Adams
pick up the pieces and continue to develop this product?What is the likelihood of that?

Slim Devices rises from the ashes?

Great entrepreneurs usually don't pick-up leftovers from the ashes and continues to develop them, especially if they have previously voluntarily left it to do something else. There are exceptions, like when Steve Jobs got back to Apple 1996/1997 and basically resurrected it, but these exceptions are pretty rare so I don't think you should expect it to happen here.

However, if we talk about features, if there is a need and a potential market, someone usually fills it, it will just take a bit of time.

jp73
2012-08-30, 23:31
Is any of you guys in contact with any of the original people from slim devices ? Do they know what Logitech is doing to 'their' system ?

mrfantasy
2012-08-31, 08:08
Is any of you guys in contact with any of the original people from slim devices ? Do they know what Logitech is doing to 'their' system ?

Dean Blackketter is on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/blackketter. Sean Adams is there too but it doesn't look like he keeps his profile up-to-date.

Let's be realistic, people. The idea of a dedicated music player is not a mass-market item anymore--people are far more interested in set-top boxes that happen to do music. With high-end receivers doing built-in AirPlay or direct reading of CIFS shares for music management, the dedicated device is less relevant. And Sonos may have the market and mind share at this point.

At any rate, I think the best way forward for the Slim Devices platform would be a hardware-based server (Raspberry Pi?) with a high-end audio stage built out of it. Make sure the device is as open source as possible, and will be fully compatible with the open source LMS. There's no practical way the IP3K players could be made open source (although a lot can be done with their current firmware, which is pretty much mature and stable). The Touch could probably have some open source development, and perhaps a new device even more directly based on the Touch hardware (without violating Logitech's patents or copyrights). Touch technology is already 3-4 years old and a new device could benefit from hardware advances. I could see an audiophile manufacturer taking up the cause, perhaps one of the existing Squeezebox customizers, but this again would basically be reinventing the Slim Devices idea, probably at a higher price point.

And of course things like SqueezePlayer, SqueezeSlave, and iPeng are important to the platform moving foward. At that point the important thing is maintaining the Slim protocol and ensuring new servers and clients can be developed to it.

--Mike

callesoroe
2012-09-01, 01:32
Now that Logitech has destroyed the Squeezebox product line,will someone with the capabilities of Sean Adams
pick up the pieces and continue to develop this product?What is the likelihood of that?

Slim Devices rises from the ashes?

I don't think this is the situation that Sean envisioned when he sold the company to Logitech.

YES!!!!! Please come back Sean and give us Transporter 2 :)

It is very sad if this fantastic music system shall end :(

I hope I can keep my Transporter and receivers alive for still some time..... I LOVE them :)

bwaldron
2012-09-01, 06:39
Let's be realistic, people. The idea of a dedicated music player is not a mass-market item anymore

I never believed it was -- which is why I hated to see the Slim Devices acquisition by Logitech.

jhonsberger@msn.com
2012-09-01, 06:42
Would you consider Sonos to be a mass market music player ?

toby10
2012-09-01, 06:58
Would you consider Sonos to be a mass market music player ?

No, but probably the closest thing there is too that. Think about it, how many people do you know that have a Sonos? Or anything remotely close to it (like SB)?
The only people I know (and I'm in many peoples homes/apartments) that have a SB are those I introduced to SB. Even then, very small number.

jhonsberger@msn.com
2012-09-01, 07:04
No, but probably the closest thing there is too that. Think about it, how many people do you know that have a Sonos? Or anything remotely close to it (like SB)?
The only people I know (and I'm in many peoples homes/apartments) that have a SB are those I introduced to SB. Even then, very small number.

Yeah come to think of it I know of noone that has my Squeezebox setup .
So why would Logitech buy Slim Devices ? What were they thinking as they are a mass market company buying a small niche business ?

epoch1970
2012-09-01, 07:05
No, but probably the closest thing there is too that. Think about it, how many people do you know that have a Sonos? Or anything remotely close to it (like SB)?
The only people I know (and I'm in many peoples homes/apartments) that have a SB are those I introduced to SB. Even then, very small number.

I often wondered about this. So you say the SBs are rarely spotted. Do you see many Sonos systems (in absolute terms) ?

TheLastMan
2012-09-01, 07:17
... the important thing is maintaining the Slim protocol and ensuring new servers and clients can be developed to it.
--MikeWhy? "Squeezebox" will be a dead system. Other systems will come along to replace and supersede it, maybe not immediately but within a couple of years somebody (maybe even Logitech) will realise it is possible to do audio a lot better and cheaper than Sonos. In time they will do it better and cheaper than Squeezebox too.

Personally I had a love-hate relationship with Squeezebox. The early days of the Duet were dire, with one catastrophic sever software update making the system unusable for about 3 months until they produced a fixed one. I think the setup and web config pages are too geeky and over-complicated for 99% of users who simply aren't interested.

I like the idea of plugins, but would prefer an Apple App or Android / Google Play way of doing it with only "approved" Apps / plugins making it through. With some care and attention to their market the UE line has the potential to carry on where SB left off - but in a more "consumer friendly" way that would make the whole system more attractive to the mass market and more sustainable in the long term.

They will have to produce a proper "hi-fi" player like the Touch though - with analogue stereo and digital outputs - otherwise I will look elsewhere for any replacement.

epoch1970
2012-09-01, 07:29
Why? "Squeezebox" will be a dead system.
Because the slim protocol does work pretty damn well. I for one will not regress to DLNA or this kind of nonsense. Maybe future versions of airplay or the elusive android@home protocols will be able to supersede it. But given the niche status we seem to agree on, I don't believe progress will be lightning fast.

I like the idea of plugins, but would prefer an Apple App or Android / Google Play way of doing it with only "approved" Apps / plugins making it through.
There are factory standard plugins, there are "approved" plugins. I've never seen any hint of privacy issue with any plugin. Plugin quality and support is fine. Why do you think more "control" would help? The Duet, I was in that boat too. Its poor initial (and final, IMHO) performance was 100% due to Logi, not to 3rd party devs.

TheLastMan
2012-09-01, 07:39
I often wondered about this. So you say the SBs are rarely spotted. Do you see many Sonos systems (in absolute terms) ?
I have four friends with Sonos and two who bought Squeezebox. Two bought the Sonos on my recommendation (I was having a hard time with SB at the time) and the other two after they saw the first two's systems. The two SB owners are fellow computer geeks who bought after seeing my system, but not on my recommendation. My only comment was "caveat emptor"! One bought a Duet the other a Touch.

None of the Sonos owners are tech minded, all wanted easy plug and play and two got them professionally installed. All four are very satisfied with their systems, three have extended them, all still use them and all are now using iPads as controllers.

The SB Touch owner bought a Naim steamer for his hi-fi (he has an otherwise fully Naim hi-fi) and relegated the SB to his study. He never bought another SB device after the Touch. The Duet owner ditched the system altogether and now uses iPod docks which fit better with his wife and three daughters needs. The whole family all have either iPhones or iPod touches and have independent music collections held on laptops. Last time we went to a BBQ there he showed off his new Bluetooth "radio" thingy which was happily playing music from the iPhone in his pocket.

epoch1970
2012-09-01, 07:46
Thanks.

Last time we went to a BBQ there he showed off his new Bluetooth "radio" thingy which was happily playing music from the iPhone in his pocket.
I've seen that too.

TheLastMan
2012-09-01, 07:49
Because the slim protocol does work pretty damn well. I for one will not regress to DLNA or this kind of nonsense. Maybe future versions of airplay or the elusive android@home protocols will be able to supersede it.
I haven't lost hope that Logitech will develop the UE setup sufficiently to replace the core SB functionality (which is all I personally require). It is after all based on the LMS server software and the new Radio is clearly SB hardware.

Sure, if you want SB with all the bells and whistles then I wish you good luck keeping the system alive. I think you will quickly find that most people will move on. For 99% of buyers music streaming does not have to be as complicated as Squeezebox made it.

jhonsberger@msn.com
2012-09-01, 07:51
Thanks.

I've seen that too.

Yeah I attached my iPhone to a Bluetooth speaker once and I heard more boings
from emails,text messages and other notifications then music .

epoch1970
2012-09-01, 07:56
I think you will quickly find that most people will move on. For 99% of buyers music streaming does not have to be as complicated as Squeezebox made it.Agreed.


Yeah I attached my iPhone to a Bluetooth speaker once and I heard more boings
from emails,text messages and other notifications then music .:) reminds me of my HTPC days…

toby10
2012-09-01, 08:47
I often wondered about this. So you say the SBs are rarely spotted. Do you see many Sonos systems (in absolute terms) ?

Very rarely do I see Sonos in use, I think I've come across two in my travels. But a I've seen many Sonos systems at retail stores, US and abroad.

bwaldron
2012-09-01, 08:51
Would you consider Sonos to be a mass market music player ?

Nope.

garym
2012-09-01, 09:38
Very rarely do I see Sonos in use, I think I've come across two in my travels. But a I've seen many Sonos systems at retail stores, US and abroad.

agree. I only know one person that has a sonos. Almost everyone I know is an "ipod/iphone" in a speaker doc person (playing either local music or pandora via wifi). My friends that are obsessive about music like me are primarily in the "I listen to albums one at a time" and they spent many years fighting the "vinyl albums are so much better than CDs" phobia. They are now very much into their very large CD collections but not digital files. One friend has just now started creating some m4a versions for his iphone to use while travelling. When I try to explain, "rip once, rip right, use dbpa to create FLAC, be systematic with tagging, then create lossy versions for your phone/ipod anytime you want" his eyes just glaze over.... He'll get there eventually.

Mnyb
2012-09-01, 10:16
Very rarely do I see Sonos in use, I think I've come across two in my travels. But a I've seen many Sonos systems at retail stores, US and abroad.

I know only one person irl that have either , me ? Never seen a live Sonos system and actually never anyone elses Squeezebox system either .

I'm rudimentary sociable and able to make friends ;) so it is not that I'm an isolated geek that only know 1 person irl.....

garym
2012-09-01, 10:20
I know only one person irl that have either , me ? Never seen a live Sonos system and actually never anyone elses Squeezebox system either .

I'm rudimentary sociable and able to make friends ;) so it is not that I'm an isolated geek that only know 1 person irl.....

I know one other person that has a squeezebox that was not a recommendation from me (she had it installed by a professional "whole house" audio installer....runs on mysb.com only, feeds a small T-AMP hidden in a cabinet, feeding ceiling speakers. My friend actually thinks the controller is the only hardware since she doesn't "see" the other stuff.

The other handful of SB users I know have them because I recommended. But of that set, only my brother uses his own music. The others use pandora, mog, radio paradise, etc.

TheLastMan
2012-09-01, 10:46
I know only one person irl that have either , me ? Never seen a live Sonos system and actually never anyone elses Squeezebox system either .
I'm rudimentary sociable and able to make friends ;) so it is not that I'm an isolated geek that only know 1 person irl.....
It must be because most of the people I mix with are a lot richer than me!
The guys who bought the Sonos systems all like their toys.

I started it all with the SB duet with two Receivers, kitchen and living room. We held a party where I synced the two which impressed a friend. He is very well off and not at all tech savvy so I recommended Sonos. He got a professional to install a whole house system with wall and ceiling mounted speakers in living room, kitchen, bathroom (!) and main bedroom. Each room had its own controller. I shudder to think how much it all cost.

I referred the second guy to the first, and he installed a less comprehensive system for his kitchen and living room. The next two Sonos families, both friends of the first guy, use the little standalone "boom box" Play:3 and Play:5.

I would describe none of them either as true music lovers or in any way geeky. They just use the systems for background music and parties. To them, "hi-fi" was an '80s rack system and "soooo last millennium".

garym
2012-09-01, 10:50
It must be because most of the people I mix with are a lot richer than me!
The guys who bought the Sonos systems all like their toys.


All of my "iphone/ipod stuck in a speaker doc" friends are easily "one-percenters". I don't see any correlation between income/wealth and willingness to invest in quality audio (either now, the 1980s, or the 1960s for that matter).

TheLastMan
2012-09-01, 15:54
All of my "iphone/ipod stuck in a speaker doc" friends are easily "one-percenters". I don't see any correlation between income/wealth and willingness to invest in quality audio (either now, the 1980s, or the 1960s for that matter).
With the greatest respect, that is rather a daft statement. Willingness to invest is one thing, ability to invest is entirely another.
If you want to install a whole house audio system made by Sonos, you need a bit of cash lying around. Most people can afford a couple of iPod docks though.

You are right to this extent, what kit people want or need to play their music the way that suits them has nothing to do with their income. But their ability to buy that kit certainly does. The fact that your "one percenter" friends only buy iPod docks is because they don't want or need anything more expensive. I bet there are few among your "ninety nine percenter" friends who would love to buy a high end system but cannot afford to do so.

garym
2012-09-01, 16:14
With the greatest respect, that is rather a daft statement. Willingness to invest is one thing, ability to invest is entirely another.
If you want to install a whole house audio system made by Sonos, you need a bit of cash lying around. Most people can afford a couple of iPod docks though.

You are right to this extent, what kit people want or need to play their music the way that suits them has nothing to do with their income. But their ability to buy that kit certainly does. The fact that your "one percenter" friends only buy iPod docks is because they don't want or need anything more expensive. I bet there are few among your "ninety nine percenter" friends who would love to buy a high end system but cannot afford to do so.

No offense taken, but I really don't see the "daft" aspect of this comment. I'm only referring in my statement to my "one percenter friends" so they all, by definition, have the *ability* to invest in something better than an ipod/dock. When I say I don't see any correlation, I'm only referring to the sample that I've personally dealt with (my friends and acquaintances since the 1960s). That's the "I see" part of my statement.

I do agree that there are certainly ninety-nine percenters that would like better audio systems (and houses, cars, TVs, health care, education for their kids, etc.) that don't have the ability to purchase what they would otherwise prefer, given no wealth constraints. That said, when I was a poor graduate student, the most valuable assets I owned (including auto) were related to my stereo, speakers, and turntable. I did without many things to have better than average audio. But I also fully understand that being a poor graduate student is not the same as being a poor person in general (I was consuming better audio products while poor but in the context of a "current low income person" with prospects of much higher income.

Anyhow, I think we're agreeing on the point I was making (i.e., that there are many people that want only a very basic music playback system, even in situations where they are not particularly constrained).

Jeff52
2012-09-01, 17:20
So based on this assessment,which I believe is completely correct,does Sean Adams have some culpability in the demise of the Squeezebox by
selling a small niche product to Logitech,a mass market driven company ,due to the fact is was never a right fit?

Calling Sean Adams.

Culpability? Does that not connote some sort of moral blameworthiness as it relates to criminal or immoral behavior? Sheesh give me a break.

jhonsberger@msn.com
2012-09-01, 17:39
Culpability? Does that not connote some sort of moral blameworthiness as it relates to criminal or immoral behavior? Sheesh give me a break.

Sheesh give me a break .I'm not implying any criminal or immoral behavior here.
Maybe they thought it was the right fit .Who knows.

Jeff52
2012-09-01, 18:15
Sheesh give me a break .I'm not implying any criminal or immoral behavior here.
Maybe they thought it was the right fit .Who knows.

So what was your point then?

jhonsberger@msn.com
2012-09-01, 18:23
So what was your point then?

The point is in hindsight ,the sale of Slim devices to Logitech was a terrible fit .

Would you or anyone on this forum disagree with that ? Would a single top exec from Slim Devices disagree with that
At the present time ?

Jeff52
2012-09-01, 18:29
The point is in hindsight ,the sale of Slim devices to Logitech was a terrible fit .

Would you or anyone on this forum disagree with that ? Would a single top exec from Slim Devices disagree with that ?

I have no idea whether it was a terrible fit or not, nor do you or I or anyone else know whether the company would have prospered if not sold to Logitech. I simply took issue with your reference to "Sean Adams and culpability" in the context of this discussion.

jhonsberger@msn.com
2012-09-01, 18:37
I have no idea whether it was a terrible fit or not, nor do you or I or anyone else know whether the company would have prospered if not sold to Logitech. I simply took issue with your reference to "Sean Adams and culpability" in the context of this discussion.

Well we know it didn't "prosper" in Logitech's hands .it died .

Jeff52
2012-09-01, 18:39
Yes we do and that has nothing to do with any "culpability" of Sean Adams.

jhonsberger@msn.com
2012-09-01, 18:56
[QUOTE=Jeff52;715333]Yes we do and that has nothing to do with any "culpability" of Sean Adams.

Slim devices and it's management did sell the company to Logitech . Sadly, it hasn't worked out too well .

Jeff52
2012-09-01, 19:03
[QUOTE=Jeff52;715333]Yes we do and that has nothing to do with any "culpability" of Sean Adams.

Slim devices and it's management did sell the company to Logitech . Sadly, it hasn't worked out too well .

No disagreement by me or anyone else. I'm pleased you are no longer attributing this to any "culpability" of Mr. Adams.

RonM
2012-09-01, 19:09
When you are in business, you are not typically there solely for the benefit of the broader world. You may well have an interest in doing good for some segment of that world, but the business is your living. You have to make decisions about what to do with the business from time to time. Most small businesses fail, often because their owners are not able to take the business to the next level, and can't survive the challenges of scaling up.

At a certain point, it becomes very sensible to sell out -- to recoup your investment and get out with some profit. I'm sure the Slim people aren't too unhappy. It's quite likely they couldn't have grown the company beyond what they had -- the fact that a relatively successful outfit like Logitech couldn't do so either does not lead to the conclusions that the previous owners made a mistake.

On the other hand, you could as easily argue that they took Logitech to the cleaners, knowing that their niche product could never become a mass-market player. As reasonable as all the other (ill-informed) hypotheses out there.

r.

jhonsberger@msn.com
2012-09-01, 19:16
[QUOTE=jhonsberger@msn.com;715335]

No disagreement by me or anyone else. I'm pleased you are no longer asserting this to any "culpability" of Mr. Adams.

I never did assert this to any "culpability " of Sean Adams . If you look at the post clearly, it was posed in the form of a question ,
wasn't it ? I wanted to hear what some forum members felt about this .Whether its a legit question in the face of the Squeezebox
lines demise. There may some differing opinions that I wanted to hear .

aubuti
2012-09-01, 19:24
Ok, if it's really a question then my answer is absolutely not. The SD guys had every right to sell and are in no ways "culpable" for Logitech failing to run with it. The idea that they might be guilty parties strikes me as truly bizarre.

jhonsberger@msn.com
2012-09-01, 19:36
Ok, if it's really a question then my answer is absolutely not. The SD guys had every right to sell and are in no ways "culpable" for Logitech failing to run with it. The idea that they might be guilty parties strikes me as truly bizarre.

I agree with you generally but the decision to sell to Logtiech hasn't worked out too well for its customers . I suspect
then Slim's former execs are shocked as to how this all went down the tubes.

Jeff52
2012-09-01, 19:39
[QUOTE=Jeff52;715337]

I never did assert this to any "culpability " of Sean Adams . If you look at the post clearly, it was posed in the form of a question ,
wasn't it ? I wanted to hear what some forum members felt about this

Horse hockey but at least you are now backing off your disparaging innuendo.

jmschnur
2012-09-01, 19:40
A lot of touches out there. There might be some $$ in it to keep my squeezebox alive after the last warranty expires. Either by Logitech or someone who aquires the rights.

Time will tell.


J

jfo
2012-09-01, 22:16
I agree with you generally but the decision to sell to Logtiech hasn't worked out too well for its customers . I suspect
then Slim's former execs are shocked as to how this all went down the tubes.

Maybe disappointed, but shocked..I don't know. These kind of acquisitions...small innovative start up by large bureaucratic trans national...are more likely to fail than succeed. I've been on both sides several times over the years and frankly, I'm not at all shocked or surprised...just disappointed.

erland
2012-09-01, 23:13
Please stop this discussion, none of the people here have any clue what you are talking about.

You only have the outside view of it, you have no idea how the profit and solvency for the Squeezebox business looked at the end in Slim Devices and how it looked within Logitech during the period before they shutdown Squeezeboxes.
You have no idea why Logitech acquired Slim Devices and you have no idea why Slim Devices decided that it was a good idea to be acquired by Logitech, maybe the alternative was bankruptcy and let the Squeezebox die already 2006, we simply don't know.
You have no idea how the Logitech organization works inside, I'm pretty sure it's not the people that manage the Squeezebox unit that made the decision to acquire Slim Devices, this is typically a decision that's taken a lot higher up in the organization. In big organizations a typical problem is that the goal/vision of the top level management doesn't always flow down properly in the organization to people on the floor who is going to fulfill the vision/goal.

It might be easy to think that the reason one company acquire another is mainly that they like their product and want to take it to the next step, but in many cases there are a lot of other aspects that could be of interest also.

I'm not defending what Logitech has done with the Squeezebox, I'm just saying that we have no idea if Logitech and Slim Devices executives still think it was worth the trouble or not, we can't just assume that it's a failure because they decided change the name of the brand after a few years.

Also, please realize that it might feel like Logitech has shutdown Squeezeboxes but in reality what they have done is changed the name of the brand and tried to take it to the next step of a journey they believe is the right one. Just look at the hardware of the UE Smart Radio, it's almost exactly the same as a Squeezebox Radio, then take a look at the software/firmware in the UE Smart Radio solution, also that is based on the Squeezebox software/firmware and when taking a look at it, it's also in many parts identical. They have changed a few things and disabled some functionality which they don't think fits in their new strategy, but in many ways it's based on Squeezebox. Do you think Logitech would have been able to release the UE Smart Radio without the acquisition of Slim Devices, I certainly don't. Without people from Slim Devices they would likely have released another AirPlay speaker or possibly a UPnP player or Reciva chip based radio.

To do something like this, a name change is necessary, because it would have been very strange to release a new Squeezebox which isn't compatible with the others. They might also have realize that there is too much geek history in the Squeezebox brand so to be able to reach the mass market they needed to change the name even if Squeezebox brand was established.

Now, this doesn't mean I think they've done the right things, I think many of he things they have done during last years including the UE Smart Radio is the wrong move, I'm just saying that there could be reasons for it and one of the reason is probably that many people in this community (including me) no longer is the main target for the UE Smart Radio device. For people who are in the new target group, the move they did with UE Smart Radio might be a big step in the right direction, but we don't know that because we don't have a clue what their long term strategy really is.

Finally, this whole thread is a bit silly, Sean/Dean is not to be blamed for what Logitech has done with the Squeezebox, Sean/Dean will not come back and save Squeezebox and even if they wanted to Logitech wouldn't allow them, so let's just stop this discussion here and now and focus on the reality:
- Your Squeezebox works exactly as good today as it did last week before the announcement
- Your Squeezebox is going to work great also for the next 12 months, probably longer
- Due to this there is no reason to worry at the moment, instead look forward to the exiting future where somebody will fill the hole left by Logitech with something which are actively developed. If there is a need and a market, there is a possibility for someone to do business and then this usually happens, it just requires some time.

Gadgety1
2012-09-02, 01:43
I agree it's too bad they are not advancing the Squeezeboxes. I didn't read the whole thread, but I did read a Logitech document about a year ago where they stated that the market growth for Squeezebox type devices is in the SB radio device type segment, and that was the market they were going for. Nowhere did it say there was any growth in high end audio.

toby10
2012-09-02, 02:11
A lot of touches out there. There might be some $$ in it to keep my squeezebox alive after the last warranty expires. Either by Logitech or someone who aquires the rights.

Time will tell.

I think it is Logitech or nothing. It's a niche hardware product which will not interest many as a business. Nor would Logitech likely be willing to sell the rights anyway, should there be any such interested party.

toby10
2012-09-02, 02:31
The point is in hindsight ,the sale of Slim devices to Logitech was a terrible fit .

Would you or anyone on this forum disagree with that ? Would a single top exec from Slim Devices disagree with that
At the present time ?

It made a great deal of sense at the time of the sale. SB is a computer based network consumer device that does audio, exactly what Logitech does, consumer tech & audio. Add in Logitech's existing worldwide distribution channels of technology and it really makes sense. The fact they botched it through poor marketing and numerous management reshuffles is where they went astray.

For SlimDevices it obviously made sense as well, or they would not have sold it. As to the real (or most compelling) reason why? Who knows. Maybe it was as simple as the fact that Logitech brought the largest wallet to the table. My guess is that this garage startup company (SlimDevices) was stretched to the max in resources competing globally against some very big goliaths (like Logitech) and it was one of three options for them.
1) Sell. 2) Get a large cash infusion and double down 3) Let it die a slow death.

The real reasons are only known to the parties involved. Maybe Sean just wanted to go fishing. :)

Mnyb
2012-09-02, 02:33
I think it is Logitech or nothing. It's a niche hardware product which will not interest many as a business. Nor would Logitech likely be willing to sell the rights anyway, should there be any such interested party.

Especially when they finally realize that it is better than their own current UE offering ;) *couch*

cliveb
2012-09-03, 06:02
Nor would Logitech likely be willing to sell the rights anyway, should there be any such interested party.
Am I being dense, or have I missed something? Last time I checked, Squeezebox Server was open source, and Slimproto was freely published.
If Logitech choose not to continue development of the SB ecosystem, what's to stop someone else picking it up and running with it?
In what way would anyone need to purchase the "rights" from Logitech?

(Maybe recent versions of LMS include non-open source components? If so, it is easy to backtrack to the last fully open source SBS and progress from there).

epoch1970
2012-09-03, 06:58
Am I being dense, or have I missed something? Last time I checked, Squeezebox Server was open source, and Slimproto was freely published.
If Logitech choose not to continue development of the SB ecosystem, what's to stop someone else picking it up and running with it?
In what way would anyone need to purchase the "rights" from Logitech?

(Maybe recent versions of LMS include non-open source components? If so, it is easy to backtrack to the last fully open source SBS and progress from there).

Perhaps the same things that kept anybody from doing it when Logi was still purportedly interested in the SB ?
Taking control of a large codebase is certainly difficult, but not impossible. The problem is, what happens if you start this huge effort, and the historical inventor of a tech wakes up and decides to compete ? Most likely, you're dead because you're not yet better at it, plus you're not as legitimate to the average customer.
Remember pippin's semi-sour comments when Logi ushered the free controller app, as an example. A kill was definitely possible, although iPeng was far from being without merit nor legitimacy.

I don't believe the Slim stuff is laced with patents, but without the brand and a clear agreement with Logi I guess the adventure can't go much further than a forked SBS in maintenance mode, and perhaps software players.

gharris999
2012-09-03, 07:52
I don't believe the Slim stuff is laced with patents, but without the brand and a clear agreement with Logi I guess the adventure can't go much further than a forked SBS in maintenance mode, and perhaps software players.
Aren't the SBTouch and SBRadio, in effect, "software players"?

Personally, with the right leadership, I can imagine a small but self sustaining community built around a fork of LMS and a good recipe for reasonably priced home brew hardware + squeezeslave / squeezeplay. With improvements in the tune-in URL UI, perhaps a community maintained on-line db of streaming sources and 3rd party plugins for Pandora, Spotify, etc., we might even end up not missing MySB.com that much.

Certainly, there are many ways in which LMS fails to meet my needs (browse by composer, anyone?) and I'm sure that's true for others as well. If such a community was to coalesce, I'd hope that it would push LMS development forward and not just keep the code under a glass dome in maintaince mode.

cliveb
2012-09-03, 08:12
Perhaps the same things that kept anybody from doing it when Logi was still purportedly interested in the SB ?
Taking control of a large codebase is certainly difficult, but not impossible.
OK, so there is no legal block to prevent a community forking SBS/LMS and growing from there - the basic issue is simply the scale of the effort involved. There are examples of community efforts delivering complex systems successfully - MythTV being an obvious example that springs to mind.

Regarding player hardware, I see someone has already got Squeezeplay running on Raspberry Pi. Partner that with a suitable USB DAC for a high quality playback device. Some enterprising outfit could package it up in an attractive enclosure to satisfy those who don't want to build their own.

Seems to me that a combination of Vortexbox applicance, Pi-based players and iOS/Android controllers is all we need. (But I speak as a non-user of mysb.com - I do appreciate that some SB users depend on that service).

toby10
2012-09-03, 08:41
I was referring to the hardware players. Hardware sales paid for LMS development and support. Take away the income stream, relying solely on subscriptions to have/use LMS, and I think you will find a very small percentage of willing contributors. If everything is open source, players & software, there is little incentive to voluntarily pay for such items. Add in the very small amount you could charge those few contributors and the problem magnifies itself.

I've seen a number of posts moaning over paying $10 for a lifetime use of the great iPeng app. That would be a large chunk of your customer base. ;)

epoch1970
2012-09-03, 08:41
Aren't the SBTouch and SBRadio, in effect, "software players"?
Raspberry Pi et al. … I don't know. I don't want to own a super-duper player in a sandwich box, if you see what I mean. If I were to use a non real-time player I guess I would use iPeng. At least it wouldn't look bad.
I care very much about sync, and I don't see how sync can be achieved outside a deterministic, hence probably dedicated, platform.

cliveb
2012-09-03, 09:01
Raspberry Pi et al. … I don't know. I don't want to own a super-duper player in a sandwich box, if you see what I mean.
I agree entirely - the last thing we want in our living rooms is some hideous-looking geekbox. But the point about using a Pi is that it would be a purely digital transport and can be hidden away out of sight. It could be partnered with an attractive USB DAC. Come to think of it, even the DAC needn't be on show.


I care very much about sync, and I don't see how sync can be achieved outside a deterministic, hence probably dedicated, platform.
Of course sync has to work. Are you saying that sync doesn't work well in Squeezeplay? I thought that a SB Touch was essentially Squeezeplay running on a Linux device. And Pi is a Linux device, too - so in principle why should it be any different?

Steve Baumgarten
2012-09-03, 09:42
> I agree entirely - the last thing we want in our living rooms is some
> hideous-looking geekbox. But the point about using a Pi is that it would
> be a purely digital transport and can be hidden away out of sight.

Precisely. Like the Duet receiver, you don't have to look at it, it can be
stuffed in a closet or tossed behind your amp. No fan, very minimal
electricity draw. But yes, a bit geeky to get up and running -- not just
plug and play out of the box, and the fact that it currently doesn't do
Wifi out of the box is yet another downside. (On the other hand, it costs
$35. I have an amp in a closet feeding my outdoor speakers, currently
driven by a Duet receiver. If that guy dies, I'd look at hacking together
a Raspberry Pi as a replacement, and I'm kind of interested in playing
around with one even now just to see what's involved.)

SBB

SBT2010
2012-09-03, 09:48
For people who are in the new target group, the move they did with UE Smart Radio might be a big step in the right direction, but we don't know that because we don't have a clue what their long term strategy really is.

That's right. Who knows maybe this is a strategy to bring more people into the SB community. That is, offer a dumbed down product - to give people a taste, practice & knowledge of the existence of such a product via ease of use. Then later rebuild to & beyond the current capabilities of SB, but with a branded name that Logictech might consider more publicly friendly &/or to establish this new direction.

SBT2010
2012-09-03, 09:56
I think it is Logitech or nothing. It's a niche hardware product which will not interest many as a business. Nor would Logitech likely be willing to sell the rights anyway, should there be any such interested party.

Wouldn't hurt to ask Logitech if it ever comes to that.

Mnyb
2012-09-03, 10:25
I agree entirely - the last thing we want in our living rooms is some hideous-looking geekbox. But the point about using a Pi is that it would be a purely digital transport and can be hidden away out of sight. It could be partnered with an attractive USB DAC. Come to think of it, even the DAC needn't be on show.


Of course sync has to work. Are you saying that sync doesn't work well in Squeezeplay? I thought that a SB Touch was essentially Squeezeplay running on a Linux device. And Pi is a Linux device, too - so in principle why should it be any different?

There is also " squeezeos" Logitech have a very good controll on exactly what's going on in thier Linux distro and also the drivers for the chips , this makes things much more deterministic .

SqueePlay on pc does not sync very well in all possible hardware combinations re sound hardware and OS quirks ?

But you probably can get the Pi+Linux+squeezplay combo fairly deterministic too if you controll all parts , possible problems may be the pi's audio hardware who knows if it can be deterministic re delays/lag with any driver or OS ?
If you "lock" such a combo as "sync ready" you may still need to tweak some LMS code to make it work .
Looks like a challenge for some third party dev :) not impossible but some work .
It may get easier if you only use said raspberry PI player and no other kind of player

simbo
2012-09-03, 12:11
Another issue with SqueezePlay is that not all online services allow streaming through it. I know Rhapsody UK (fka Napster) are one of those.

JohnSwenson
2012-09-05, 13:21
Squeezeplay on the Touch and the "desktop" squeezeplay are almost identical, the big difference is how they send audio data to the hardware. On the Touch squeezeplay creates a shered memory segment and forks off a separate program called jive_alsa. Squeezeplay puts audio data in this shared segment and jive_alsa takes it out and sends it to "ALSA" the linux audio layer which calls the actual hardware drivers in the kernel.

The desktop version uses PortAudio which is a cross platform audio library. Since the desktop version needed to run on windows, mac and linux it needs something which it can call to send data to the guts of the specific OS. Most of the issues with the desktop squeezeplay revolve around how portaudio interacts with the underlying OS. They are not inherant issues with squeezeplay but can be fixed with effort.

John S.

bobkoure
2012-09-06, 08:17
SqueePlay on pc does not sync very well in all possible hardware combinations re sound hardware and OS quirks ?

Last time I checked (which to be fair was about two years ago) synching with squeezeslave worked fine (ss with ss and ss with sb).
The Pi is SS, so maybe a non-issue?

simbo
2012-09-06, 08:24
Last time I checked (which to be fair was about two years ago) synching with squeezeslave worked fine (ss with ss and ss with sb).
The Pi is SS, so maybe a non-issue?
I think you were just lucky with your hardware config!

pallfreeman
2012-09-06, 08:43
I think you were just lucky with your hardware config!

LOL. I can't even get my SliMP3s to sync correctly with my SBs using recent versions of LMS.

bobkoure
2012-09-06, 10:42
I think you were just lucky with your hardware config!
Hmmm...
1 - old-ish athalon box w winxp pro
2 - core duo laptop w winxp pro
3 - sb3

1 and 2 were hardly high end gear. I think this was with 7.3 or 7.4. Are synchronization problems a new thing?

aubuti
2012-09-06, 11:50
Synchronization problems with software players is a very old thing. Been around since squeezeslave and SoftSqueeze (remember that) were babies.

The lucky config generally isn't as simple as CPU and RAM. It's the things that get in the middle such as soundcard drivers that often cause the latencies that make sync'ing of software players difficult.

bobkoure
2012-09-06, 13:59
Ah! I used USB ASIO boxes, one to output SPDIF that went to a receiver, the other just 2 channel audio to some amplified PC speakers.
http://www.behringer.com/EN/Products/UCA202.aspx I think I paid maybe $28 for each.

They improved sound quality a tad, but maybe that's why I wasn't having synchronization problems.
Again, these are hardly high end gear; they're built around a TI DAC that also converts to SPDIF. I remember being somewhat sad about the specs when I looked it up 'way back. I got 'em mostly to sidestep any issues with DirectSound.
I've since given one to a nephew (budding recording engineer) and moved my office from the room adjacent to my serious listening area to the basement (long story), so it'd be hard to re-test. There must be other people using ASIO with squeezeslave or Ralphy wouldn't have bothered supporting it...?

Mnyb
2012-09-06, 21:48
LOL. I can't even get my SliMP3s to sync correctly with my SBs using recent versions of LMS.

Thats another problem due to that slimp3 and sb1 have much smaller buffers , I can see it be a bit problematic to make syncing code that works perfect in this scenario .
It gets compounded by LMS transcoding in many instances as slimp3 don't support that many file formats loading the server more , in many cases it's going to be wav thats gets streamed which makes for a higher bandwidth use and the buffer gets even smaller (in how many seconds of music it stores ).
I can see wifi having further negative influence here too .

pallfreeman
2012-09-07, 05:06
Thats another problem due to that slimp3 and sb1 have much smaller buffers , I can see it be a bit problematic to make syncing code that works perfect in this scenario .
It gets compounded by LMS transcoding in many instances as slimp3 don't support that many file formats loading the server more , in many cases it's going to be wav thats gets streamed which makes for a higher bandwidth use and the buffer gets even smaller (in how many seconds of music it stores ).
I can see wifi having further negative influence here too .

Sure; but in a situation when both players are wired and only mp3 is streaming?

It's not actually a pure sync problem. The synchronization is pretty solid once it's established, but it sometimes hesitates when it starts, then often stops between tracks. I can usually get it going again by skipping backwards and forwards between tracks, but I shouldn't need to. After living with this for months and spending some time trying to interpret the masses of debugging output (which to me looks like a project abandoned partway through due to lack of interest), I decided to replace my lovely precious SliMP3s with some other Squeezeboxen. Just a couple of weeks before The Announcement.

If SliMP3 sync is broken, I'm guessing squeezeslave is, too.

Mnyb
2012-09-08, 00:47
Sure; but in a situation when both players are wired and only mp3 is streaming?

It's not actually a pure sync problem. The synchronization is pretty solid once it's established, but it sometimes hesitates when it starts, then often stops between tracks. I can usually get it going again by skipping backwards and forwards between tracks, but I shouldn't need to. After living with this for months and spending some time trying to interpret the masses of debugging output (which to me looks like a project abandoned partway through due to lack of interest), I decided to replace my lovely precious SliMP3s with some other Squeezeboxen. Just a couple of weeks before The Announcement.

If SliMP3 sync is broken, I'm guessing squeezeslave is, too.

We may ( reluctantly ) forgive them for not being 100% slimp3 compatible 12 years later ;) or what , and I do think sync even if it's mostly working could be even better with more work especially if play continuously AND gapless,
Ime it gyrates towards correctness if you let it be in most cases it gets unstable while fiddling with the playlist and stop and skip and stuff .

More things that can break sync CPU intensive plugins like Sugarcube/MusicIP or one of erlands or some interaction between them. Sugarcube can easilly block the whole server 10-20 seconds when it's adding another track depending on setting this does not empty the buffer so playback is unharmed but sync will drift .

Unstable hardware clocks on the machine running a soft player , this is not at all uncommon then it will drift all over the place (this can even cause alarm problems ).

ARTMU
2012-09-08, 20:26
I still believe the classy one unit was Squeezebox 3 with Slimdevices Logo. This is true inventors legacy and it was true art and best aesthetic design.

Yes, bring back Slim Devices.

My silver SB3 with SlimDevices logo still outperform everything else out there.