jazzfan Wrote: > I say "SB2 owners - throw your ideas out" so Slim Devices hears, and > hopefully, reacts. I like the product. Sadly I have trouble debating > my wife. It does appear to be a $250.00 clock radio. I would be happy > to pay $400.00 to $500.00 if it came in a nice case with only a few > improvements.
Well, since you asked ;) ...but I'm the minority in this forum! Really, though, why not start a real poll under "General Discussion." It's pretty clear in the "Audiophiles" forum, you'll find few who disagree with you, but it might be very different in the Squeezebox owner population as a whole. I would not pay $500 or more for a networked audio player--even a device as sweet as the Squeezebox2. In my opinion, there simply is not enough value there to justify it. Let's face it: it streams audio. (It streams audio in an _exceptional_ manner, but that's all.) If Slim Devices moves out of the lower-cost segment, there will be an unfortunate void to be filled by competitors. Currently they stand alone. I'd live to see market share numbers in this price segment. And if they move into the much higher priced segment, they will have to think about providing feature parity with systems like Sonos. I like the small footprint of the existing box. I have an entertainment center which hides all but the glowing display behind a glass door. If I had an open rack, I admittedly would like something to match my equipment a bit better, but I'm not willing to pay that much for it, so I would still buy the cheaper "clock radio" SB2 at the much lower price. But I don't claim to be an audiophile, either. (Don't hassle me for posting here; feedback was solicited ;) Now, I think it would be great if Slim Devices could OEM their technology and interface, but that might be a bit hard with the open source code (I really don't know what that would entail). In that case, I could have the nice Slim Devices interface to networked audio, and the excellent sound, but get something else with it in the same box: DVD and/or amp and/or HT receiver perhaps. _Then_ of course I would pay more money. On what I see as a more practical enhancement with minimal effect on cost, I would like to see perhaps three or four "general purpose", programmable/unused buttons be added to the Slim Remote so that we could map whatever function we wanted to them with the new IR blasting feature, without giving up any of the existing features on the remote. I would also like the SB2 to be able to read codes from any IR remote and be able to re-map them to the IR blaster feature. And I think the blasting feature (hardware) could be integrated for next to zero increase in cost. And, yes, the link LED would be nice, too. -- Dave D _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
