jgallardo Wrote: > After a good deal of research on music network tech for my home, the > one-two punch delivered by SqueezeBox & SlimServer wins my vote, > hands-down. Many of this forum's readers will share my value for these > unique assets: > > * Support for a large and growing range of file formats. > * An extremely extensible architecture, thanks to the Open Source > server. > * Flexibility of control options, from remote to web browser to cell > phone to PDA. > > However, there is an important battle that Sonos clearly wins. > SlimDevices, for all its fantastic innovation, fails the fundamental > usability test: it's just not as easy as it could be to access a large > music collection. You realize, of course, that the Sonos controller alone costs 1.33x what the Squeezebox itself costs?
>From a consumer standpoint the Squeezebox/SlimServer combo fails the usability test on more fronts than just device control. The whole idea of the multi-platform server that needs to be set up (and maintained) by Ma and Pa on their $399 WalMart-special computer is a major drawback. When the big guys like Sony and Technics enter this market with web-based music servers built into wireless $99 DVD players, I think you'll see many more devices like the Buffalo Media Player that someone else linked to today, with the server running on the playback device and connecting to a file store on the network. -- JJZolx JJ _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
