Michaelwagner wrote: > pfarrell Wrote: >>The Audiotron, for all that it wasn't as audiophile, was a more complete >>solution and for that reason, appealing. >> >>For your needs, you can claim. Please don't make >>such claims for me > > Pat, I think you misunderstood my point.
Probably so. > I'm not even making such claims for myself. I had no problem setting up > a slimserver box. > > But a lot of people do. Just look at how many problems we field here on > the forums with setup problems. Clearly some people are finding it > non-trivial. I don't think the traffic on the forums is a reliable statistic. How many people who buy it, connect it, and install the software and are happy are likely to post? Computers are not, yet, toasters. They take some setup. Adding features and installation wizards may be appealing to some, but I don't have any feeling if it would be good for the product. The classic example of features is Microsoft Word, which no one can use more than 20% of the features, and most people use under 5%. With the hundreds of millions of copies sold, the engineering cost is low, but the cost to me as a user is unacceptable. For the volumes that Slim sells SqueezeBoxes, adding features has costs that would have to be passed on to me. Either in direct cost, or in extended development times which means delay before I get cool stuff. I just don't see a SqueezeBox ever being a mass market device no matter what the remote looks like or how easy it is for Slim Devices to fix broken WiFi routers. I'd love to know how many real world customers consider the SqueezeBox and decide against it because the setup is too hard. And of course, how easy would it have to be to convert what percentage of those refuseniks to customers. -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
