MrSinatra;188869 Wrote: > if u had a rack style device, could it not run on linux, host SS, and > map drives to wherever ones music is? (or do http) perhaps it could > even host some music locally via flash storage. > > i'd be willing to pay transporter type prices for such a device.You might, > but the problem is that the massmarket user won't. The massmarket user will probably not even be willing to pay the price of the SqueezeBox today.
I think we have a number of different user categories: Audiophiles: - Sound quality is everyting, money is no problem. These users will probably pay extra money for a easily maintained server solution, they like to focus on the music and most of them doesn't like spending a lot of time with a computer. If a pre-built SlimServer hardware solution with pre-installed SlimServer was avaialble I suspect many users in this category would go for it instead of maintaining their own PC/NAS box. The geeks: - These users often already have their own 24/7 server in the house. Many of the users that experiment with NAS boxes today are probably also in this user category. Most of these users, won't buy a pre-built solution, they like to configure everything themself. The solution here to get better responsiveness is to recommend that they setup a 24/7 running PC server instead of trying to use NAS-boxes. A better multi threaded and slimmer SlimServer might improve the situation a bit for NAS box users, but a NAS box will always feel a bit slow. The reason is that a NAS box is built for being good at serving files and nothing else. The massmarket users: - These users don't have a 24/7 server running in their house. They don't want to pay a lot of money for a music streaming device. They don't care much of sound quality, they will probably use 128-192 kbit mp3's. Most of these users will choose to run SlimServer on their desktop computer, which is also used for running games and different kind of applications. Most of these users wouldn't buy a pre-built server that costs $300 extra besides the cost for the SqueezeBox itself, they would instead try to run SlimServer on their already existing Windows based desktop computer. The main problem for these users won't be bad responsiveness, instead it will be a setup that doesn't work at all because they installed the latest game, application or antivirus/firewall. This user category is also the category that will probably cause most support issues. Todays iPod users is probably in either "The geeks" or "The massmarket users" or somewhere between these categories. In my opinion any efforts should be focused on "The massmarket users" since this is where SqueezeBox probably have the best potential to grow. As I said in a previous post I think there isn't any easy solution for this user category, mainly because they won't pay a lot of money so the solution must be cheap. The best would probably be to implement better error handling in the installation program and maybe have some additional program that could check the Windows environment and wireless network for different kinds of things that might cause problems. -- erland Erland Isaksson 'My homepage' (http://erland.homeip.net) 'My download page' (http://erland.homeip.net/download) (Developer of 'TrackStat, SQLPlayList, DynamicPlayList, Custom Browse, Custom Scan, Custom Skip, Multi Library and RandomPlayList plugins' (http://wiki.erland.homeip.net/index.php/Category:SlimServer)) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ erland's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3124 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33695 _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
