erland;218552 Wrote: > Ok, so you want more for equal amount of money ? > > I'm afraid I can't see how this equation could be solved. Someone > obviously has to pay for the development costs, faster CPU, more > memory... > I'm pretty sure Logitech won't give it away, after all they are into > this to earn money. They could of course choose to save money on other > parts to keep the price, for example poor quality audio circuit, a > smaller display...
well, over time things get better and cheaper at the same pricepoint. SB1 to SB2 to SB3. the fact is you can put more into a product today, than when SB3 debuted, for the same amount of money. now, perhaps i'm being optimistic as to how much, but like i said much earlier, perhaps the increased parts cost could be offset by less support issues and easier ongoing development. erland;218552 Wrote: > I can't see why the music storage needs to be separated, that just means > that I need another box. Why not include a 200GB drive in the box, which > should be enough for most people, and allow extra drives using USB > drives or NAS boxes. > > If we are going to make it fat, why not make it really fat ? you absolutely could offer such a model... but i want a smaller, solid state device, thats impervious to vibration. besides, why add the extra cost of traditional HD storage? let the user provide that, as per what they want the way they want it. erland;218552 Wrote: > Because people usually doesn't like to pay for things they don't use. > There are a lot of people that have several SB devices in their home. A > thin SB can obviously be made cheaper than a fat device with equal sound > quality. So those that like to have 3 SB devices in different rooms, > would have to pay for the server part of the fat device 3 times, but > they would only need one instance of that part. > > Another reason is that, if they are in the same box it will be harder > to let a third party vendor do the SlimServer hardware while Logitech > focus on the SB hardware. It will be possible of course, the PC > architecture with its PCI cards is a good example of this, but it will > probably be easier if it were separate boxes. Separate boxes would also > allow other companies to make their own SlimServer hardware box, > creating a bit of competition which might lower the price. But more > SB's needs to be sold before this can be the case. lets say this was the SB4. whether they do something like this or not, its going to be around $300 if the past is any guide. so if they COULD do it for that amount, why not? and even if they did offer a fat and slim version, my guess is the slim one wouldn't be much cheaper, if at all. i confess you lost me on the second part... is that something SD / logitech wants to have happen? erland;218552 Wrote: > Nothing has to be redone if the fat device consisted of: > - Part 1: A SqueezeBox with current processor, memory and other chips > - Part 2: A SlimServer hardware card with its own processor, memory and > other chips. > > So if we basically are talking about taking a SB and a NAS and put them > in the same box but let them have totally separated components, no new > development is needed. If we on the other hand want to let the SB use > the NAS processor or vice versa, new development is needed. Because the > SB processor currently doesn't have enough power to run Linux and I'm > betting that the SB firmware doesn't run on any other processor than > the ones that exist in SB and Transporter. > > However, the reason stuff has to be redone if we make a fat device is > that the current architecture is optimised for the situation where > there is a network between the SB and SlimServer. If this isn't the > case it just gets more complicated than needed. It would work, but it > would take a lot of time to maintain the extra code that isn't actually > needed. yes, i was essentially saying combine the two, but keep them separate within the one box, so as you say, no new dev is needed. it may strike some as inelegant, but i don't think so, as it maintains the clear architectural distinctions. i'm not sure i agree with your last paragraph, as the tcp/ip layer could be left in place for legacy mode, but removed alltogether for normal mode. erland;218552 Wrote: > Sure it can, but again if you like this fat device for the same price as > the current solution, who is going to pay for that extra option ? definitely a weakness in my argument. someone who understands what i envision, what it would take to make it happen, and who could then run the numbers and make projections as to savings the company might get out of it in other areas, or project ever decreasing costs in components would have to figure that out. beyond my abilities i'm sad to say. erland;218552 Wrote: > The new plugin system in 7.0 doesn't have anything to do with fat/thin > device. One could obviously allow third party developers to develop > plugins for a proprietary hardware, but if you look around in the > current solutions available this options isn't offered in most cases. > There are plugin solutions for stuff running on a PC, like Firefox, > Winamp, SlimServer. I'm not saying that it can't be done, because it > can, but vendors usually choose not to do it on proprietary hardware. i agree, but obviously SD is more enlightened than that. :) erland;218552 Wrote: > I wouldn't say a lot of them can be reprogrammed. I would say a lot of > them can be hacked, but the vendor usually tries to make this as hard > as possible. Now, again, I'm not saying it can't be done, because it > can. There are a few examples where the hardware vendor officially > allows people to install their own stuff on their proprietary hardware, > but these examples are quite few. If I'm not incorrect, most of the NAS > solutions that currently exist for SlimServer depends on that you first > hack the device to be able to install third party software. well, didn't infrant partner with SD? has that gone south? but my point in talking about that was just to say that the fat device while itself linux or whatever, would still be cross platform and would not hurt open source development of it imo. thats why i mentioned that. erland;218552 Wrote: > The open source development going on on proprietary hardware devices > today is often related to trying to run already existing open source > software on the device. > > There isn't much open source development going on that develop software > that only runs on a specific hardware. i don't quite follow that? isn't the SB a specific propritary hardware device that people develop SS for? granted, SS can do other things, but most people do it with SB in mind, yes? erland;218552 Wrote: > If you are purposing that Logitech should provide a single fat device > but keep the SlimServer part platform idependent, I really don't see > the benefit for Logitech. Developing something platform independent > costs money, so why bother if 99% of your customers are running > SlimServer on the same platform (the fat device). maybe i'm thick or its late, but i didn't really follow this either... erland;218552 Wrote: > === > Fat and thin devices are really different philosophies, so if Logitech > should change to the fat device track there needs to be a really good > reason. The current solution provides two advantages over the > competitors: > - The display of the SB/Transporter is better than most(all?) other > similar devices out there > - The audio quality of the SB/Transporter is better than most(all?) > other similar devices out there > > If choosing the fat device route, this can't be done if it would result > in poorer display or poorer audio quality. The reason is just that > Logitech would then loose the advantage over the competition they have > today. why would going fat preclude great sound or a great display? i don't see either as mutually exclusive. erland;218552 Wrote: > If I have understand it correctly, the most expensive part of the SB > today is the display, so it will probably be hard to make a fat device > that keeps the same display but doesn't also raise the cost of the > product. > One reason for the audio quality in the SB today is that there aren't a > lot of other electronics around the audio components. One reason many > audio cards in a computer doesn't sound as good as the SB is that there > is just too much electrical disturbance inside a computer case. I fear > that the electrical disturbance inside a fat client would be a bigger > problem than it is in the current thin client, the obvious reason is > that the fat client contains more components. that surprises me, given how sweet displays are on cell phones, and how much better those are, not to mention prevalent, (economies of scale) BUT i also realize, a lot of cell phones are sold at a loss. still, doesn't logitechs music dj system have a color display on their remote? -- MrSinatra www.LION-Radio.org Using: Squeezebox2 w/SS 6.5.4 (beta!?) - Win XP Pro SP2 - 3.2ghz / 2gig ram - D-Link DIR-655 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ MrSinatra's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2336 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=37279 _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
