>>I could see how this would be attractive for the new user that suddenly realizes they need a 24/7 server. However it does nothing for exising users that already met and accepted this requirement - it only increases the cost of a new unit for them.<<
- I agree my initial proposal basically doesn't add anything for the people who already are satisfied with SB3 & TP performances and requirements. However I propose to focus on Transporter only as he could won the most from this proposal. >>I'm not saying the request is a dumb idea - it isn't. I just don't see the server requirement as terribly onerous as it leverages equipment you already have.<< - I'm not blocking on the price but on usability, I'm looking for a working fit and forget solution first, without excluding a move on a server solution in the future. But server solution must first becomes reliable, stable and user friendly prior I'm ready to spend money for such HW. Today I don't care on possibility to synch n devices together over network as long my single device is not able to play music every times I want it. >>Bear in mind you still have to have a box running with the discs, the ONLY difference is whether you have to spend 10 minutes installing slimserver. That seems like a small price to pay for such an improved user experience.<< - You win, I will do my part of the job and will install SlimServer on my PC providing a feedback of my "10 minutes" experience ...BTW I plane to install ver.6.5 (the only one that support Transporter) but after I see the "tones of problems reported on ver.6.5", should I better wait on next release (I run WindowsXP) ? or do you confirm ver.6.5 is ripe ? >>I don't follow your logic here: you want Slim Devices to react to avoid extinction...by changing the design of a successful product (Transporter/SB) to that of a financially (if not technically) failed product (Audiotron)?<< - I doesn't want to change anything in the SB design, his price point doesn't allows enough room to play ...and Logitech certainly already has a good idea for the future of this product. On the other end, Transporter existence is more questionable, who will buy it ? -- Many people inside the community who already have an SB3 doubt that Transporter price premium is worth compare to SB3. They may have right, functionality is the same (except 2nd display and knob) and for the one where sound quality is a priority they already have hooked their SB3 on premium DACs. -- It remains certainly people who are still waiting on their Transporter but those are a less and will not be enough to insure a future to this product. Seriously how many have or are really thinking to spend $1'999.- for a Transporter ...are those more than one thousand ? -- Outside the community there is a lot of people who could buy such product even at this price tag. Unfortunately those who would be ready to pay the price premium for Transporter sound quality will never invest in a device not able to play music for sure in stand alone ...I'm here. >>What you're looking for really does sound a lot like the Olive music server. A fine product, I'm sure, but more money than I want to spend and not as flexible.<< - Olive or Hifidelio (in Europa) was also on my list but unfortunately suffer from an unstable FW, noisy HDD and consumer analog audio ...this prevent me too sing the bill. >>A user isn't going to use a device in 3 different ways (slimserver, squeezenetwork, and some "dumb" network-HD mode). They're only going to use it in one way. Squeezenetwork was added without much change to the design of the SB, but a network-HD mode would require significant change.<< - Not a all users will need all three ways, but adding a network HD mode will secure people who don't can/want dig into server configuration that they will be able to listen music with the product they buy. Sorry if my request is not "easy going" to implement, but I'm open to trade to find an acceptable outcome... >>Perhaps some of the resistance you're meeting from many in this community stems from the fact that the vast majority of us are excited by the flexible server architecture of the SB and want to continue to see more functionality and robustness added to that model rather than losing development time to adding a network-hd ability that we'll never use. It's somewhat akin to walking into a group of hikers and extolling to them the virtues of driving. Yes, driving's nice. Driving's great. it's useful. But we're hikers. Drivers and hikers can get along. They can buy products from the same companies. But they're not necessarily going to see the world the same way or agree on priorities.<< - I appreciate your metaphorical approach and better understand why it can be so hard... Main reason I'm here is that I still have hope to convince the community on the benefit of having a stand alone mode implemented in Transporter ...otherwise you can convince me that current product is user friendly and will always play music when I want it. -- your momo ------------------------------------------------------------------------ your momo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=8095 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30080 _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
