[quote="anderiv"][quote="tonyrich"]Mike thanks for this totally un-informative update.[/quote]
Get off your high horse, Tony. It's clear that Roku has already given out all the information they're free to give out regarding the iTunes 7 firmware update. By continuing to prod them and disparage them, you're only managing to make yourself look bad. For all we know, Roku's development process may be completely covered by the NDA they have with Apple.

So - until they release the new firmware, do yourself (and the rest of us) a favor...sit back, relax, and wait it out.[/quote]

Nice but you miss the point Roku do not seem to appreciate they have a customer service role to play here which they are failing on (like many other companies) to their customer.

To my knowledge i have not asked about their NDA or relationship with Apple I want Roku to tell their customers what they are doing to resolve the issue -- who cares what they do with apple thats their business so how that makes me look bad becuase i want to see proper service from a service provider i dont know -- but then i dont live on your planet

If you are happy to buy harware or software that does a job then it fails and all you get is a "no comment" response then stay on your planet because i and a lot of other customers are clearly not happy.

and contractural aspects to the process

Personally, I am not holding my breath for an iT7 fix anytime soon. I think the clue is in the above. I have no idea what the arrangement is between Roku and Apple, but I can see that there is little payback to Apple in re-licensing iTunes. My guess is that the technicla part is prob fairly easy, but the contractual part is a problem. I think everyone looking at iTunes should take a step back and look at the product itself - ITS GREAT.

It isn't tied to a single server - it works with FF, slimserver, twonky, uPnP. The fact is the FF solution *does* allow it to work with iTunes. I originally was upset and had some reservations about being forced to dump iT as my server, but any worry I had was totally unfounded.

Personally I couldn't care less if SB never works directly with iT again. I'd rather see Roku's R&D going into other things like FF-RW

Hi all involved in the Itunes debate,

Some constructive and some not so contructive points made.

Surley the bottom line here is that we SB owners, who bought the SB because of IT compatibility (which worked brilliantly for me until V7), is no longer the product we purchased. The product is still apparently being advertised as having IT compatibility and, to use the cliche, it no longer does what it says on the box. Of course there are legal implications but no one really wants to go there, do they?

I downloaded V7 without thinking that there may be an SB problem. Why would I? I don't particularly want to backtrack to V6 (already lost my library once doing something like that) and neither do I really want Firefly.

The one question I think we want Roku to explicitly answer is, "When do you expect the problem to be resolved?". To me, if it is by end 2006, I'll happily wait. If it is much longer or if Roku give fuzzy repies which can only mean the twelfth of never, then I will know how to proceed.

tonyrich wrote:

If you are happy to buy harware or software that does a job then it fails and all you get is a "no comment" response then stay on your planet because i and a lot of other customers are clearly not happy.

Roku didn't say "no comment". Maybe you didn't read Roku Mike's response. Here, let me post it for you again:

"As has been posted elsewhere several times, we are actively working on iTunes 7 compatibility. However, there are both technical and contractural aspects to the process, and this affects the rate at which progress can be made. Progress, though, does continue to be made."

That looks like a comment to me... maybe Roku should pull a random date out of a hat, maybe a year from now? Would that satisfy you? Probably not...

I'm still having a hard time believing you are a CTO of a global software company, because I would think someone in that role would understand this situation better than anyone.

Oh, and I totally agree with you Mr. Rusty -- if I were Roku, I'd consider dropping iTunes support altogether. Apple's gone and broken Roku's compatibilty with iTunes with little or no advance notice (I'm speculating but I have to assume that Roku probably found out about the iTunes 7 dilemma about the same time we did). I'm betting that Apple would be more than happy to screw this all up with a future update as well, so let's not be surprised when iTunes 8 doesn't work with the SB for a while (or ever) either.

What you have quoted does not mean anything to me. It may say "we are coding right now" or "we are in talks with Apple for them to fix the problem" or "We are taking legal steps to get this fixed". Who knows?

A date (even if it is a year out) of when their own code will work it will narrow it down for me.

Every software project has a time line. If they are coding it they must have a release number so the designers can check it into a specific branch for the testers. A release number has a product release date (even if it is Q4 2006). Either Roku has this on their road map with a release associated or they are just thinking about it.

To me, as I wrote before, it seems to just be the silly argument of not providing product information prior to release. Sometimes it makes sense but in this case it is just well... silly.

It seems to me that people in this forum feel they need to protect Roku. I don't understand why. We are all customers. If Roku makes any one of us unhappy we should all support each other. Roku has plenty of employees to protect the company line.

basilisk wrote:

tonyrich wrote:

Maybe you didn't read Roku Mike's response. Here, let me post it for you again:

"As has been posted elsewhere several times, we are actively working on iTunes 7 compatibility. However, there are both technical and contractural aspects to the process, and this affects the rate at which progress can be made. Progress, though, does continue to be made."

That looks like a comment to me... maybe Roku should pull a random date out of a hat, maybe a year from now? Would that satisfy you? Probably not...

mr rusty wrote:

and contractural aspects to the process

I think everyone looking at iTunes should take a step back and look at the product itself - ITS GREAT.

No it isn't. It doesn't work at all (other than internet radio). I don't have another server installed and I will not install one. I have iTunes running and that should have been enough.

mr rusty wrote:

Personally I couldn't care less if SB never works directly with iT again. I'd rather see Roku's R&D going into other things like FF-RW

Good for you. Just to make sure we keep customer requests balanced I will add that I could care less if they never work on FF-RW. Why would you ever want to do that? Just accept the fact that you need to listen to the entire song. When you listen to the entire song it works great!

FF-RW. Why would you ever want to do that? Just accept the fact that you need to listen to the entire song. When you listen to the entire song it works great!

I agree, not a show stopper, but it would be handy sometimes. Very handy if you want to listen to a a middle part of a very long file like a podcast.

any_junk wrote:

To me, as I wrote before, it seems to just be the silly argument of not providing product information prior to release. Sometimes it makes sense but in this case it is just well... silly.

No - it's not silly. Consider this. Apple changed the rules, which clearly is costing Roku in terms of unhappy customers and possible loss of business. Roku will want to negotiate with Apple a good deal on what ever is needed (dollars in compensation, or sight of code, or whatever). If Roku publically commit to a deliverable, that weakens their position in dealing with Apple, since Apple could take the line that they need to do nothing, assuming that Roku will solve it by themselves. If Roku do not make a statement, other than the coments that they already have - that they are in talks, that they are looking at the problem - then they do not undermine their own case against Apple.

And why would you not consider running Firefly? It does not require any great skill to install or use (unless you have files distributed across a network for example). You do not need to build new play lists, and you can use all the music that you already have. As an occasional iTunes user, I don't see why people need to run such a heavyweight application just to serve a few files, when a lightweight like Firefly can do a far better job without hogging resources in your machine.

You could argue that by offering Firefly, Roku also undermine their position with respect to Apple - maybe. But they can equally say - look - we have had to do this because you, Apple, did that.

I begin to suspect that the only winners might end up being the lawyers, but I hope not.

S80_UK wrote:

If Roku do not make a statement, other than the coments that they already have - that they are in talks, that they are looking at the problem - then they do not undermine their own case against Apple.

Roku doesn't have a chance. Apple wouldn't care. They have iTV coming which will be a perfect SB/PB replacement. To the point though, if that is the case I want them to say that. That will be a real indication that there will not be a solution anytime soon.

S80_UK wrote:

And why would you not consider running Firefly? It does not require any great skill to install or use (unless you have files distributed across a network for example).

Part principal part technical. The principal point is obvious. I did not buy a product that requires a separate server and I do not want to use a separate server. If I use iTunes songs get updated immediately without the need to run something that scans a folder. It also runs only when I have it open so I don't have to watch two programs. On the technical side, Firefly is not universal (the server is PPC). That is the only thing that would run through Rosetta on my Mac. While Rosetta is nice feature wise it is a poorly written piece of software that hogs cpu and memory especially when running for long periods of time (which firefly would).

any_junk wrote:

Every software project has a time line. If they are coding it they must have a release number so the designers can check it into a specific branch for the testers. A release number has a product release date (even if it is Q4 2006). Either Roku has this on their road map with a release associated or they are just thinking about it.

To me, as I wrote before, it seems to just be the silly argument of not providing product information prior to release. Sometimes it makes sense but in this case it is just well... silly.

It seems to me that people in this forum feel they need to protect Roku. I don't understand why. We are all customers. If Roku makes any one of us unhappy we should all support each other. Roku has plenty of employees to protect the company line.

I'm sure Roku has an internal timeline, and may be rougher than usual due to external factors out of their control. What happens when a company sets a release date for something and misses it? They get slammed. The rule of thumb is this: don't commit to dates unless you are darn sure you can meet them.

I'm not going to speak for anyone else, but anything that I post that might appear as "sticking up for" Roku is not that at all. I just understand this situation and it totally floors me when people come in here demanding more than Roku has already offered. The attitude from some is "I don't care why iTunes 7 doesn't work with the Roku, just promise me a date as to when it will be fixed". That's a terrible attitude to have, especially when this isn't Roku's fault at all.

The only mistake Roku made, IMHO, is not stating on the box a specifc version of iTunes that they will support. Then none of you would have an argument to make. Maybe they will start doing this after Apple shafted them this time around...

basilisk wrote:

The attitude from some is "I don't care why iTunes 7 doesn't work with the Roku, just promise me a date as to when it will be fixed". That's a terrible attitude to have, especially when this isn't Roku's fault at all.

The only mistake Roku made, IMHO, is not stating on the box a specifc version of iTunes that they will support. Then none of you would have an argument to make. Maybe they will start doing this after Apple shafted them this time around...

I agree. That is not what I want. I understand that it may not have been their fault but they did market the product as licensed iTunes compatible (and they still do) with no version and they did market their relationship with Apple which suggested future compatibility. That is why I expect them to fix it and why they should commit with a public date of when we can expect that to happen. If they can't do that, which may be the case given their negotiations with Apple, they can at least say that. So far I have seen nothing but the regular 'we are working on it'. Again, like I wrote before, I was a "victim" of similar statements about the PhotoBridge which makes me more sensitive to it.

As to the version of iTunes, yes they could have put a version number on it. That would have caused me and others to realize that we are not buying from a company that has a relationship with Apple and that it will be no different than buying other products or using mt-daapd. If that was the case I wouldn't have said a thing. It isn't.

Give it up, people. Your rants aren't going to change anything. Give yourself a break from complaining and wait it out. If you want to sell your SB and buy a competing product, you're free to do so. Otherwise install Firefly and get over it.

Tonyrich is right !

1) I bought Soundbridge because it said it would work with iTunes and it does NOT.

2) Even if I wanted to install yet another piece of SW, which I don't, FF doesn't work for me. With all my music in AIF, on an external drive, iTunes on XP, FF just doesn't work. Perhaps I'm doing something wrong, but nobody told me I needed to be a SW engineer to get Soundbridge working.

3) When my clients have issues with what I do for them, even if its not my fault, I try to help. By accepting my money, Roku became responsible to me. Roku, you need to accept your responsibility and act.

As it stands, you not only will not see any more money from me, but you will have to return the money you already got. Meanwhile, I'll see whether the NoSoundBridge will do as a chewing toy for my dog.

Regards

Marek

Marecek wrote:

Tonyrich is right !
3) When my clients have issues with what I do for them, even if its not my fault, I try to help. By accepting my money, Roku became responsible to me. Roku, you need to accept your responsibility and act.

They're acting. They've said that several times - what more do you want them to say?

As it stands, you not only will not see any more money from me, but you will have to return the money you already got. Meanwhile, I'll see whether the NoSoundBridge will do as a chewing toy for my dog.

Dispense with the hubris, please.

any_junk wrote:

If they can't do that, which may be the case given their negotiations with Apple, they can at least say that. So far I have seen nothing but the regular 'we are working on it'.

Perhaps I'm just thinking differently, because I don't use ITunes or FireFly, but that's exactly what I gathered from RokuMike's last comment:

RokuMike wrote:

there are both technical and contractural aspects to the process, and this affects the rate at which progress can be made.

The use of the word "contractual" certainly seems to indicate that there are some contractual issues that are holding things up. It's likely that there's some sort of NDA in place that's preventing Roku from providing any more information than they already have.

If a finger has to be pointed, I suspect that finger should be pointed in Apple's direction rather than Roku's. It was Apple that changed the protocol that they gave Roku permission to support. If they haven't provided Roku with the information necessary to continue that support, or they changed the terms of the agreement, then clearly the honus is on Apple. On the flip side, if the contract was worded in such a way that Apple could pull the rug out from under Roku any time they wanted by changing the protocol, then it's Roku's responsibility to renegotiate that contract (and get a better legal consultant?). Either way, if negotiations are still taking place, then it's in both parties' best interests (both legally and financially) to keep the details of those negotiations private until an agreement has been reached.

TheEndless