Your Digital Media Has Never Looked So Good

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
 
dinkeldorf
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:40 am
Location: Calgary AB

Wed Dec 20, 2006 9:45 am

Thanks for the frankness. It's actually good to know so I'll stop whining about this basic audio feature. Yes it does affect future purchase decisions and recommendations to others.

Maybe it shouldn't be unexpected given the entry level price point but this & other issues will deter folks. Personally the effort of switching platforms is a pain.
Roku M1001 (releaged to the basemetn); Harman Kardon AVR430 & AVR235. 5 indoor + 1 outdoor zones +Theatre room 5.1 built ins
Sonos ZP100 x 2 NEW
Gigabit whole home network; 802.11BGN, D link DNS323 2x500GB
 
basilisk
Posts: 171
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:41 am
Location: Orlando FL, USA
Contact:

Wed Dec 20, 2006 1:08 pm

For what it's worth, the Xbox360 is UPnP and was designed to work only with WMC2 (and now WMP11), and it implements no FF/RW functionality. So, even in simplified conditions with the development manpower that Microsoft has, a decision was made to omit this capability as well.
 
dinkeldorf
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:40 am
Location: Calgary AB

Wed Dec 20, 2006 2:08 pm

I guess that leaves Sonos & Slim.
Roku M1001 (releaged to the basemetn); Harman Kardon AVR430 & AVR235. 5 indoor + 1 outdoor zones +Theatre room 5.1 built ins

Sonos ZP100 x 2 NEW

Gigabit whole home network; 802.11BGN, D link DNS323 2x500GB
 
tal
Posts: 318
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 1:11 am
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Contact:

Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:09 pm

collett_steve@hotmail.com wrote:
I think its time face facts on this issue. Its highly unlikely that were gonna get any kind of FF functionality on the current generation of Soundbridge models.

We all can only speculate about the chances of that feature being added. From what RokuMike posted in a different thread they don't consider it impossible but difficult to do especially if they want to do it 'right' for all formats and multiple servers. Personally I would prefer they do a 80% solution (for example omitting DRMed files if this is to complicated) rather than spending to much resources on this. There are already other features that don't work with every kind of server - so why not this time, too?

For Roku (as for any other company) it all comes down to priorities. Should they add FF/REW first or better work on ALAC, itunes 7 support, M1001 noise, WPA support, more flexible internet radio tuning, better remote control,... Given that I think it is quite safe to assume that FF/REW will not be in 2.7 but maybe in a future firmware release

dinkeldorf wrote:
Thanks for the frankness. It's actually good to know so I'll stop whining about this basic audio feature. Yes it does affect future purchase decisions and recommendations to others.

You are certainly right that if you really need FF/REW badly than you need to go shopping elsewhere because it is not a feature currently available on the SoundBridge and it is always wise to base your buying decisions on what is available and not on what one hopes will be added in the future. For me FF/REW is a feature I think that could be handy sometimes. So I hope it will be added one day but if not it won't be a catastrophe for me.

In the end it always comes down to trade-offs. I still haven't found the perfect system but when comparing the overall solution for me the SoundBridge is the clear winner. Of course different people have different needs and so they come to different conclusions. That's why we need choice and not a monopoly :)

Thorsten
Easily control your SoundBridge from your Windows PC or wireless PocketPC with VisualMR
 
collett_steve@hotmail.com
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:19 am
Location: Sunny Devon(!), UK

Idle Speculation

Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:00 am

tal wrote:
Personally I would prefer they do a 80% solution (for example omitting DRMed files if this is to complicated) rather than spending to much resources on this. There are already other features that don't work with every kind of server - so why not this time, too?


Well for one, FF is arguably much more fundamental than some of the other features which are server specific. Secondly you have to consider the question "do we really want to walk down a two tier path"? Once you start something like that, theres no going back. Design decisions like that will alienate some customers. Something i`m sure Roku have thought about long and hard

Also, Do you really beleive it would be an 80% solution, as you put it?

Its logical to expect that Roku would conclude "we only deliver FF using Firefly" which instantly knocks out x percent of your installed base. Then you still have to address the challenges of implementing FF on

DRM`d files
Transcoded Files
NAS servers
Multiple (numerous) codecs

I mean, how much work do you want! My belief is that 80% is very optimistic. I`d be impressed if it was 50%

tal wrote:
For Roku (as for any other company) it all comes down to priorities. Should they add FF/REW first or better work on ALAC, itunes 7 support, M1001 noise, WPA support, more flexible internet radio tuning, better remote control,... Given that I think it is quite safe to assume that FF/REW will not be in 2.7 but maybe in a future firmware release


Quite right - it comes down to cost vs benefit. Its a simple enough analysis to perform. My guess (and thats all it is) is that the cost is high and the benefit will only be for a limited number of users.

Time will tell!


Disclaimer:
These comments are idle, wild speculation and are simply my opinion (and what do i know... :lol: )
 
nickw
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:22 pm

Re: Idle Speculation

Wed Jan 03, 2007 2:18 pm

collett_steve@hotmail.com wrote:

tal wrote:
Personally I would prefer they do a 80% solution (for example omitting DRMed files if this is to complicated) rather than spending to much resources on this. There are already other features that don't work with every kind of server - so why not this time, too?


Well for one, FF is arguably much more fundamental than some of the other features which are server specific.


This seems like circular logic to me. Roku is saying "We can't do it, because it's too difficult to do in every situation on every server" - and you're arguing it's a fundamental capability? Well, if it was truly fundamental, as I understand the nature of the word, then it should be already be implemented!

Personally, I'd be happy with a "60% solution" - FF/Rewind only with firefly, only on non-DRM'ed MP3's.

To say this would "alienate" some users seems like an odd argument to me. Anyone serving content over a wireless link in their home already
has shown some degree of technical sophistication and willingness to
experiment - the user base should be able to understand not everything
is possible with every format.

Personally, I think you could make whatever is relatively "easy" (I know, nothing is easy) to do available as an "advanced feature" of firefly, and make it available only to those user's willing to install/configure it in firefly... that would work for many of us, and Roku could add a more complete solution at a later date, if and when they run out of things to do ;)

What's ironic for me is the reason many of us want FF/Rewind is for listening to Podcasts.. I listen to a number of NPR podcasts.. and do you know who underwrites them? Roku Labs!


- N
 
collett_steve@hotmail.com
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:19 am
Location: Sunny Devon(!), UK

Wed Jan 03, 2007 4:04 pm

Nickw,

I think youre missing my point. I said that FF was a "fundamental" feature in response to the idea that a partial solution, only usable by a subset of the soundbridge user community would be a good, or acceptable idea. It would not. It would be a very bad idea, both in terms of design and in terms of the backlash from disenfranchised users who can`t adopt the feature due to their choice of setup. Thats why FF is fundamental - everyone was used to it on their CD players (which have been replaced by shiny new Soundbridges) and they all knew what it did. It skipped through portions of a track. Any track. Any track on the player. Roku can`t hope to live up to the expectation of what the vast majority of consumers understand FF to be.

For the sake of the discussion, lets say for a moment that Roku did implement a partial FF solution. To say that those existing consumers who could not adopt such a feature (because their config did not support it, or the feature did not meet their expectations) would just shrug their shoulders an say "oh well", simply because they are early adopters of technology is a little naive. They would be upset. And with some justification aswell. They paid the same money as all the other customers, so they expect to enjoy the same featureset.

And what of prospective new Soundbridge customers? Any partial implementation of FF would only serve to confuse them.

Imagine this:: If you were one of those users who had been pleading for FF to be implemented, then Roku suddenly announce its been deployed. Joy! But hang on, you then find out you can`t make use of it (or it didn`t meet your expectations). How would you react? I know that I would not be best pleased.

To try and sell the idea of FF only for use in podcasts is, in my opinion, a cop out. You either implement a feature that "just works" or you leave it well alone. I have some experience here - in my day job I`m an IT professional who has delivered software solutions to large companies for over a decade.

Remember that Roku is first and foremost a company that is here to make money by selling a quality product. They are only going to make decisions based on sound commercial sense. That means choosing to code enhancements which add value to the whole soundbridge range, and which appeal to the maximum possible number of consumers. Putting in peicemeal mods which drive a wedge between different sets of existing users, whilst serving to confuse prospective buyers would be just plain crazy. And Roku know that.

In my humble opinion, those who are asking "why can`t you put in FF" are only considering this from their own personal perspective, and not looking at the bigger picture.

Anyway. Enough Already. I`ll shut up now. :wink:
 
NeomaD
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 5:39 pm

I would love it!

Wed Jan 03, 2007 4:58 pm

I would love it!
I can do with a timeshift 30sec/ one min or something like that if its impossible to implement a real fast forward function.

//Martin
 
mscox_au
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 5:39 pm

I'd prefer anything over the current situation

Sun Sep 30, 2007 7:23 pm

To me a partial/fudged/hacky solution is better than nothing. If ROKU are genuinely concerned that an odd implementation of FF would confuse customers, then make its operation menu configurable with the default being disabled. Voila - no more confusion.

By the way, further research indicates that Microsoft at least are already on board for supporting trick play (FF and RW for others) to UPnP renderer devices via their Media Connect server using the http range header (see doc at http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/ne ... nnect.mspx). This is also already implemented via the iTunes DAAP server and I suspect this shouldn't be a problem for the Firefly media server. So what's the real story?

Please ROKU, I would really like this feature. It doesn't have to be exact, just better than having to replay through a broadcast capture, a long podcast or the entire chapter of an audiobook just to get back to the last point where I was listening. And heaven forbid I want to just hear that last sentence again?

Please reconsider this,
thanks -- MichaelC
 
collett_steve@hotmail.com
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:19 am
Location: Sunny Devon(!), UK

Re: I'd prefer anything over the current situation

Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:17 am

mscox_au wrote:
To me a partial/fudged/hacky solution is better than nothing. If ROKU are genuinely concerned that an odd implementation of FF would confuse customers, then make its operation menu configurable with the default being disabled. Voila - no more confusion.


Consider this::

Dear Roku, I tried switching on the fast forward feature in my SB and it doesn`t work, I`ve now found out that it only works on xxx type of setup /why is it broken/how does this work/ why can`t you fix this/ delete as appropriate. Adding a configurable menu option simply moves the problem around, it doesn`t fix it.

Try to understand that devs don`t put in ugly, half baked solutions when they know full well that it will create a backlash in the consumer/user community, and develpers/companies (even the ones at Roku) are not masochists.

It seems to be that people do not want to understand the reasons why FF is not implemented, its just easier to keep asking.

Partial FF will never be implemented. Ever. And a solution which covers all file types/server types seems technically too challenging to make a cost/benefit justficiation for Roku.

I know people generally won`t accept this positition, but it is where we are today.







 
danme
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:01 am
Location: Sweden

Mon Oct 01, 2007 2:37 pm

Consider this:

I bought my M1001 after lots of consideration and reading up on specs. Never in my life could I imagine a basic sound device feature like forward/rewind not to be available! If I had known this, the chance is big that I would have bought something else. Thank God my child has not reached the age of listening to audio books yet...

I would definitely accept being able to forward/rewind in mp3s but not in oggs (as an example). Thats a start anyway.
 
collett_steve@hotmail.com
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:19 am
Location: Sunny Devon(!), UK

Tue Oct 02, 2007 1:44 am

danme wrote:
Consider this:

I bought my M1001 after lots of consideration and reading up on specs. Never in my life could I imagine a basic sound device feature like forward/rewind not to be available!


If you did lots of research before purchasing how on earth did you miss that this device doesn`t do fast forward?

Its not really fair to blame Roku for your own purchasing mistakes.
 
danme
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:01 am
Location: Sweden

Thu Oct 04, 2007 2:49 pm

It's not like I consider purchasing my SB was a "mistake". And it's not like Roku advertises wide openly that a basic feature for a music gadget is awkwardly missing. (That is not to say the information can not be found.) I bet you didn't search the specs looking for a "next track" feature, did you?
 
collett_steve@hotmail.com
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:19 am
Location: Sunny Devon(!), UK

Fri Oct 05, 2007 4:46 am

danme wrote:
I bet you didn't search the specs looking for a "next track" feature, did you?


If we are going to go down that path then I took a chance that there was a "play" feature too... :lol: There are clearly some functions which are core to every music player. I`m afraid that fast forward isn`t one of them.

Whether you like it or not, the latest gadgetry doesn`t always live up to the high expectations of consumers ( I know I`ve been burned a few times). Its often the case that to include a function that was pretty standard in the "old days" is much more difficult to implement in the latest generation of devices. The reasons around not having FF have been explored too many times to repeat here.

Digital media receivers are not CD players. But everyone assumes that they will come with the exact same featureset. Thats just not true. The bottom line: if you make assumptions about technology, you are bound to be dissapointed, and in that point Roku sits with amost every other supplier on the planet. Welcome to the 21st century!
 
danme
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:01 am
Location: Sweden

Mon Oct 08, 2007 3:06 pm

collett_steve@hotmail.com wrote:
There are clearly some functions which are core to every music player.

Ok, RW/FF might not be relevant for your purposes or you might not consider it a core function for a music player. I'm sure lots of people are, both current Roku users and potential buyers. (Heck, even old 78 records supported this!)

I'll have to quote a former writer...
dinkeldorf wrote:
Thanks for the frankness. It's actually good to know so I'll stop whining about this basic audio feature. Yes it does affect future purchase decisions and recommendations to others.

And another one...
collett_steve@hotmail.com wrote:
Anyway. Enough Already. I`ll shut up now. :wink:

Bye.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests