Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ThoBar]

We're thinking about making our own device anyway.

Exciting...

[Alex B]

We're thinking about making our own device anyway.

The future is UMPC.

In a few years devices like this or this are common. UMPCs with open SW architecture may replace the higher end portable players soon. Software developers should jump on the wagon now.

[lalittle]

I'd say flash based is the way to go.  16GB.  No more no less.

Wow -- I couldn't even consider a device with such a small amount of storage space.  I just don't have the time to constantly think about what to include on the portable, and for me, this requires at least about 100GB. The iPod 160GB is the first iPod that actually gives me a bit of headroom in terms of storage space, and this is almost entirely just for audio.   If I wanted to have a significant amount of video on the unit, I'd want even more.  My vote would be for as MUCH storage space as possible in an iPod sized device, and I would hope that this meant no less than 100GB.

Larry

[pank2002]

We're thinking about making our own device anyway.

Exciting. I would vote for a flash device too. My hdd iPod has just broken. I `nurtured' it well but it died anyway. Never again will I use a hdd based device as portable player. It should be at least 8GB, preferably more, and have a small footprint. I do not think I would buy anything more expensive than the iPod.

Please post more details whenever you are able to.
-Rasmus

[lalittle]

Exciting. I would vote for a flash device too. My hdd iPod has just broken. I `nurtured' it well but it died anyway. Never again will I use a hdd based device as portable player.

I think you had bad luck -- my experience with HDD portables is that the actual hdd is surprisingly robust.  The only reason I've ever upgraded an iPod was for other reasons (more space, more features, bad screen, etc.)  We just replaced my wife's 3rd gen iPod after 4 or 5 years of constant use, and it wasn't "nurtured" at all.  The only problem with it was that the battery would run down too quickly -- the hard drive, however, was fine.  I had another one that had the motherboard go bad, but once again, the hdd was fine.

It's also telling that laptops always use hard drives, and in my experience, hdd problems are a lot less common than other issues.  I really think that the "take it all with you" approach of portables with a lot of storage space will soon replace the "sync it more often" paradigm.  Having a HUGE assortment with you at all times is just TOO convenient.

Larry

[datdude]

HD's drain more battery, I would assume.

[lalittle]

HD's drain more battery, I would assume.

I would think so as well, but the run times on the new units seem to be long enough that it's not an issue -- the advertised run time for the 160GB is 40 hours for audio, and I believe that you really can get well over 8 hours.  I actually don't know because I never listen that long in between charges.

Larry

[tinear]

How about a flash player WITH a memory expansion capability?
Seems to me that that's the way to go if you're not going to incorporate a hard drive.
It'd really would be great if you could produce a player--- but the trick would be to keep it reasonably priced!
Fred 

[lalittle]

How about a flash player WITH a memory expansion capability?
Seems to me that that's the way to go if you're not going to incorporate a hard drive.
It'd really would be great if you could produce a player--- but the trick would be to keep it reasonably priced!
Fred 

Nobody said anything about not incorporating a hard drive.  We were just having a side conversation about hard drive based vs flash based players, but JR hasn't said anything either way about this.

Flash storage of the same amount that hard drives offer is prohibitively priced at the moment, and even with expansion capability, you still couldn't come close to the size of a hard drive.  I have no doubt that "eventually" flash storage will replace hard drives, but it's going to be a while for technology to get there, and then for prices to become reasonable.

Larry

[BartMan01]

Go ahead.  Make one.  I'd say flash based is the way to go.  16GB.  No more no less.

Actually make 2:
1 flash based
1 HD based

Flash = good for active use
HD Based = good for lossless use/travellers

I travel a lot for a week at a time, and keep my 60gb iPod fairly full.

As to voting with my wallet:  My iPod battery just gave out.  The new iPods and Zunes have great features, but given the current trend towards closed proprietary systems I just got a new battery for the iPod.

[benn600]

I'd like to go on record saying if J River ever makes a flash player I would absolutely seriously consider potentially purchasing it.  No questions about it.

As for if they did, be funny if MC didn't support it immediately.

[ThoBar]

Choose the right hardware, and RockBox is already developed for you...

[benn600]

Choose the right hardware, and RockBox is already developed for you... Smiley

I like that..!  Isn't the ultimate goal to get what the open source community already has!  FLAC and other open standards!  So take their version of every player available...

[KingSparta]

We're thinking about making our own device anyway.

I Wonder, If JimH was kidding...

[ThoBar]

I Wonder, If JimH was kidding...

Possibly, but it's nice to dream

Thinking about this overnight, and I wonder if JR would be better off developing a Phone based app that integrates nicely with MC. The app could be developed for either Windows Mobile devices exclusively, or for Java supporting based devices - which is most devices nowdays.

Given the penetration into the market this could have - given that the are millions of devices out there already - and the increasing use of phones and similar for multimedia devices, coupled with the SDHC card being released, I think there is more marketability and profitability to be made in this direction. Of course there is media player software out there already, but I'm sure with JR's know-how and multimedia background they could do a much better job, especially with format support and desktop integration.

Anyhoo, just some food for thought.

[lalittle]

Thinking about this overnight, and I wonder if JR would be better off developing a Phone based app that integrates nicely with MC. The app could be developed for either Windows Mobile devices exclusively, or for Java supporting based devices - which is most devices nowdays.

The problem with using phones for this type of audio listenning is that the actual audio quality is generally pretty bad.  Dedicated mp3 players tend to have better audio signal paths and amps since they're specifically designed for this purpose, and since they aren't as size-restricted.

Larry

[ThoBar]

The problem with using phones for this type of audio listenning is that the actual audio quality is generally pretty bad.  Dedicated mp3 players tend to have better audio signal paths and amps since they're specifically designed for this purpose, and since they aren't as size-restricted.

Larry

Ah. Good Point.

[datdude]

The problem with using phones for this type of audio listenning is that the actual audio quality is generally pretty bad.  Dedicated mp3 players tend to have better audio signal paths and amps since they're specifically designed for this purpose, and since they aren't as size-restricted.

Larry

What about the iphone?  Would my ipod touch sound better than the iphone, I wonder?

[lalittle]

What about the iphone?  Would my ipod touch sound better than the iphone, I wonder?

The iPhone is the exception.  It is not designed as a "phone that does other things," but rather it's a device that does many things, one of which is a phone.  It is way, WAY bigger than any other cell phone, and as such does not suffer from the same limitations as other cell phone products that also play mp3s.  That said, I honestly don't know what the signal path and amps are like, or how it compares to the iPod in this regard.

I would assume that the iPhone and iTouch have similar (if not identical) signal paths.

My comment above was targeted more at "generic" cell phones.

Larry

[pank2002]

From what I have gathered, the iPhone/Touch should sound worse than regual iPods. I have not had a chance to listen to it, though.
Personally, I would not use a phone as a dedicated mp3 player. First of the sound is not as good, it has less memory, and, most importantly, it would suck to have your phone run out of battery due to music listening.

I think I will get the Samsung P2 mp3 player whenever I get some spare cash. (Hopefully soon).

[benn600]

Of course I hardly ever use my iPhone iPod part.  Nor do I even use a portable music player.  In general, if I'm not in my car or at my computer, I enjoy silence and try to communicate with other human beings.  I can't get how people can listen in the places I do and then stick earbuds in their ears for every step in between.

Plus I absolutely hate earbuds.  I use large headphones but then they take more space and are tough to carry everything.  And I hate cords.  And I hate carrying stuff in general.

[KingSparta]

Plus I absolutely hate earbuds.

I Heard CNN Did a report on the dangers of eating your earbuds some months ago.

What a shame, they look like they should taste good..

[brentk]

What the market needs is a user serviceable player. Screw the two casing pieces together instead of interlocking snaps. Use a standard disk drive and let people upgrade as they please. Hell, I'd end up with a stack of drives at home. Pop one out slap in another. Need capacity? HDD. Need something tough? SSD. I have a nano and a video, I don't need two players, just interchangeable storage. *gasp* User replaceable battery. The rest is easy. Big touchscreen, footprint of the rest, and a JR interface.

[tinear]

BUMP! and amen to that!

[benn600]

I disagree.  While a completely buildable system is neat sounding, in real life it doesn't seem feasible.  I once wondered why cars couldn't be component based like a computer?  CPU = engine, power windows = PCI card, etc.  Well, notice the personal computer.  It is HUGE!  There is a ton of wasted space.  Most towers end up with well over 50% of the space being empty.  Now compare that to a Mac which is engineered to fit just right.  It's a fifth the size!  Now imagine the PC player in your pocket.  It would have to be the size of a huge HDD player to accommodate it but then you'll be upset when you use a small SSD.

Hope I'm making sense.

[brentk]

A Mac pro is the same size as a mid tower pc. My Toshiba laptop is the same size as a macbook. I have multiple hard drives which I swap frequently, and the laptop is no bigger for it. It has a removable battery as well. Those are the only two things I'm asking for in an upgradeable PMP.

I'd like it to come assembled and everything, I'd just like the choice to upgrade. My 30gb iPod is getting a bit small for me, everything still works perfectly though, I just wish I could drop in an 80gb drive for say $150 rather than $250 for a new iPod. Frankly I don't need a 30 and 80. SSDs aren't actually any smaller than HDDs. There just aren't any moving parts to screw up when I take it mountain biking, ATVing, or drop it while I'm working out. So rather than buying a nano for $250 I buy an SSD for $150. Again, frankly I don't need a nano and a classic.

Also you fail on the cars analogy, although spectacularly and only somewhat. They, uh, are component based, you can replace an engine. You don't have to buy a new car if you want to go faster or your engine blows up. Granted, most people can't do this at home, but I think that has more to do with lifting 1000 lbs of metal out of an awkward space and the complexity of the mechanics of a car. I think I could handle the ounce or two of a harddrive. Also think I could handle slipping a drive into a socket. Some people may be afraid of going inside the guts of a PMP but I have a feeling the average MC user wouldn't. We're the people that wanted more control than what we can get out of XP or Vista MC. We know our tech decently.

[datdude]

I disagree.  While a completely buildable system is neat sounding, in real life it doesn't seem feasible.  I once wondered why cars couldn't be component based like a computer?  CPU = engine, power windows = PCI card, etc.  Well, notice the personal computer.  It is HUGE!  There is a ton of wasted space.  Most towers end up with well over 50% of the space being empty.  Now compare that to a Mac which is engineered to fit just right.  It's a fifth the size!  Now imagine the PC player in your pocket.  It would have to be the size of a huge HDD player to accommodate it but then you'll be upset when you use a small SSD.

Hope I'm making sense.

Cars are component based.  you just have to know what you are doing.   Where there is a will there is a way.

do agree though that it is harder to component based on a Mac.

[robydago]

"A JRiver Device"?

why not a "A JRiver firmware" for existing devices? RockBox like

just use hw developed by others and write the sw (like they did with MC!)

[ThoBar]

http://www.cnet.com.au/mp3players/mp3players/0,239036128,339285494,00.htm

... sounds like we need MC12 on a DAP to me!