Print

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

[tunetyme]

What is a fair price for MC?  That will be determined by the market place.  There are those who have posted their wholehearted support for MC at any price.  The question remains is sales.  If sales drop off and then there is less revenue to JRiver we all lose.  In these times when everyone is watching their pennies one must question the wisdom of raising the price. 

I think I am an average consumer of software products.  I've been using ACT software since the first release.  I stopped upgrading 5 or 6 versions ago since they have not made any tangible improvements in the core software itself.  They add new compatibility with Blackberry and Treo but the core software that I use hasn't changed.  Why upgrade?  So I can say that I have the latest release?

I think everyone can agree that the core product in MC is music.  If there are not any improvements in the core product why upgrade?  The fundamental question gets down to basic economics and marketing.  Will new users buy MC at $50 bucks and produce more revenue or do they lose that business to other software.  Will current users upgrade for $25?  Time will tell.

I am one of those users that only use MC for music.  I think all the other features are nice and at some point I will expand into video as well but the rest is chasing the bleeding edge of technology.  The key question is how many people buy MC for those capabilities vs. the core product?  I looked at a lot of different products before selecting MC.  It does provide a good value for me and I have recommended it to others who have bought MC as well.  There is a lot of excitement being on the bleeding edge and I have watched over the past 30 years many companies fold because they were ahead of the marketplace.

I think some of the earlier posts were trying to express the need for tangible improvements in the core product that will incentivize people to buy or upgrade.  What I read is a group of insiders blowing smoke.  Frankly, that kind of feed back is ultimately destructive.  Every business needs good intelligence of the market place and what is in demand.  We users who have a vested interest in MC's success need to provide that by informing JRiver what will incentivize buyers to part with their cash.

Tunetyme

[JimH]

TT,
I split this off because it seems you're suggesting upgrades to the music features in MC that would have broad appeal to music centric users.

Please suggest a few.  We scratch our heads daily about this.

For what it's worth, sales are pretty good right now.  It could be a short term thing.

Jim

[neFAST]

Have you ever considered selling pictures and video management as separated plugins?

[AoXoMoXoA]

I too use MC only for music, primarily since I do little with video or photos so have no need for MC to handle those.
Could I use another product? Likely not, my library is too big for most others to handle.

However, each time I am asked to pay for an upgrade I think "OK, but what are the additional features goung to be?" I am reluctant to upgrade when the focus if on parts of MC that I am unlikely to use (anything not doing with music or music file management) and have been very tempted to skip some recent versions as a result.

How MC's pricing compares with other software is not my concern, but what I am concerned about is what am I getting for my additional money.
Is $50 alot? To some no, to others yes. Depends on what you get in return. Even at the upgrade price sometimes the focus of improvement has not been to my benefit since I only use the Audio end of MC.

Personally I'd love to see MC split as suggested in another post: Basic MC Music player, additional cost add-on moduless for video, images, home theater, Tremote, Library Server, and IR-Blaster.

With the right feature set in MJ12, and enough 'goodies' in an audio-only paid version, the price would not be as steep and more people might be inclined to jump onto the basic paid version. Then modules added (at a cost) as the user saw the need.

This would allow users to tailor the program to their needs, at a cost they choose, perhaps adding modules as they become needed. In the end this could result in more users at the lower tier (audio only) and a higher total price for the "full version" with all the modules.

[JimH]

The last time we asked, we found that people who use MC for music only are about 40% of the total.  Here's the poll:

http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=42725.0

If you're one of those, it's understandable that you think that video and images are a waste of space.  Under Options/General/Advanced/Features, you can uncheck things you don't want to see, but try to remember what you did when you start thinking about whether MC can play a video.

The purpose of this thread, I hope, is to find simple new music features that appeal to mainstream users.

[Magic_Randy]

I think Tunetyme makes some good points. For me I always upgrade to the latest version of MC. So I stepped back and did a little analysis to better understand my own behavior and how this may apply to MC.

Of all the paid software applications on my PC (and I think all of us have many paid applications), I only upgrade 6 packages. For the rest I would only consider a paid upgrade if there were compelling new features in the new version. Of the 6 packages,

Media Management: 2 packages (MC plus a package to rip DVD/Blu-ray)
Backup software: 2 packages
Disc Management: 1 package
Security: 1 package

The pattern suggests I only care enough about products that protect and manage my data to always pay for upgrades. The only exception is the Media Management software which I use every day. If media was not such an important area for me, I would only upgrade 3 packages, all of which are utility in nature:

Backup software: 1 package
Disc Management: 1 package
Security: 1 package

Am I the exception or the rule? My guess is that the typical MC user only upgrades if there are new features that are important to them. Otherwise they stay where they are. If this is true, it suggests strategies for MC to consider.

1) Research the usage pattern for MC. My guess is that it is dominated by audio. A broader poll than this forum would be recommended, maybe to all registered users. While audio is a high % of usage on the polls in this forum, I'm guessing it is even higher if a broader poll was conducted.

2) Identify and develop compelling features that deliver additional value to the current customers to drive them to upgrade. Many good things have already been done, but I'm guessing most of the existing customers are not aware of them.

3) Improve communication of new features to the existing customers. Telling them there are upgrade discounts are not enough. The message should be focused on the incremental value in upgrading, and by the way there is an upgrade discount.

And for me, I will continue to buy all new upgrades from MC as they become available.

Randy

[Magic_Randy]

The purpose of this thread, I hope, is to find simple new music features that appeal to mainstream users.

A starter list:

1) Lyrics support in YADB (many of us have a large library of high quality lyrics that could be quickly uploaded)
2) Improved lyrics editing (talk Doof the Mighty out of Lyrics Editor?)
3) Solve the iPhone/iTouch/iPod compatibility problem (talk prod out of MCiS?)
4) UPnP - support theater view
5) UPnP - display cover art

[JimH]

Lyrics are a difficult area for copyright reasons, though if you have them, MC should handle them.

iPhone -- phooey.

UPnP is dependent on the UPnP software on the device (renderer).  We're working on a Synapse type solution.

[JimH]

... I will continue to buy all new upgrades from MC as they become available.

Thank you.

[Magic_Randy]

Sorry, not an audio request but... many audio users are starting to do video.

I would bundle all the codecs required to make MC work out of the box. The average user will not download codecs. Otherwise they will see that that MC does not do their video, and other free products do, so they won't use MC for video.

[Magic_Randy]

UPnP is dependent on the UPnP software on the device (renderer).

Would it be possible for the PlayStation 3? There are a ton of them out there and they are dirt cheap to buy.

[JimH]

Sorry, not an audio request but... many audio users are starting to do video.

I would bundle all the codecs required to make MC work out of the box.

Also an IP issue.

[JimH]

Would it be possible for the PlayStation 3? There are a ton of them out there and they are dirt cheap to buy.

You could read about UPnP to decide for yourself, but I don't know of any way that we could put our GUI on a UPnP Renderer.  I wish we could.

That's one of the reasons that I've decided to use a PC instead of a UPnP box.

[Magic_Randy]

Also an IP issue.

Could be solved with a licensing agreement like you did with the LAME MP3 encoder. If there was an additional fee I would be willing to pay it. Others may expect it to be bundled into the price of the MC license.

[Magic_Randy]

You could read about UPnP to decide for yourself, but I don't know of any way that we could put our GUI on a UPnP Renderer.  I wish we could.

That's one of the reasons that I've decided to use a PC instead of a UPnP box.

Or could you have an MC client that could run the the PlayStation 3? It is a computer. I'm guessing this would drive more new licenses and upgrades.

[hit_ny]

I think everyone can agree that the core product in MC is music.

That has become less the case with v13. Its outgrowing those boundaries. Audio is still its forte but its trying to catch up in the other areas.

If you cant think of using MC for anything but audio just think of those that would like an app that could do more. There are specialised apps for all three of those media categories but not many (if any) that can handle all three, certainly not beyond the basics.

So they bet there's a lot of interest in being able to do images + video (as well) within the same interface which is why they have been giving these areas more priority.

Don't get me wrong i'm primarily an audio person too but these two areas are where they have got to spend more time on.

[MrHaugen]

Here's my few cents

I am one of those users that only use MC for music.  I think all the other features are nice and at some point I will expand into video as well but the rest is chasing the bleeding edge of technology.  The key question is how many people buy MC for those capabilities vs. the core product?

Yes, there are quite a few people who use this software for Music only. Why, I'm asking my self. One obvious answer would be that MC/MJ have started out as a pure music product, and over the years there are really no one who can compete. Is it strange that many use such a program for music only? Don't think so.

What about the other sides of MC? Video, Images and Theater View. If you make a poll on this forum you'll end up with a huge unbalance between what the users use the product for. If I recall the last poll on this topic, I believe there was closer to 100% who used it for music, maybe half of that who used it for Video and even less for Images. And combinations of those. I ask my self again. Why? I'll give you two reasons.

I believe that this forum is filled with a lot of Music maniacs (I'm one of them), and there are those of us who slowly are starting to appreciate the improving sides of video and image support and Theater View in MC. You will not have many Video or Image centric people really digging into this product from the beginning and becoming very active on this forum. Why? Simply because there are better alternatives for those things.

If you look at the average user today, they doesn't only listen to music. Everyone have a many favorite shows they watch. They download them and watch it in WMP, and most people watch TV as well. Everyone have at least one camera in their phone, and many many have a digital camera. Facebook and other social networks are flooded with pictures, and they keep their pictures in lousy directory structures. Almost everyone have either a HTPC or a laptop connected to their TV or PJ this days. So why are not MC used more for Video and Images and Theater View? As I mentioned before, I believe the reason is that there are both free and payable software that does Video and Images just as well, if not better. Another important reason is that MC have a steep learning curve, and the default settings in MC is not often that usable for normal users.


I'm not saying that the Music part is not important. Far from it! It's needed to be keep up to date, and improvements can't stop. Most of our users depend on it. But I really feel that the focus should be shifted towards Video, Images and especially Theater View. Because it's there MC lacks and have so much potential. The common use of a HTPC this days is just so much more than music.

[JimH]

Apple iPhone discussion split here.

[JimH]

Magic_Randy,
You mentioned that cover art doesn't display on your UPnP device.  It should.  Please start a new thread with details.

Jim

[BryanC]

To begin, I'll try to start off broad to demonstrate WHY I believe this way. Eventually I'll become more specific as to WHAT I want to see MC become:

I guess my main issue is performance of the application. I use it solely for music, and it seems that the large majority of new ffeatures that have been coming out have been geared to the video/photography enthusiast.

The difference is that the need for a library program like MC is because it makes storing, locating, manipulating, and playing files more efficient than Windows Explorer. I have 50,000 audio tracks, and MC allows me to locate an individual song I want to play, followed by another song I want to play, followed by another, so on and so forth, while providing me with a beautiful sleek, powerful interface to do this in.

On the other side of the boat, I have about 500 pictures on my hard drive. I find that MC does not offer much of an upgrade in terms of locating and viewing these files over Explorer. And then when you factor in free alternatives such as Picasa or Windows Live Photo Gallery, MC offers little more than theater mode. If I was simply a photo enthusiast, there would be no reason to purchase MC.

The same could go for video files. Explorer + VLC/MPC/WMP is equal to MC. And those alternatives are all free.

What Windows or other free alternatives do not offer is the ability to store, display, and locate AUDIO files. This is MC's niche. There are no other alternatives--unless you want to spend half a lifetime fiddling with foobar2000, which I'm fairly sure most people in here do not wish to do. Make it (or at least a base install) audio centric. Improve performance for large libraries, eliminate resources necessary for the video/image aspects of the program so it can run on older/specialized/dedicated audio machines: improve the aspects of your niche.

So where does MC14 go from here? It should focus on becoming an audio enthusiasts dream. Replace iTunes, replace WMP, become the de facto standard for college students AND audiophiles.

Improve support with cloud music services.
Reduce the complexity of some operations, add more options for others.
Add the iTunesesque automatic file sorting operations upon import or drag and drop.
Add a plethora of sample display/sorting options.
Increase performance for huge libraries (if you had not reduced the size of Noire for MC14 I may not have switched, but my old box was *just* barely keeping up).
Make theater view BETTER than WMC.
Improve Last.fm, internet radio, podcast, artist info, and lyric support.
Clean the YADB database (including duplicate cover art below 500x500px).
Improve the autotagging engine, based upon FULL albums, not just individual tracks.
Add Picard/Musicbrainz support.
Add MySpace artist links/information.
Let me, at the push of a button, find out where the artist I'm playing is going to be on tour next. Show me pictures of the band. Tell me other artists that I may like. Be Pandora. Be last.FM.
Improve music statistics. Show me graphs of what I like listening to by genre, artist, date, etc...Make autoplaylists based on this data.

This idea is REALLY out there, but it's just to give an example of what possibilities are out there if you wanted to put the time and effort in to make it work: Join forces with the Rockbox team and create custom MC branded firmwares for the iDevices, with incredibly tight MC integration. Be better then Apple! Allow me to add multiple-artist albums to my iPod without creating 16 artist entries with a single song each. Please! Sort my albums by date. Please!

I've got 50,000 tracks in my library, connected to a hi-fi system in the room I am sitting, with the monitor right in front of me. Yet, what am I listening to right now? I'm listening to 128k last.FM radio through the tinny speakers on my laptop using Rythymbox because I'm trying to find new artists that I like. Why can't MC do this but the open source Linux community has no problem with it?

MC is a great product and I've always felt compelled to upgrade. However, I'm afraid that this may solely be because MC is the program I use most frequently on the computer aside from the browser. I've always felt "newer is better," and it has been! However, these newest versions have felt like a step in the wrong direction. If I can look at the free MJ12 and say to myself, "you know, I could live with that, if MC weren't around..." something is awry. You have the opportunity to become a defining software (I believe MC is THAT good) in the audio market. However, as you add the image, video, and file integration MC is beginning to look less like a top-tier media program, and more like, well, like Windows Explorer on 'roids. And that's a fairly pointless and convoluted path to negotiate.

What I would like to know is what exactly are the developers long-term goals for MC? At this point it seems like a lot of running in different directions in the hope that something will present itself.

Thanks.

Bryanhoop

[JimH]

I'll put audio ideas that might be possible in bold.  One so far.

[JimH]

Improve support with cloud music services.

That's a lot of ground to cover, but Performer, our streaming store will be in an MC build soon.

Reduce the complexity of some operations, add more options for others.

Need specifics.

Add the iTunesesque automatic file sorting operations upon import or drag and drop.

I don't know what this is.

Add a plethora of sample display/sorting options.
Increase performance for huge libraries (if you had not reduced the size of Noire for MC14 I may not have switched, but my old box was *just* barely keeping up).

It's probably about as optimized as it will get.

Make theater view BETTER than WMC.

How?  Specifics?  Probably best in a new thread.

Improve Last.fm, internet radio, podcast, artist info, and lyric support.
Clean the YADB database (including duplicate cover art below 500x500px).

The new cover art system is about two years old now, so it's still filling up.  Also, a small image may be the best.  I think the current system is pretty good.

Improve the autotagging engine, based upon FULL albums, not just individual tracks.

YADB does do albums.

Add Picard/Musicbrainz support.
Add MySpace artist links/information.
Let me, at the push of a button, find out where the artist I'm playing is going to be on tour next. Show me pictures of the band. Tell me other artists that I may like. Be Pandora. Be last.FM.

The Wiki link is useful for finding the artist's site.  The Images link does show band pictures.

Improve music statistics. Show me graphs of what I like listening to by genre, artist, date, etc...Make autoplaylists based on this data.

That's more or less what Player/Play Radio does.

Join forces with the Rockbox team and create custom MC branded firmwares for the iDevices...

We'd like to do that.

Allow me to add multiple-artist albums to my iPod without creating 16 artist entries with a single song each.

I believe you can do that if you use the option in MC.  Album Artist Auto?

I've got 50,000 tracks in my library, connected to a hi-fi system in the room I am sitting, with the monitor right in front of me. Yet, what am I listening to right now? I'm listening to 128k last.FM radio through the tinny speakers on my laptop using Rythymbox because I'm trying to find new artists that I like. Why can't MC do this but the open source Linux community has no problem with it?

That's possible in the Performer store.

Thanks for the nice details.  Best job so far.

[JimH]

What I would like to know is what exactly are the developers long-term goals for MC? At this point it seems like a lot of running in different directions in the hope that something will present itself.

I'm sorry you don't appreciate the recent work.  The goal is any media, anytime, anywhere.

We've spent a lot of time in the last year in several areas:

Theater View
Television
Remotes
Servers

The benefit of these may not be apparent to you.  But both Matt and I use these intensively at home.  In a sense, we're trying to make our own home systems perfect.  What you would do if you were in my shoes would be different.

You might take a look at the thread called "Netbook as Remote aka Tremote" to get an example of a feature that, though not a music feature per se, is going to be incredibly useful to music users when the hardware arrives.

[tjobbins]

• Putting in support for streaming to the XBox 360 might a good mainstream move.  I think I'm right in saying that MC can't do this today because the XBox isn't UPnP - but for example TVersity can do it, so it is possible.  But the one time I tried TVersity it really sucked, it would have been great to be able to broadcast my MC library to my 360.
• Also better visualisations.  I still miss Milkdrop,a Winamp plugin, which was by far the best visualisations I ever saw.  I did pay for some visualisation plugin for MC - can't remember hte name now - but it was never a patch on Milkdrop.   Actually, if it were possible for MC to simply support Winamp plugins then you could use Milkdrop - maybe you could get the author to bundle it with MC   With Milkdrop or something as good, you can show MC as an awesome party tool;  better visualiations than the XBox 360 for example (which many mainstream users will be familiar with.)
• How about more image control features - I know that MC14 improved on this, but I'm thinking stuff like the ability to upload to Flickr, more image manipulation tools - like cropping, distortions, merging two images together, lightening/darkening.  The basic sort of tasks that people might want to be able to perform on their photographs.
• Can you script image slideshows at the moment?  You can obviously create a playlist of a defined image order then run a slideshow on it, but can you queue up set music for it?  Individuall control transitions between images etc?  That might be a popular feature - a slideshow editor/scripter.

All of the above are features I would consider to be mainstream popular, and easy sells.  

The features that I would personally want are more niche and geeky, such as the ability to maniuplate library fields using regular expressions.   It would be great if regex was added to the Fill Properties From Filename, and also to Search/Replace.  It should support backreferences, so you can reference chosen parts of the search pattern in the replace.  I'd think this would be easy to add using a third party library.  Not mainstream at all but very useful, and would add a feature present in Foobar2000 for example, which might help you sell to a few more geeks

Examples of regex usage:  I just imported a few hundred files from M:\Video, and they're all currently untagged.  For Video, I use Album to indicate the show  - like Friends, Six Feet Under, etc.  My file path format is M:\Video\[Album]\... - then sometimes there's another directory, sometimes not.  Example it could be M:\Video\Friends\Season 1\01-The One Where..avi or it could be M:\Video\Planet Earth\01-blah.avi.    So I use Fill Properties From Filenames, and I specify M:\Video\[Album]\ -  but this only works if the part I want in [Album] is the last directory.    In my first example above it would put "Season 1" into the Album field, not Friends.    If Regexes were available, then I could specify a regex along the lines of:  ^M:\Video([^\]+).*$ - then the UI would need to let me specify that backreference 1 should be mapped into [Album].  Other examples that come up often are where I have a bunch of filenames which contain the necessary info I want to tag, but separated by slightly different text, e.g. if I want to pull Series and Episode data out by grabbing numbers separated by text, but where the text varies slightly in each file:  ^M:\Video\.*([0-9]+)[^0-9]+([0-9]+).*$ mapping backref 1 to Series, backref 2 to Episode.  (Regex means: M:\Video\ followed by anything, then one or more number in sequence which is captured into Series , then one or more non-numeric characters, then one or more number in sequence which is captured into Episode, then anything until the end of the filename.)

[johnnyboy]

I'm sorry you don't appreciate the recent work.  The goal is any media, anytime, anywhere.

We've spent a lot of time in the last year in several areas:

Theater View
Television
Remotes
Servers

Which was kind of my point about having it priced for different parts as plugins.
Most of the work has gone in these areas and for day to day users who were asked what features they used in this poll:
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=42725.0
they were asked about just media (photo, video, images).

There have been some changes in these areas but alot as you said has gone into the above area.
For those of us that just use the 3 core media types and dont use the things you listed above it makes the upgrade price seem high.
For those that use the above features and mix it with a high end, multi room setup, obviously the price is cheap. For those that just want it as a media manager that can play back their files, the price is high.

Sure if you want to, you can price it high and say its designed for the multi-room users with the high end audio equipment and expensive amplifiers etc but my suggestion was to simply offer a cut down version for those of us that want it just for media management / playback.

I've bought MC back from v7 but I just dont think with my relatively light use of it I can justify the actual value for money I am getting with upgrades any more. MC13 I got on blind faith and I dont feel like I got many improvements to those basic use areas over MC12. The changes from MC13-MC14 again are there, but aren't overwhelming. What I would gain from MC12-MC14 is quite big but thats two upgrade costs along.

I'm sure all the guys here who are loaded and use it to control their whole home with thousand dollar systems will chew me out and say how cheap it is compared to their $440000 amplifier but for us light users its not really.

Anyway, I'm gonna drop it now, just my two cents.

[rick.ca]

Which was kind of my point about having it priced for different parts as plugins.

Your suggestion a tiered pricing structure be used is fine—except it may not work. And your argument about why some users are not getting sufficient value for the price demonstrates why. We all rationalize whether or not we receive sufficient value for we're paying for. As you've pointed out, some find the current price too high while others think it's a bargain. Obviously there's a correlation between the number of features used and the intensity of use, and the degree of price satisfaction. But I bet that relationship varies dramatically. So tiered pricing is likely to fragment the question and give people more reasons to rationalize why they're unhappy. Think of the possibilities... "I'm happy with the lower tier 1 price, but I'm pissed because one feature I need is in tier 2." "I was happy to pay the tier 2 price, but now you're asking me to pay the tier 2 upgrade price when there have been no improvements to the tier 2 features." "I'm happy with the price, but I'm unhappy you forced me to think about all those tiers." ...they're endless.

I don't buy the argument someone who only uses a few of the available "areas" of the application is a "light" user. If you're using only a few of those and aren't interested in the depth of features available in those areas, then this is clearly not the product for you. If you are using this product because of the depth of it's features in the areas you are interested in, then that is what you're paying for. The fact development goes on in other areas doesn't mean you're not getting value for your price. I believe the opposite is true. I know I'm getting the features I want because there are other users who are just as fussy as me, and they want the same thing. But most of those people need or want other things I don't. If they weren't getting them, they wouldn't be here to support me in what I want.

So it would be a mistake to adopt a pricing model that encourages users to care only about the areas and features of the program used by them. An all-inclusive price, on the other hand, is consistent with the strategy suggested by "The goal is any media, anytime, anywhere." More important than that, however, is JRiver is such a small player in the market, it can't afford to fragment it's user group into different "camps." If it's going to succeed, I think it needs to convince it's existing users MC is ONE product with ONE price.

Now, to demonstrate I haven't wandered completely off topic... What is a "tangible improvement to the core product"? Well, the core of the product must be that which makes it a media manager of "any media, anytime, anywhere." Obviously music is a very important part of that, but it does not constitute the core. So the most "tangible" improvements may very well be those involving other media, or have only to do with the "anytime" or "anywhere." Even those who are only interested in music must see their physical media collections are rapidly headed for obsolescence. The development taking place in these other areas is going to help them evolve and adapt to whatever the future holds. For me, there's more value in that—than in some mundane features for managing media that probably won't even exist in a few years.

[)p(]

TT,
I split this off because it seems you're suggesting upgrades to the music features in MC that would have broad appeal to music centric users.

1. Create the best seamless integration of a remote music service with the local library...with some different options how to do it:
   a) Just stream song/album without adding it to the library
   b) Just stream song/album but add a reference to the library
   c) Always cache a played song/album locally and add it to the library
   d) Option to manually download the song/album locally and add it to the library

2. More and better options for third parties to create remote gui's on devices like the iphone. Something like rivermote on the iphone is cool but to be a real alternative as a full gui it needs to be able to show view schemes fast and sync them with mc. Just look at how squeezecenter does it for iphone apps like ipeng and squeemote...they are very impressive in terms of response to user actions.

peter

[prod]

I too would like to see a more seamless integration with services like last.fm and spotify.

A more album-centric view on music files would also be very nice, with support for tags such as Album Rating and Album Last Played. In other words, some method of applying a change to not only the selected file but also to its album siblings.

It's difficult to understand from my (humble) position what might be perceived as parochial and what might be a more globally sought-for feature - I guess that's why I'm not in this business, and you are.

[Sauzee]

I too am one of the people who have been disappointed in the direction MC has taken in concentrating heavily on theatre view etc. There are lots of improvements that could be made to MC on the audio side. 

Tagging - more sources for getting cover art.
Tagging - ability to tag files from text files (useful for downloaded bootlegs)
Tagging - support for tagging files with info from other online databases freedb etc

Internet Links / Info related to music playing  - to get an idea of what MC could do here look at firefox plug in foxy tunes. from it you can choose very specifically what you want to look up/search on the internet ie artist name, artist and/or album, songtitle etc. with mc all we get is the artist name looked up.

Playing Now track info - this is barely worth using these days.

But you are the creative guys. Where are your ideas for developing the music side? As a software user its great when the developer comes up with innovations that we didn't even think about, but which we love to use.

[rick.ca]

Internet Links / Info related to music playing  - to get an idea of what MC could do here look at firefox plug in foxy tunes. from it you can choose very specifically what you want to look up/search on the internet ie artist name, artist and/or album, songtitle etc. with mc all we get is the artist name looked up.

MC's links are fully configurable using Manage Links. You can add links to search whatever/wherever you want.

Playing Now track info - this is barely worth using these days.

Agreed. It seems these things are meant to be created by the user community, but obviously that's not happening. It would be wonderful if the functionality of the Theater View File Info Panel were available to configure track information. Now wouldn't it be ironic if that happened because of the development team's misguided efforts to satisfy the needs of video media users.

[justsomeguy]

Please add the ability to apply replaygain values to the actual mp3 on the fly as it is sync'd to a portable device.  Not everyone has an ipod or a device that does replaygain on its own.  For example all my music in my car is played off a usb flash drive plugged into my Kenwood car stereo.  Without replaygain it's a pain because of level differences between many tracks.  So currently I use MC to sync the tracks I want to a folder on the harddrive, then use foobar to apply the trackgain to the actual file, then use another program to keep that folder in sync with the flash drive.  So it's a 3 step process, which works but could all be done at once in MC.  As far as I know applying replaygain to the actual file is only possible with mp3 but that's the most hardware compatible format and probably what most people with portables of some kind use.  I am one of those that only use MC for music and I find it hard to justify upgrading when 99% of the new features aren't music based.  

[justsomeguy]

Oh and I agree that MC should be made a modular type product.  Either have audio as the core base product then offer other plugins adding additional features or keep it all as one package but offer different licenses that enable different features in the software.

[Sauzee]

MC's links are fully configurable using Manage Links. You can add links to search whatever/wherever you want.

Are there any instructions on how to do this? Couldn't find anything in the wiki. Say, for example, if i wanted the google link to search for artist and album title.

[bunglemebaby]

In no real particular order, here are some things that I'd like to see:

- Add album-centric data. (like mentioned above, album ratings, album last played, etc)
- Replace playlists with 'virtual albums'.
- Improve the play-as-radio feature. I get the idea, but it just doesn't cut it for me most of the time. I've seen plenty of discussion on ideas for this, that went to no end, so I'll leave it at this unless some JR folks express some interest in doing something here.
- Add integration of Pandora, last.fm, et al. in a similar fashion to what was done with Hulu and YouTube.
- I love the Rockbox co-op idea.
- Add some configurable options to Party Mode. Things like being able to lock to a single view scheme or view scheme folder, or lock to Theater View. Options to prevent duplicates from being added to the Now Playing list (or duplicates in the 'remaining' portion). Locking down editing is good, but it would also be useful to not even see these options. Basically, MC is too confusing for many of the drunkards that I have over so the simpler I can make the setup/interface the less I have to think about it while I'm having fun.
- Unlock the Media Sub-Type field. I don't want to make my own custom field since this field is auto-filled for podcasts, but there isn't even a "Music" option available to me.
- Keep on improving the client/server streaming setup. I don't use this too often currently due to lack of appropriate hardware, but having these features there and well done will be awesome (for music playing, and beyond...) once I've got a decent hardware setup.
- Add a Select-All/Select-None option to the CD ripping interface.
- MusicBrainz interface would be amazing, though I'd guess there are IP/licensing issues at play here. Alternatively, adding more in depth data coverage to YADB would yield pretty massive results in a fairly short period of time. Things like Musicians, Instruments, Composer, Lyricist, Producer, etc. Many MC users are metadata gurus, why not harvest and share?

That's what I've got at the top of my head. I make no claims that any of these have any value to potential customers, but I'd sure love them all so they must be worth considering!!

-JB

[tunetyme]

I must say that I didn't expect this kind of response to my post.

I am going to break my responses into several posts to address the different issues raised here. 

I am glad to hear that sales are good right now.  Could they be better? 

I certainly agree with your product objective of "The goal is any media, anytime, anywhere."

The key question is how do you get good intelligence on the market demand and understand how to capitalize on that knowledge.  I would suggest that your poll is invalid.  You have less than 200 responses.
Polling or doing surveys is an art and I would suggest that you invest in a professional surveyor to help you fashion the questions and help you interpret the results.  One company I am familiar with is Websurveyor.   http://www.aboutus.org/WebSurveyor.com.  Check them out.  There are many others as well.

For your poll to be accurate you need to reach out to the people who do not actively sign on to the forum.   Those of us who get involved in the forum are the exception.  Most of the people who have responded to this post are 5 star rated.  There are 2 one star, 2 two star and 2 four star respondents that tells me that the majority of users have not weighed in.  You need to reach out to them and draw then into the discussion by first understanding how they use MC and then focus on how they would like to use MC.

I’ve spent over 30 years managing technology companies and one of my most important lessons was to get out and talk to the worker bees and the customers.  You’ll get the straight scoop from them.  Senior managers put a positive spin on everything and you need to get to people who will give you real tangible information about where you are and what you need to do to improve sales and your product.  They will not take the initiative to talk to you.

As for your regular posters (4 & 5 stars) they can provide vision and insight into your product and will certainly help refine it.  But I would suggest that all of this group replied to you poll and have skewed the results. 

Jim, it is very challenging to be on the cutting edge but you need to constantly keep in tune with where your customer base is and where they are looking to go.  The forum is a great place for suggestions but you need to go out to the entire user base to find what your customers want.

[MrHaugen]

For your poll to be accurate you need to reach out to the people who do not actively sign on to the forum.   Those of us who get involved in the forum are the exception.  Most of the people who have responded to this post are 5 star rated.  There are 2 one star, 2 two star and 2 four star respondents that tells me that the majority of users have not weighed in.  You need to reach out to them and draw then into the discussion by first understanding how they use MC and then focus on how they would like to use MC.

Exactly. I believe that most users here are very Music oriented, but the majority, or at least the possible users of MC, would appreciate to use MC as a hub for all their media. Not just music. It's a Media Center guys. It says that right in the name. Other sides of MC needs to be improved to be able to compete with other Media Centers out there. Fancy music players is nice, but let's face it; most people out there can live with iTunes. We need more to grab users with different media needs.

I'm not saying we have to ditch the music part of MC. It's important to improve it and keep it up to date.But we need to keep the focus on the Theater View, Video, image as well as making MC more intuitive to use for normal users. This will make MC14 the superior Media Center out there, and the possible users would expand rapidly.

[gappie]

one of the things i miss in 'the core product'   
it would be nice if you could set up different dsp profiles. lately the headphone was introduced in dsp studio. nice feature. but when i want to switch to headphone listening i have to open dsp studio, disable some and enable other effects. have to stop playback to get the new choices to work and start playback again. or i have to send the audio to an other zone especiall for headphone playback (that is what i do now). imo it would be nice if it would be possible to easy switch between dsp profiles, and that it works without playback interuption. and now im on it, changable with remote?

 
gab

ps. i just canceled my newspaper subscription. i did not want to pay for all the parts i did not read like economy and sports.

[prod]

Exactly. I believe that most users here are very Music oriented, but the majority, or at least the possible users of MC, would appreciate to use MC as a hub for all their media. Not just music. It's a Media Center guys. It says that right in the name. Other sides of MC needs to be improved to be able to compete with other Media Centers out there. Fancy music players is nice, but let's face it; most people out there can live with iTunes. We need more to grab users with different media needs.

I get where you're coming from, but I used to use MC for everything, but have switched to audio only^* because there is software/hardware that specifically services those (i.e. me) with image and video requirements better. I've no desire to have everything organised in the same app at the moment because I didn't see the benefit when I did. MC is best for audio, no contest.

^* I categorise music videos as audio. So actually I do use MC for video. Or do I?   ?

[tunetyme]

Exactly. I believe that most users here are very Music oriented, but the majority, or at least the possible users of MC, would appreciate to use MC as a hub for all their media. Not just music. It's a Media Center guys. It says that right in the name. Other sides of MC needs to be improved to be able to compete with other Media Centers out there. Fancy music players is nice, but let's face it; most people out there can live with iTunes. We need more to grab users with different media needs.

Lets face it, everyone uses MC differently.  We all use certian features but not others.  I am not disputing the objective "any media, any time, any where.  This discussion is about the core products.  In this thread, it is about music.  I agree that video is a core product but my question is how many people buy MC for the the video management alone?  I don't use the video management because I decided several years ago that I would wait until I can start buying videos in an HD 1080p format.  It is so significantly better why waste the money now and buy again.  I've certianly done that over the years with music. 

As for a fancy player.  I look at this a little differently.  I live in Northern Virginia.  Approximately 75% of the entire states revenue is generated from Northern Virginia.  Maybe, we see 20% flow back to this area.  I really don't have a problem with that, as long as, we get the services and roads etc. that we need.  The same is true for MC.  MC was built on music.  That is the dominant use by virtually everyone.  We need to manage tens of thousands of music files.  How many movies do you manage, a few hundred or a few thousand?  This is not a dispute about being "Media Center" software.  It is about the fact that there has been little to no development in the core music feature of MC.  The other point is, it is about providing JRiver with good intelligence about the market and market demands.  The business needs a strong cash flow to continue developing all the various products.  Music is providing the bulk of that funding.   It is about how do you get all the others to upgrade to 14?  How do you get the ones who are using media jukebox to convert?

I get where you're coming from, but I used to use MC for everything, but have switched to audio only^* because there is software/hardware that specifically services those (i.e. me) with image and video requirements better. I've no desire to have everything organised in the same app at the moment because I didn't see the benefit when I did. MC is best for audio, no contest. 

MrHaugen, please listen to what others are saying.  Frankly, your statement "but the majority... would appreciate to use MC as a hub for all their media" is unsubstantiated.  Personnally, I think you are blowing smoke.  If you are going to post on this thread let's keep it focused on music.  You can start another thread on video and iTunes.  Let's strive to keep this as a business discussion focused on providing JRiver with good market intelligence.

Tunetyme

[hit_ny]

my question is how many people buy MC for the the video management alone?

my question is how many people buy MC today for the the video management alone? --TRUE

and

my question is how many people will buy MC tomorrow for the the video management alone? ---?

WMC & XBMC are better today for video than MC. But will that be the case tomorrow ?

I bet ppl today have more digital images than they do everything else. Is MC upto the job ?

How do you get the ones who are using media jukebox to convert?

Hooking them to the interface,  as that's the main selling point. That interface got honed with audio. And suggesting it might be possible to do the same with video & images if they wish. Then giving them a reason to buy when they see the features for video & images are worth making the plunge.

You can already get the audio bit for free, its in effect cannabalising their core product. The moment they made the decison to make jukebox free it was time to start building reasons to go with a more comprehensive media center.

THe other point is media convergence, images, music, video and why you cant handle it all in the same space.

[rjm]

Responding to Jim's request for audio improvement suggestions...

1) A re-rip function to allow people, like myself, who chose the wrong bitrate and/or format when ripping their cd collection to re-rip without having to re-enter all the tags. I have avoided re-ripping my cds because of the huge effort required to re-enter the tags (or to trick MC by replacing the files). It appears to me that 99% of the functionality is already in place because the Convert function does a beautiful job of maintaining all tags.

2) We need a convenient way to display detailed information about an album or audiobook. I currently store info in text files co-located with the audio files and tagged with the same Artist/Album. This works but it is not great because the document files mess up views that are much cleaner when audio only. One way to accomplish this would be to tweak the Links feature such that it could point to locally stored document files. This way we could stay in audio only views but still be able to access the document file when we want more information.

[tunetyme]

rjm

I've had to re-rip files also.  If you use the same directory then I think MC will see all the info.  If not you could try ripping the file into the same directory.  Then change the extension from MP3 to APE or FLAC in MC (under filename which has the entire path to the file) whichever you use then update tags from MC.  You could give it a try.  If you are staying with MP3 then it should just overwrite the file and again update tags from the library should take care of it.  I'll give it a try tomorrow and post the results. 

I think your suggestion is a good one.  We all have some kind of work arounds to do what we want.  I have dbPowerAMp as a alternative to dump info about my files.  I can't get the html output from MC to inport into anything but Notepad then it will identify an illegal character in a particular line and when I go to that line I can't find the problem.  I also use the dbPoweramp to generate CD covers as well, as I haven't been able to use the MC print function to print the covers in the format I am looking for.  It's a pain.

This is the purpose of this thread to provide JRiver insights into things that could be improved based on how users actually use the program or want to.

Thanks.

Tunetyme

[Magic_Randy]

This is the process I used to re-rip albums while preserving the library info.

http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=49951.0

[rjm]

Thanks to both of you.

Magic_Randy, I am aware of your process for re-ripping. It's still too much effort to re-rip my cds. Hoping that some day JRiver will simplify this.

[Magic_Randy]

I am aware of your process for re-ripping. It's still too much effort to re-rip my cds. Hoping that some day JRiver will simplify this.

I agree it is too many steps. But my process proves it can be done in MC. A small enhancement in MC would eliminate all of the non-value added steps.

[benn600]

I would still like to see more strides toward a house-wide media system.  A more ultra-controlled system that runs directly from a connection to a server box, where all the settings and configuration modes are set.  Kind of like a media-controller (domain-controller).  When I consider the typical HTPC, it is apt to get destroyed from users reconfiguring things or a software update/OS reinstall ultimately destroying this perfect configuration.  Sure, saving and restoring settings is great, but why not have a server setup.

It could even go as far as registering each HTPC with the server and then setting its settings (on the server) and saying use global value or custom.  Then, without any effort, all the settings would be locked in--or changeable in specific cases if needed.

Also, as the number of home users increases, why not have the server take care of actual television recording while the clients are not bothered?  Then, each htpc can sleep as needed and the server (already running 24/7) can easily save out dozens of TV streams (lol).  As I return to setting up TV again, I keep thinking about recording a show: do I set it up to record on my desktop or should I set it up on the HTPC?  When a recording is scheduled, the server should track it so the other MC systems -- including separate user accounts -- would all see the updates in real time.  If they were looking at the schedule, a record symbol should pop up on the item.

Lastly, the TV interface should be greatly revamped to go for the DVR/satellite box view.  A major grid like display.  Something more pleasing and easy to view / quickly control.

starting new thread based on request

[MrHaugen]

MrHaugen, please listen to what others are saying.  Frankly, your statement "but the majority... would appreciate to use MC as a hub for all their media" is unsubstantiated.  Personnally, I think you are blowing smoke.  If you are going to post on this thread let's keep it focused on music.  You can start another thread on video and iTunes.  Let's strive to keep this as a business discussion focused on providing JRiver with good market intelligence.

Why would not most people like to have all the music, video and image functionality in one application?? I can understand that this is the situation TODAY for some of us. But do not tell me that you would not like to have everything conveniently in on app if the support for Video and Images was just as good as for Music (and if you had videos of course). There are also some functionality you'll be missing if you don't have it all in MC as well. I'm not blowing smoke at all. It's you who focus only on Music and can't see the need for improving other sides of MC, and attracting a lot of potential users, instead of just a few music maniacs like us

More and more people get a HTPC for their TV or PJ today, and this is where MC really have a potential. Sure, there are people who use MC as a music player only at their workstation, and the problem switching to different apps to see images or play wide is not a problem then. But when you have a remote control with no mouse functionality it IS a problem not to have everything in one app.

You can start another thread on video and iTunes.  Let's strive to keep this as a business discussion focused on providing JRiver with good market intelligence.

For me the core product is Music, Video and Images, and I'm trying to contribute to the discussion as well. When everyone is expressing their concerns about the direction MC takes (focusing less on Music), I'm here trying to get you to see that MC have so much potential to the average media user if it was improved in video, images and theater view and easy usability. J Rivers revenues could increase greatly if they keep the focus on the things that are not so good today, and still keeping the music part up to date.

my question is how many people buy MC today for the the video management alone? --TRUE

and

my question is how many people will buy MC tomorrow for the the video management alone? ---?

WMC & XBMC are better today for video than MC. But will that be the case tomorrow ?

I bet ppl today have more digital images than they do everything else. Is MC upto the job ?

Correct. If the video, images and Theater View is continually improved we also get those users that's more into Video and images and who looks at it from the couch.

I use the music part of MC a lot, and I don't disagree that some improvements is in place. I would be happy if there was some cool improvements or new features to the Music part of MC soon, but I'm also trying to figure out what can make this Media Center exceptional. To stand out from the crowd, in all fields. There's a few of us that have extreme needs for a music management, but most can live fine with iTunes (except those with huge libraries and Audiophiles). We need a product that's good on all fronts, so people don't choose separate apps to do the job. Even if there are not many using MC for video or images today, this might not be true at ALL if those sides of MC is improved.

[tunetyme]

TT,
I split this off because it seems you're suggesting upgrades to the music features in MC that would have broad appeal to music centric users.

Please suggest a few.  We scratch our heads daily about this.

Jim

MrHaugen:

You missed the point from the beginning.  This thread is about music features not video not an integrated hub.  If you have some ideas about how the music portion of MC can be approved then please post it.  When you try to change the subject of the thread, muddy the waters, and making unsubstantiated statements, Yes, that is blowing smoke becuase there is no substance. 

[MrHaugen]

Sure. I'll stop getting all OT here. Had to explain my previous conclusions.
I'm just a bit concerned that a forum with so much music centric users end up pushing the development toward what is best for a small usergroup, rather than aiming at a app that the masses would love. That's all.

[tunetyme]

I would like to suggest that we break this down in 4 categories.  Improvements to the:

The Player

Database

Music Analysis or Advanced tools

Generating Playlists

The Player
In this first of four posts, I want to suggest that there would be some benefit to increase compatibility with various third party plugins. 

I think iZotope plugin could also become a revenue stream JRiver for those who want to take your music up to the next level.  http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/media/ozone.html
I understand that I could make it work with some effort but it would be nice if it could be a seamless install.  Last I looked QCD had 368,121 downloads on that one plugin.  They charge “For a limited time, get iZotope's Ozone plug-in for only $19. When purchasing, use the promotion code OZMP-DF45.”  iZotope charges $29 direct.  Go and read users comments on this product.

Hardware connectivity:  Here is a link for some of the Flac (lossless) hardware that will play Flac files:  http://flac.sourceforge.net/links.html
This is an option for those who do not want to set up an HTPC.   By working with the vendors as the “Player of choice” you could boost sales as well.  I think there was a post by Jim about a European review of MC associated with the hardware being offered.  Great PR cost $0.  I am sure JRiver will get some sales from that review.  Working on compatibility with all the hardware devices and maybe offer to be bundled with their hardware.  Either way that will boost sales as well.

Tunetyme