Print

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

[jkemers]

Hi,

Any plans to to build MC for Mac OS? I would love it so much!
Apple has been very successful with iPhones, iTunes, iPads. Now strong investment in Mac OS based PCs. Market share is growing.

BUT, there are no good media centers in that world!!!

Only one noticeable is Plex, but it's still underdeveloped and with lot of bugs. Nevertheless, from end of last year Plex is available in Windows.

Any chance to get you to add Mac OS support?

Janis

[glynor]

No.

It would be awesome, but they have no plans to do this.

[sunfire7]

some time ago there was a topic to see the demand of a mac version of MC, unfortunately there was not enough customers to justify the big amount of job and investment j river would need to do. 

[glynor]

some time ago there was a topic to see the demand of a mac version of MC, unfortunately there was not enough customers to justify the big amount of job and investment j river would need to do. 

For the record, I think that topic's poll was deeply flawed as a sincere method of determining interest in an OSX version of MC?  How many Mac users are going to come to the forum for a Windows-only, relatively niche piece of software and vote in some random poll to get access to a program that they don't know and love (like we do) because they've never used it before.  They don't know what they're missing, and don't even know who J River is, or why they'd come to Interact.

I don't think Jim was very serious about attempting to gauge interest, and I don't think they intend to develop anything for OSX in any case.  But either way, it was flawed.

[MrHaugen]

Flawed or not, I vote no. For the 100'th time.

Mac's can run Windows this days, and when you first use MC to it's fullest there is really no need to use the OS for anything other than basic functions. Why is it so important what OS this runs on?? You can preach all you want about OSx, it will not make a difference. Most users use Windows, for now. And as long as that is a fact, J River will not benefit much of using a bunch of their money on a huge project like this. Just think about keeping two separate versions up to date at the same time as well. It will be less features for all of us.

Use the time for something that will benefit all users instead. Like introducing new features, improving old ones. If the time comes that Steve Jobs have completely taken over the world and holds he's sweaty dictatorish hands above our heads, then I'll move to OSx on my HTPC, and think little more about it.

[jkemers]

You are very right relating cost of two developments vs. doing job well in one.

At the same time most strange thing happened to me.
I have been fanatic and technical windows user for 15 years, and was extremely skeptical about osx.
Then last autumn I just got fed up about Windows (including W7), crashing and getting slower after each other month of use, and tried mac.

Now I have two of the at home, have thrown out all my PCs with W7.
I tell you it just works!!! Is so much faster, and better. Yes, iTunes is disaster in terms of human rights limitations. But what a fantastic feeling with all open apps in photos editing, video recoding - just fly. Imaging both Mac Book Air and all-in-one iMac from zero starts in 30 seconds.
And most importantly I don't have to switch it off, struggle with semi crashed sleep modes wake-ups. I haven't switched off or restarted my Mac in last month, and it wakes up in one second when I touch keyboard!!! I had few times some apps crashed, but it' so very very seldom.

The only thing it still lacks in good Media Center app. But sorry, I don't want to even think putting W7 on Mac to MC. W7 on MAc is just wrong.
Watch out Plex. Even that application is poor today, no HD Audio focus, they are crazy about Video support and have launched Windows version.

Janis

[MrHaugen]

If you can have a simple HTPC with Windows in your home, then you'll have to deal with the limited alternatives.
I do not understand the problem having one basic installation of windows with MC on it though. Once the OS is installed, drivers installed, and MC set up, you should not have a problem with Windows at all. My Win 7 HTPC works great. No problems at all.

[Vincent Kars]

What about MC for Android?
Probably a bigger market than OSX

[preproman]

What about MC for Android?
Probably a bigger market than OSX

Android bigger market than OSX??

Go take a look at the computer audiophile message board http://www.computeraudiophile.com - There is a great deal of JRiver users over there.  However, it is primarily a MAC community.  It would be a great step forward to have JRiver on a MAC.  It's a few good audio programs that they rave about over there.  Pure Music, Audirvana, Amarra just to name a few.  There are a few others that are just now making a splash in the market.  Someone said Plex was the only good media server for OSX,  I don't think so...  XBMC rules... Why?? because it has been open source for so long.  For video, It just works and getting better and better all the time.  Now for Music.  JRiver Rules...  If there was a OSX version it would yield a lot of competition from the other music players out there.  However JRiver brings so much more to the table.  Not only bit perfect playback but also A killer GUI and add ons.  Play Doctor is the bomb.  JRiver would in no time have many more users. 

As one other person said - the man power and resources would be the only problem to support two different platforms. 

[MrHaugen]

As one other person said - the man power and resources would be the only problem to support two different platforms. 

Yes, it might be only one problem. But this is also a huge one! First think of the development cost to make this program platform independent. How long would that take? Many months? More than a year? In the meantime, do you think the current huge group of MC users would be happy? How many would drop MC and try out other players, instead of waiting on new builds and versions?

Once the process is done, you're faced with an increased time of development for each feature. It might be possible to compile code for both OSx and Windows at the same time (?), but your bound to increase the time used anyway. Both on testing the two different apps on two OS's, and you have the cases where you just HAVE to have OS different solutions on each system. Just to take a number from my head, I would say that the increase in development cost would at least go up with 50%.

No. Unfortunately, the development cost is not the only problem. The market share is just as important imo. OSx is getting some footing in the OS market, but they are not nearly as huge as Microsoft. Some parts of the world have embraced Steve's restricted policies more than others, but they are still much behind. Also think of how little known MC is in the Apple community. Even though you would have some audiophile people adapting it fast, it would take a lot of time to see the needed income from the OSx part of this big project. Probably several years before the initial cost is covered.

What about development environment or OS favoritism? All of the J River Staff have been working in a MS environment for lots of years now. Do you think a OSx version would get the same attention as the Windows version? Especially when it will take so much time before this part is bringing in the dollars. A company can have all the policies they want. They can promise that an app should work just as well on one system compared to another, but in most cases people are colored by their own opinions, and they tend to prioritize what they like the most. I think iTunes is a good example of such a project we're talking of here. On OSx the application works pretty much as it's supposed to, even though it's limited as hell. On Windows the application tend to behave a lot worse though.


Could someone with a bit more software development experience please write a good forum posts here, so we can have a sticky one?

[preproman]

No. Unfortunately, the development cost is not the only problem. The market share is just as important imo. OSx is getting some footing in the OS market, but they are not nearly as huge as Microsoft. Some parts of the world have embraced Steve's restricted policies more than others, but they are still much behind. Also think of how little known MC is in the Apple community. Even though you would have some audiophile people adapting it fast, it would take a lot of time to see the needed income from the OSx part of this big project. Probably several years before the initial cost is covered.

MrHaugen,

Let me say first that I totally agree with you.  However, I'm coming from an audiophile perspective.  I really didn't like it when MC went towards the video side.  I would have loved for JR to continue make the very best audio player available.  However, MC did in fact incorporate the video aspect into the program, so it can be done.  Look at XBMC (although it's open source) they run on many platforms not just two, and are very successful.  What did they do?  Not count on the current staff to do the development, but hired the necessary resources to work on the different platforms.  MC could do the same if they want to be committed.

Now from the audiophile families perspective.  We are talking about people who are willing to pay for a player in the first place. The people that's willing to pay for a player are not your regular folk.  These are the people that's looking for something specific (Quality Sound).  You talk about it being more Windows users than OSX users.   A better comparisons would be how many people on either platform are paying for an audio (media) player.  Once you get those fact I think the number would be more in the OSX favor.  Just think how many more Windows players are out there that charge?  Not many at all.  However on the OSX platform there are many.  That's because Mac's are already said to give the best sound?  I question that.  So there have been many people to go out and get the cost effective Mac Mini just for a dedicated music server - and I mean many.  So if only the OSX audiophile community would adopt MC that would be a win for the company.  

[Lasse_Lus]

Look at XBMC (although it's open source) they run on many platforms not just two, and are very successful.  What did they do?  Not count on the current staff to do the development, but hired the

i have to ask, i'vre read XBMC so many times now in the same sentance as MC, why are these 2 compared ? Isn't XBMC a player ? while MC is a a player but also the best file administration software there is..

[preproman]

i have to ask, i'vre read XBMC so many times now in the same sentance as MC, why are these 2 compared ? Isn't XBMC a player ? while MC is a a player but also the best file administration software there is..

Both are media players - correct?  Both offer video and audio playback - correct?  XBMC can't come close to JR in audio playback.  However, JR can't come close to XBMC in video playback.  XBMC runs on many platforms, I think that's where the comparisons come in.  Media players running on different platforms. 

[MrHaugen]

XBMC is a Media Center, and that's it. It shines where MC have the biggest weaknesses: Presenting Series and Video in a intuitive and beautiful way. In every other aspects (at least from long ago when I tested it) it lacks very much. It's a very good combination for OSx users really! They tend to go for the shiny and nice looking things, and don't care that much if the functions underneath the hood is not that great, as long as..... here comes the famous Apple line..... "it just works"

When you compare XBMC to MC you also have to know what code lies behind it. If you count different functions in both apps, I would not be surprised if J River Media Center is 100 times as complex as XBMC. That means that it also will be a lot harder with cross platform support.

[Lasse_Lus]

Preopman, i understand that..but for me having XBMC on my original xbox, as an upnp client it's only a "skin" (and it's shines yes)..it's working super but comparing with ALL 10 000 functions in MC with xbmc, noway 

regarding video and audio playback, for me it's all the same, but if i don't want to play within MC i can change it to something else under options..

[Lasse_Lus]

I would not be surprised if J River Media Center is 100 times as complex as XBMC.

if i remember correctly, Jim once said it was like an OS

[preproman]

Preopman, i understand that..but for me having XBMC on my original xbox, as an upnp client it's only a "skin" (and it's shines yes)..it's working super but comparing with ALL 10 000 functions in MC with xbmc, noway 

regarding video and audio playback, for me it's all the same, but if i don't want to play within MC i can change it to something else under options..

Lasse_Lus, what you and MrHaugen both said does not take away from the fact that they are both media centers both have MC at the end of there names - correct.  Now both of you may be developers of some sort - or maybe not.  However, cominimg from a pure end users point of view.  I'm not really concerned with what goes on in the back end.  I just want my media center to work.  

MrHaugen said "XBMC is a Media Center, and that's it. It shines where MC have the biggest weaknesses: Presenting Series and Video in a intuitive and beautiful way"  That is what I said - correct?  you can also say that JR shines where XBMC is the weakest and that's audio.  Both have there strengths - but both are media centers non the less.

Lesse_Lus said "regarding video and audio playback, for me it's all the same"  That's fine for you.  However, audio is a very important aspect for lots of people and they are very different in many, many ways.  

MrHaugen you said "They tend to go for the shiny and nice looking things, and don't care that much if the functions underneath the hood is not that great, as long as..... here comes the famous Apple line..... "it just works" "  Huh? really?  That's what makes XBMC soooo good for video is under the hood..  They make all the moving parts work and work great.  You said yourself "they shine in video".

I myself run XBMC (Video only) on two different Windows desktops - why?  Because I can build them to my liking.  I also run JR (audio only) on two different and separate (laptops) - why?  Because I want the best sound possible and having JR on my XBMC machines would just be to loud - (lots of fans).  

So what goes on in the back end does not matter to the end user.  As long as we get the quality playback that we desire being it be audio or video.

[JimH]

if i remember correctly, Jim once said it was like an OS

I did.  At one time, we owned Esix, a version of UNIX that was used by Intel to make chips.  MC is at least as deep.

Here's a list of the components that make up MC:

Components of JRiver Media Center
Copyright, 2009 - 2011

GENERAL

Full 32 Bit Datapath Player
Comprehensive Codec Support
ASIO Support
Custom High Capacity Database - Extensible
DSP
Audio Analysis
Audio Recording
Photo Editing
Audio Editing
Rename and Move from Properties
Shell Integration
3D Graphics
Flick Gesture Control
Scheduler
Zoom, Pan, Drag, Ken Burns
Thumbnailing
Audio Conversion
Video Conversion
Link Management
Favorites
Smartlists
Display on Multiple Screens
Zoned Playback
Auto-Import
Translation System


CD & DVD
CD Ripping
CD Burning
DVD Ripping
DVD Burning
CD Labeler


VIDEO AND TV
TV Support, Including HD
TV Recording
TV Time-shifting
TV Streaming (Mach)
TV EPG (Electronic Program Guide)
On Screen Display (OSD)
DirectShow Support
Realtime Video Compression
Support for Third Party Players by Filetype


DEVICES
Handheld Management
Camera Management
Sync to Cell Phone
Phone as Camera
Phone as Handheld
Portable Device Table
Conversion Cache


PLAYER CONTROLS & SERVERS
PC to PC Playback
PC to PC Control
Tivo Server
UPnP Server
Movie and Music Server
Library Server
DLNA Server, Renderer, and Controller
Media Server
Ten Foot Interface
Browser Control of Player
Remote Playback
Rest/WebService Interface
IR Learning and Transmitting


REMOTE CONTROL
Media Center Remote
Tremote (graphical)
Gizmo for Android
WebRemote for iPhone and browser based devices


WEB CONNECTED
Netflix
YouTube
Hulu
Facebook upload
Flickr upload
Pix01 upload
Gallery upload
Shoutcast
Last.fm
Gracenote
FreeDB
AMG
MediaNet
MediaNet
Amazon Unbox
Amazon MP3
Audible
Ad Insertion
Demographic Association
Playback in browser (similar to Flash)
Podcast Support
Personal Broadcasting
Link Bar metadata


CUSTOMIZATION
Custom Feature Set
Custom Services
Custom Naming
Custom Install
Usage Reporting
Service SDK



SERVERS
CD metadata
DVD metadata
Track metadata
Cover art metadata
Voting system for metadata
License Server
Forum
Wiki




DEVELOPER TOOLS

Command Line Interface
Automation Interface
Core Commands
Expression Language
Mini View Skinning
Standard View Skinning
Theater View Skinning
Track Info template SDK
Media Center Plug-ins


OTHER
Installer
Logging
Encoding
Browser as a control, with hooks
Native Drawing
Skinning Engine
Visualization Engine
Update System
Package Install System
Language System
Recommendation System
Portable Install for USB drives
WM DRM
JRiver DRM
E-commerce
License Management
WebMedia Recording

[jkemers]

It's in impressive list. I really loved MC, and I miss it now on OSX.

JRiver has the best audio and photo library management, I have seen.
Plex is good for video, but absolutely useless on Music and so so on Photo.

Some of you were recommending to put W7 on Mac.
First, I don't find it very useful.
Second, the reason why I stopped using MC15 was no compatibility with Apple Lossless Format. MC15 can play these files with difficulties, and doesn't read from them the cover art. So, even if I would put MC on Mac Mini, and it wouldn't work anyway.

[MrHaugen]

Why not convert it to something that really works, like flac?

[JimH]

... no compatibility with Apple Lossless Format. MC15 can play these files with difficulties, and doesn't read from them the cover art.

MC16 has native support for Apple formats now.

[Frobozz]

Why not convert it to something that really works, like flac?

FLAC don't work on a Mac very well. 

The better Apple format support in MC16 is going to be a great feature for folks who swing with both Mac and Windows.

[MrHaugen]

MrHaugen said "XBMC is a Media Center, and that's it. It shines where MC have the biggest weaknesses: Presenting Series and Video in a intuitive and beautiful way"  That is what I said - correct?  you can also say that JR shines where XBMC is the weakest and that's audio.  Both have there strengths - but both are media centers non the less.

Of-course. I just answered another question.

MrHaugen you said "They tend to go for the shiny and nice looking things, and don't care that much if the functions underneath the hood is not that great, as long as..... here comes the famous Apple line..... "it just works" "  Huh? really?  That's what makes XBMC soooo good for video is under the hood..  They make all the moving parts work and work great.  You said yourself "they shine in video".

I did. Overall it might be a tiny exaggeration, but it's not so far from the truth though.
They have nailed video. No question about that. If it's under the hood or above makes little difference. I think it sets a good bar for other Media Centers to reach for when it comes to video.

I was only really speaking of the lack of good customization and countless functions that MC has. Nobody gets close.

So what goes on in the back end does not matter to the end user.  As long as we get the quality playback that we desire being it be audio or video.

If you talk about quality of video playback, then I think we're on two different sides here. There is almost no limits to what MC can do on the playback side of videos. XBMC is, from my experience, not so flexible. If you want to get the best out of your HD or SF media, MC is able to wrestle with the best. There has been A LOT of improvements here the last 2-4 versions.

The only place XBMC beats MC is when it comes to video presentation. Not playback.

[preproman]

XBMC is, from my experience, not so flexible.

The only place XBMC beats MC is when it comes to video presentation. Not playback.

MrHaugen,

I think we agree on more things than it seems.  I have a few questions though.  Please explain what you mean by XBMC is not so flexible?  Also please explain the difference between presentation and playback - are we are talking about the ability to play Full HD 1080p) while decoding Trued and DTS-MA with out stutter, pauses and dropouts?

Now we are talking about all video right?  TV shows, Movies, Plug ins like netflicks and YouTube.

I must admit I have not ventured into the video portion of MC.  I may need a little help there to get started. 

Is there a getting started video wiki?

[Lasse_Lus]

Prepoman, you may have a look @ this http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=62727.0
madvr.. i don't have the knowledge or hardware for it but there has been a lot of happy "video people" when this was added to MC

[MrHaugen]

I think we agree on more things than it seems.  I have a few questions though.  Please explain what you mean by XBMC is not so flexible?  Also please explain the difference between presentation and playback - are we are talking about the ability to play Full HD 1080p) while decoding Trued and DTS-MA with out stutter, pauses and dropouts?
ed. 

Is there a getting started video wiki?

Yes. Check out the wiki for more video info. There is not well described setup guides there I think. But you'll get a better understanding of the underlaying possibilities. If you have problems, just write a post, and I'll sure that some will help you out with detailed instructions

When I talk about playback I talk about the stutter free pixel perfect decoding I aim at. When I mention presentation, I talk about the user interface and the information shown for the videos and series. There is a huge difference.

2-3 Years ago when I checked out XBMC the options for video was very few. There is a good reason. XBMC only have a Theater View, if I recall right.  To have 1000 different options there would be a no go. If you check out the Video options and File Types option for MC you'll see that the combinations of Source Filters, Other filters, renderers is almost endlessly. You can configure all of this to suite your taste, together with a bunch of other options like Aspect ratios, external playback, bitrate monitors and reclock, subtitle options, cropping, different video renderers and so on and so forth. Some of the absolute best filters, splitters and renderers like madvr are now available to us. I used to use Zoom Player because of all the options and all the customizations you could do to your setup. But MC almost have the same options now, and it sure was enough for me to drop that standalone player.

Only thing I'm dreaming of now, is a way to present my medium video collection in the best possible way (ie Presentation). I do think that J Rivers have some plans for the future though.

[preproman]

2-3 Years ago when I checked out XBMC the options for video was very few.

WOW 2-3 years ago by our definition now is a very long time ago.  It's free, check it out. As I will do with JR and lets give our fair and unbiased opinions.

[JimH]

New topic here:
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=63475.0

Closing this one.

[JimH]

New Mac board here:
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?board=31.0