Please do not make a streamer (long read)
Posted by: bhaagensen on 18 January 2010
Recently I asked for a minor feature to be added to the forum functionality, to which a reply was something like: "Do you prefer Naim to spend their time twiddling with forum software, or make great hi-fi".
I paraphase: "Do you prefer Naim to spend their time: battling ethernet shortcomings, keeping up with fast changing computing technology, hassling with service providers (that come and go while randomly changing API's), Internet-related stability issues, microwave interference, large software-projects, multi-media protocols, battling with compatibility, interface issues, legacy hardware issues, chasing tails in a domain where they have no control, etc... or... making great hi-fi?"
Because IMO this is the immediate consequence of the demand for a streamer. A "streamer" sounds benign and doable in a few months. But looking to the details one realises that people are also asking for Internet radio, gapless playback, support for streaming services such as Spotify, Rhapsody, Pandora, Last.fm, fancy graphical interfaces, iPhone compatibility, networked remote controls, multi-device synchronisation, and I suppose the list is never ending. And the number of points of failure grows exponentially - all of which must be handled. While us forum-farts with e.g. NAC52's and LP12's may say 'no', I just want A and B, finé. I doubt this weighs much in the long run. The Uniqute proves that Naim sees the necessity of broadening the customer-base to include the kind of users that will take such functionality for granted. Which means that even more work must go into ensuring the software caters for those as well as us.
The streamer-project would never catch up. Functionally they would always be measured against what others can do. And here the competition is tough. Sonos and Logitech (Squeezebox) are years ahead. Apple is most certainly in the game, albeit a bit behind by some measures. But they have enormous reserves by my guess. And there are lots of other players from the established (computer) hardware and software industry. And the worst thing is that as long as Naim are lagging behind, they will be under a negative pressure to "get the new version of the software done". Look at the HDX and Uniti. And they will be lagging, because this is a fast moving area where the pace is set by the fastest in a metric not necessarily compatible with quality as understood by Naim.
If they could buy a finished protocol solution like an ethernet chip and call it a day, I would agree. But they can't. There are no standards (sufficient for the desired functionality). They have to do all the hard work themselves only to realise that despite there being no standards, they still have to be somewhat compatible in order to avoid even more hassle. But compatible with what. Well, with whatever the fastest moving (which ain't gonna be Naim) decides.
In all seriousness. I'm not intending to coat things in black; don't take the subj. line literary. Rather I hope this conveys some realism. I have no clue as to what resources Naim have. If they have some good master-plan, cool! I just hope that they are cautious, because its a whole different game than making high quality hi-fi. Personally I would be perfectly happy to keep my Squeezebox system as a streamer. Or use a Mac-mini, or... Actually I'd rather call them content-mediators - to emphasise what they really are becoming. Is Naim a multimedia content company, a hi-fi company, or both?
If you made it here, thanks for reading my personal view on this.
Bjørn
I paraphase: "Do you prefer Naim to spend their time: battling ethernet shortcomings, keeping up with fast changing computing technology, hassling with service providers (that come and go while randomly changing API's), Internet-related stability issues, microwave interference, large software-projects, multi-media protocols, battling with compatibility, interface issues, legacy hardware issues, chasing tails in a domain where they have no control, etc... or... making great hi-fi?"
Because IMO this is the immediate consequence of the demand for a streamer. A "streamer" sounds benign and doable in a few months. But looking to the details one realises that people are also asking for Internet radio, gapless playback, support for streaming services such as Spotify, Rhapsody, Pandora, Last.fm, fancy graphical interfaces, iPhone compatibility, networked remote controls, multi-device synchronisation, and I suppose the list is never ending. And the number of points of failure grows exponentially - all of which must be handled. While us forum-farts with e.g. NAC52's and LP12's may say 'no', I just want A and B, finé. I doubt this weighs much in the long run. The Uniqute proves that Naim sees the necessity of broadening the customer-base to include the kind of users that will take such functionality for granted. Which means that even more work must go into ensuring the software caters for those as well as us.
The streamer-project would never catch up. Functionally they would always be measured against what others can do. And here the competition is tough. Sonos and Logitech (Squeezebox) are years ahead. Apple is most certainly in the game, albeit a bit behind by some measures. But they have enormous reserves by my guess. And there are lots of other players from the established (computer) hardware and software industry. And the worst thing is that as long as Naim are lagging behind, they will be under a negative pressure to "get the new version of the software done". Look at the HDX and Uniti. And they will be lagging, because this is a fast moving area where the pace is set by the fastest in a metric not necessarily compatible with quality as understood by Naim.
If they could buy a finished protocol solution like an ethernet chip and call it a day, I would agree. But they can't. There are no standards (sufficient for the desired functionality). They have to do all the hard work themselves only to realise that despite there being no standards, they still have to be somewhat compatible in order to avoid even more hassle. But compatible with what. Well, with whatever the fastest moving (which ain't gonna be Naim) decides.
In all seriousness. I'm not intending to coat things in black; don't take the subj. line literary. Rather I hope this conveys some realism. I have no clue as to what resources Naim have. If they have some good master-plan, cool! I just hope that they are cautious, because its a whole different game than making high quality hi-fi. Personally I would be perfectly happy to keep my Squeezebox system as a streamer. Or use a Mac-mini, or... Actually I'd rather call them content-mediators - to emphasise what they really are becoming. Is Naim a multimedia content company, a hi-fi company, or both?
If you made it here, thanks for reading my personal view on this.
Bjørn
David, indeed interesting although I do feel the need to comment on a few of your points. Like pcstockton I too shall use it asap - bear in mind I'm in Denmark 
I don't think anybody has it down, if by that you mean, found a lasting solution. At some point - when usable standards begin to appear - I believe even Sonos and Squeezebox are going to face major refactoring of their current systems as to become compliant to those standards. Currently their systems works very well on their own, and to a limited extent with other systems. The former as well as the latter constitute a major software engineering effort - the question is how tightly coupled Naim should be to this evolutionary process. Especially since IMO, there is a very good place to consider stopping - the DAC.
Whether or not it is open-source is mostly an orthogonal issue. Although I personally could argue that the open-source - or some variation of it - is the superior platform.
I also need to comment on the statements in parenthesis as I believe they are not entierly correct. Logitech is by and large not proprietary - in fact the software for the upcoming Squeezebox Touch (and hence Radio and Controller) has just been amended under the BSD-license. The server is GNU I believe - although there are some problems legal subtleties as it is distributed with a set of firmwares in binary format. Logitech does not use UPnP to communicate with neither their own, nor external devices. They use an in-house TCP-like protocol. As for external devices the support is only rudimentary streaming over http.
As I said in a previous post I know little details about Naimnet/Streamnet/DigiLinx. However I agree that Naim's approach with respect to integrated ripping/storage does have its positive merits. Streamnet/DigiLinx also looks to be promising as far as internal functionality goes. However in interfacing with general Internet-based services I could not find much - and this is going to be the major point of interest to the greater CE space. The problem around disc-ripping (of newly purchased material) is likely to become marginalised within forseeable future (cf. eg. Linn) as downloads becomes even more used.
Seeing the HDX is based on this platform I am also uncertain as to how well it is actually going to work with Naim? (Streamnet can provide hardware themselves). IMO UPnP is far to rudimentary as a consumer standard as it is clearly insufficient for obtaining the features requested by consumers.
Anyway, I think this whole discussion reflects well that it is a challenging area - and its going to require much to keep up. I hope Naim will maintain standards wrt. their present core strengths.
quote:Originally posted by David Dever:
Not sure the major players have this down pat, either.
Firstly–all technology is driven by video and gaming products in the larger CE space–the DLNA initiative has fallen flat on its face due to the issues regarding overall compatibility of renderers, control points and media servers, such that the funding for development from major CE retail chains intended to bring UPnP streaming of video and audio to the next level has evaporated. This leaves the specialty channel to develop new standards and extensions on their own, not from a open-source perspective (as many naively believe) but from within proprietary agglutinations of features and standards (witness the fact that Sonos and Logitech products are not considered to be interoperable between themselves, even though they both use UPnP as the basis for their proprietary communication with other devices).
I don't think anybody has it down, if by that you mean, found a lasting solution. At some point - when usable standards begin to appear - I believe even Sonos and Squeezebox are going to face major refactoring of their current systems as to become compliant to those standards. Currently their systems works very well on their own, and to a limited extent with other systems. The former as well as the latter constitute a major software engineering effort - the question is how tightly coupled Naim should be to this evolutionary process. Especially since IMO, there is a very good place to consider stopping - the DAC.
Whether or not it is open-source is mostly an orthogonal issue. Although I personally could argue that the open-source - or some variation of it - is the superior platform.
I also need to comment on the statements in parenthesis as I believe they are not entierly correct. Logitech is by and large not proprietary - in fact the software for the upcoming Squeezebox Touch (and hence Radio and Controller) has just been amended under the BSD-license. The server is GNU I believe - although there are some problems legal subtleties as it is distributed with a set of firmwares in binary format. Logitech does not use UPnP to communicate with neither their own, nor external devices. They use an in-house TCP-like protocol. As for external devices the support is only rudimentary streaming over http.
quote:Originally posted by David Dever:
I can tell you right now that the underlying software technology used by Naim (and not all of it is developed from scratch in-house, again, as many naively believe) is, in the greater CE space, exactly where it needs to be right now. Naim is now the only specialty hi-fi manufacturer that can build a complete end-to-end solution for streaming music at both the professional (StreamNet) and consumer (UPnP) levels that can be easily demonstrated without having to install data acquisition (e.g., disc ripping), media server or control point software on a PC, while maintaining the quality and performance expected from a specialist hi-fi manufacturer.
As I said in a previous post I know little details about Naimnet/Streamnet/DigiLinx. However I agree that Naim's approach with respect to integrated ripping/storage does have its positive merits. Streamnet/DigiLinx also looks to be promising as far as internal functionality goes. However in interfacing with general Internet-based services I could not find much - and this is going to be the major point of interest to the greater CE space. The problem around disc-ripping (of newly purchased material) is likely to become marginalised within forseeable future (cf. eg. Linn) as downloads becomes even more used.
Seeing the HDX is based on this platform I am also uncertain as to how well it is actually going to work with Naim? (Streamnet can provide hardware themselves). IMO UPnP is far to rudimentary as a consumer standard as it is clearly insufficient for obtaining the features requested by consumers.
Anyway, I think this whole discussion reflects well that it is a challenging area - and its going to require much to keep up. I hope Naim will maintain standards wrt. their present core strengths.