Support and General Use > Hardware

why porting ? kinda waste of time and just have fun only

(1/5) > >>

powerpan:
it's easy to make a good hardware using ROCKBOX, and with very good sound quality, why bother porting to different platform?

for fun, rockbox does not support network, and could not beat smart mobiles
for sound quality, a lot far away from professional equipment

why not just make it a professional combo software/hardware ?

bluebrother:
I'm not sure what you're trying to discuss here.

There was a project some time back that tried to create a hardware to run Rockbox on. It seems to be dead these days. See http://sourceforge.net/projects/lyre/

Creating custom hardware to run Rockbox on is a lot of work, and it's almost impossible to get it into a mechanical state mass production hardware (i.e. cheapish players Rockbox supports like the Sandisk ones) reaches. Unless you're a company big enough to have the money getting things developed / produced / sold.

Besides, from my point of view Rockbox itself is fading -- people have smartphones these days that can do music playback good enough, so there is no need to carry another device around anymore. At least for most people.

powerpan:
sonos is hot sale.
we have this kind of hardware. the reason to compare with smartphones is:
1. turnkey with good enough sound quality that could easily beat smartphones in seconds.
2. more format supported like SACD ISO/DFF, also DVDAUDIO ISO
3. could put more function in it like UPNP/AIRPLAY.
......

that's all.

rockbox is fading is because it doesn't  support network and could not be easily be DIY.

compared with open source 2440 project, it could not output high enough sound quality music cause it just supports 16bit output and hard for developed countries DIYers to make a specified hardware.

[Saint]:
If anyone was even vaguely interested in monetizing Rockbox, it would've been done well over a decade ago (but...no one is stopping anyone else from forking the project and trying to do so).

This is a hobby project, nothing more.

The Lyre project failed, frankly, because it was ridiculous.

The idea is fine if one or two people want to spend a ridiculous amount of money printing their own PCBs and cases and end up with a product that costs easily twice as much (if not substantially more), and is three times bigger than, a mass produced offering from another company that is more suited to the task.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but, people haven't stopped using digital audio players (yet), and as long as they keep doing so and the manufacturers of such players keep on making reasonable quality hardware with crappy firmware - Rockbox will always have a niche. In saying that, however, Rockbox was never really meant for the public. No effort goes into marketing it whatsoever. If people find it and use it, great. If they don't, that's fine too.


[Saint]

saratoga:
There's already an enormously popular open source media player is with networking support that runs on low cost arm devices: Android.

If you want to port something to a network device you should absolutely use that. Adding network support to rockbox would make very little sense when you could just use Android.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page