Rockbox General > Rockbox General Discussion
Rockbox future strategy
wodz:
--- Quote from: gomezz on November 03, 2016, 08:33:33 AM ---Is there scope for a Rockbox app to on people's smartphones, tablets etc given that non of the available player apps hold a candle to it?
--- End quote ---
Maybe. Android port proved that the only technically feasible option would be to turn part of rockbox into library and then build player app using native UI widgets and rockboxlib as backend. There are a few problems however. First is where to draw the line what should be in lib and whats not. Second is the lack of skilled developers who would like to work on this. Third is the existence of other playback libs which one may use to write decent player app.
ethanay:
Thanks for the discussion. I think this is worth digging deeper into:
--- Quote from: wodz on November 03, 2016, 02:13:40 AM ---There are 2 things which are killing rockbox:
1) smartphones as the way people listen music nowadays.
2) smartphones as suckers of development force.
Creating open hardware DAP is simply not a viable option. While it is quite easy to create electronic part of the DAP from on-the-shelf components, mechanical part is really huge investment (not taken into account effort to port rockbox to new platform). Please read how divergent are expectation for new DAP in AGPtek thread.
--- End quote ---
In design process we get it hammered into us to clearly separate observation vs interpretation (this is really helpful in every aspect of life, esp. relationships...and also really freaking difficult). In Wodz' statement (and Chibisteven's followup) I can see the following observations:
Convergence is occurring
Rockbox and the PMP hardware niche in general is struggling
It is currently popular for people to use their smart phones as their PMP
[I would also add that the whole "spotify" model is challenging the concept of a personal music library upon which pmp's have been traditionally based]
The market niche for purpose-built PMPs is contracting and restructuring
I also observe the following interpretations:
The market is nearly-completely saturated and tapped
The existence of smart phones and convergence dooms purpose-built hardware
Here's another general trend that is related to all this: Purpose-built vs generalist hardware.
Purpose-built hardware and product design will almost always outperform generalist hardware any day, but only for specific niches. Case in point: Leatherman will never put Vaughan tools out of business with a hammer multi-tool design, but only because Vaughan knows and has a well-developed niche. An android phone is a leatherman. Most people will opt for a leatherman. But there's always going to be a need for a hammer. A purpose-built PMP is, likewise, a specialized tool like a hammer. I think we can assume there's always going to be a need for it.
Likewise a smart phone does not kill off the tablet does not kill off the laptop does not kill off the desktop. They are simply getting "refined" for their special market niches. A desktop is now a more specialized market niche than it used to be. And there are always untapped and emerging markets.
I want to push back on that interpretation that smart phones doom rockbox to extinction. We've seen that argument over and over again. What I've observed happens is one of three things in the context of convergence, emerging technologies and contracting/shifting market niches:
1. An industry or model "sticks to its guns" but refocuses its niche and strategic partnerships to take advantage of the new market structure. Example: Identify sources of unmet or primary demand for purpose-built PMP hardware and target them directly and mainly, even in strategic partnerships to better meet their (unmet?) needs.
2. An industry or model shifts to follow the market trends and try to keep its current market share. Example: Port rockbox to android app.
3. An industry or model fails to adapt and it collapses and maybe disappears.
So the question becomes: Does rockbox want to continue? And if so, what strategy do we want to apply?
pamaury:
Hi,
I think you missed a very (maybe the most) important point in wodz's post. If you read this post:
http://forums.rockbox.org/index.php/topic,51071.0.html
and observe the current trend, you will see that basically:
* the number of people that want something that is not a smartphone is small
* each of these people seems to want a different DAPThus it may be the case that for every one, there exists a purpose-built DAP than outperms smartphone, but this particular device might be worse that smartphone for all the others. My point is that you can't possibly build a different device for everyone (at least not currently) because it is too expensive. This explains why at the moment we are mostly left with smartphone and expensive DAPs.
Now that being said, I am ready to make a wild guess: headphones are going to kill DAP. Consider the question: why would you buy a DAP? If you really care about audio quality, smartphone have you covered unless you use a very good DAP and a good amplifier. The latter implies carrying a heavy box along your DAP. On the long run, I think DACs will move from DAPs to amplifiers that are either connected wirelessly or by usb/thunderbolt/coaxial (ie digitally). Then it does not matter what sound quality your device provides and smartphone is better/cheaper. Apple is betting on the end of the jack, so this is completely unlikely. On the other hand, if you don't care about audio quality, buy a smartphone: it's cheaper and does more stuff. What about people that matter about something else (physical buttons, small size) ? Well that's even less that the number of people that buy DAPs nowadays, so same problem as before: not worth the cost unless you are ready to pay a lot for your purpose-built device.
I think it's fair to say that Rockbox on smartphones is mostly a failure so far, no one has really done the work of creating an interface from scratch. And on smartphone you can use huge/fully-featured audio libraries that probably do most of what rockbox does anyway. Surely there is room for improvement but I don't think using rockbox as a library is the sane option.
Personally I am trying porting Rockbox to whatever devices seem to be common/successful and these days it's mostly audiophile DAPs. I don't believe we can influence manufacturers so we can only port to what they create.
ethanay:
--- Quote from: pamaury on November 04, 2016, 01:17:25 PM ---Hi,
I think you missed a very (maybe the most) important point in wodz's post. If you read this post:
http://forums.rockbox.org/index.php/topic,51071.0.html
and observe the current trend, you will see that basically:
* the number of people that want something that is not a smartphone is small
* each of these people seems to want a different DAP
--- End quote ---
I appreciate you adding these points to the discussion, I did not perceive them in the discussion up to this point. Just to emphasize, it is a world of difference between *individual* consumers and *institutional* consumers (who represent many individuals under a single preference or need). Up to now, Rockbox has targeted the individual consumer market, but this focus is another potential area where Rockbox is struggling and seems unaddressed so far in the discussion. Institutional consumers (e.g., universities) still have need for education devices (e.g., for music students) and are fairly standardized in preference and needs (e.g., the needs of one music program for a student study device will closely mirror the needs for another program). I think the continued singular focus on individual consumers as a core market anymore is folly, and wonder about the institutional focus as an untapped market that could provide a core sustaining focus for Rockbox.
But on an individual level, it all seems like conjecture: how many discussions show why so many people have embraced and then abandoned DAPs generally or something like Sansa specifically? What we know is that PMPs are not being manufactured much anymore, which implies a decrease in demand, probably for a variety of reasons. And still, worldwide, even a small niche demand easily represents millions of people. So there may actually be more opportunity for Rockbox after the market contracts and collapses even more and the last fragments of random, closed-hardware and proprietary firmware competition go with it, leaving only a few niche OEMs who may see high value in leveraging FLOSS for their PMP OS. Also, the demand for different hardware aside, the demand for different type of software indicates a modular software infrastructure and interface, which Rockbox could address if demand can consolidate again.
Even if it doesn't change anything, this is an interesting discussion and I hope it helps anyone who reads it think through the lifecycle of Rockbox or other similar FLOSS phenomena.
wodz:
People switched to smartphones because a) they have it and are carrying it already b) smartphones are good enough for this purpose. Maybe c) access to online streaming services but AFAIK that strongly depends on particular market. It is simply more convenient for majority of consumers.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version