Rockbox Development > New Ports
Rockbox Player - Project to design and build a Free/Open hardware audio player
Llorean:
No offense, but saying "I just want to ban any more grumbles about the LCD" doesn't magically make the LCD a good one. We suggested from the beginning that he consider a larger one.
The problem is that he's chosen an LCD that not only looks bad in comparison to more modern LCDs, but is quite low resolution and makes several of the features (the option to choose large fonts to help poor eyesight, the option to theme the UI, games and video playback) of Rockbox difficult or pointless on this player.
There are thousands of LCD screens out there. But he was uninterested in the suggested minimum requirements. The reasoning he gave originally wasn't "this one is easiest to learn." It was "I think this player should only be for music."
If you're making something that you intend to sell, you need to consider not just what you want it to do, but what things you can add that greatly increase the potential user base for the smallest costs. His prototype, for example, has a significant amount more RAM than a flash based player needs. If it's still 64MB as the page I last read said, it's actually more than an HD based player needs too. Money could be saved there.
No amount of "just getting on with it" changes the fact that you intend to market the player, and so should consider feedback on what seems "bad" about it from potential customers who could be giving you money in the future, rather than telling them "forget it guys, if you aren't going to tell me what part to use instead, I don't want your money."
It's not a case of simple grumbling about the screen and not offering alternatives. It's a case of a product being designed "to run Rockbox" that is intentionally attempting to cripple the functionality and benefits of having Rockbox on a player.
Not to mention, it costs money and time to swap out parts and redesign. Whether or not the LCD is to be replaced should be decided at the earliest possible moment, so that integration of it can happen sooner rather than possibly delaying the project at the later stages. Especially if people are already considering production of the player, and may not be aware the impact the LCD may have on what Rockbox can really offer.
casainho:
Here is one video, showing the firmware running. Also is show the debug session and bootloader.
http://blip.tv/file/get/Jpcasainho-RockboxPlayerLittlePrototype032008556.ogg
notlistening:
I take all your points and agree with what your saying. I have come in half way through and started helping out, so i hold my hands up and say sorry.
The most important point that has been raised here is that we are making a prototype of something that people will not want. That is clear from the lack of support given at the moment form the rockbox core.
Can we redefine what is wanted and how. This should come from rockbox without any other considerations and comes from the guys who know their stuff. A crucial point to the sucess of this project is your support and backing. So a discussion on the hardware requirements of a player that incorportates all of the rockbox strengths is essential. As you have said it is important to start off the right way and it is very clear that we have not done that. So I think that we should listen very carefully to what you have to say. Please all who have something to say please say it.
I think for the current project there is no harm in moving forward as proof of concept, as a demo unit and so i can learn and be semi competent when it comes to taking on the next stage.
I take your point on and think that listening to the hardware and software guys to come up with something special that your going to be proud to own will make the difference.
If we can get something on paper that sounds good and that the majority of people agree on then we can begin to move forward.
Is what we have so far unrecoverable? Are the guts of the current prototype not suitable? If we are aiming to create our own unit can the memory sizes etc not be customised to out needs in the future?
I think that it is also important to realise my reasons for doing this project. I am registered blind, i hate the face that any specialist unit for the blind is stupidly expensive. I do not like apple, I love what rockbox has to offer. I want the disabled to be able to buy a rockbox player, rather than have to buy another players and all the problems that come along with adding rockbox to it.
Tom
Rockbox:
Once you get around to selling or distributing the player, we think it would make sense if the player had a name that distinguished it from the Rockbox project as something supplied and created by others. An idea could be to choose a name like "The Little Player, running Rockbox." This would help the consumer know that it's not something provided by the Rockbox project itself, and that problems they have relating to the manufacturing and hardware should be taken to the provider and not us.
As a project we don't want to seem to endorse any one player as "the" home brew player. The name "The Rockbox Player" could create confusion around whether the player belongs to Rockbox or is simply a player that runs Rockbox. We'd ask that you name it something that doesn't have the word "Rockbox" as part of the actual player's name, so that it's clear to people that it's a separate project that runs Rockbox as a primary operating system rather than as a product created by the Rockbox project. We'd like to keep Rockbox itself as a software project that avoids endorsing any specific player or players as "the" Rockbox player. Doing this could allow you to make it clear this is a separate project (possibly of wider interest to others since other firmwares could be run on it or developed for it) that is capable of running Rockbox well, rather than being an extension of Rockbox itself.
-The Rockbox Steering Board
casainho:
--- Quote from: Rockbox on March 07, 2009, 02:22:15 PM ---Once you get around to selling or distributing the player, we think it would make sense if the player had a name that distinguished it from the Rockbox project as something supplied and created by others. An idea could be to choose a name like "The Little Player, running Rockbox." This would help the consumer know that it's not something provided by the Rockbox project itself, and that problems they have relating to the manufacturing and hardware should be taken to the provider and not us.
As a project we don't want to seem to endorse any one player as "the" home brew player. The name "The Rockbox Player" could create confusion around whether the player belongs to Rockbox or is simply a player that runs Rockbox. We'd ask that you name it something that doesn't have the word "Rockbox" as part of the actual player's name, so that it's clear to people that it's a separate project that runs Rockbox as a primary operating system rather than as a product created by the Rockbox project. We'd like to keep Rockbox itself as a software project that avoids endorsing any specific player or players as "the" Rockbox player. Doing this could allow you to make it clear this is a separate project (possibly of wider interest to others since other firmwares could be run on it or developed for it) that is capable of running Rockbox well, rather than being an extension of Rockbox itself.
-The Rockbox Steering Board
--- End quote ---
Ok :-) -- we are far from selling and distribute it. Right now I just want to finish the audio to have it working and them I will rename all the files on the patch, before commit it to Rockbox tracker.
I remember that some old developer told about the "Orpheus" name, as it were one possibility for actual Rockbox. I will tell to another developers and we will choose a new name.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version