why SD is dead (or dying) - Page 2

danielkh · 05-04-2008, 01:42 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by kev000

wait wait wait just a second: open source != open standards. I should have said just "standards" instead of "open standards" to avoid the confusion. .

Neither was I. You misunderstood what I was saying. If you do have to depend on a third party (in this case, directx or WMP), you want to know that there are quality assurances that those services aren't going to do something nutty on you and render your software useless. Since Windows is the largest OS on the planet, and they must work with themselves through every release, who would you trust more for your music and video services and codecs?

By limiting your player, you limit people blaming YOUR software for problems. Perfect business decision IMHO.

jmbickham · 05-04-2008, 04:30 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by kev000

My argument is why hasn't Chevrolet, Ford, Mitsubishi, Honda, Car MFG X put streetdeck in their cars? Maybe because $200 (SD) +$170 (windows) + $400++ (for hardware) > the total ~$350 bucks it costs for Sync FOR THE COMPLETE SYSTEM.

Dude. What do you think most current OEM navigation systems run on? Linux/Unix. How much do think the automakers are making on them? Very little actually... considering how much of it is outsourced (depending on the automaker).

More to the point... why don't they use SD in their cars? Because automakers are old and slow. The automotive life cycle at best is still waaaaaay too long for the computer/technology market... namely... even if they do cutting edge today, it'll be VERY outdated by the time they roll something else out. This is something that they are working on... but it seems to be far from a priority... and probably isn't given oil prices, the squeeze on CAFE and emissions.

To take it a step further... how fast, stable, and intuitively easy to user are any current front end? No one wants an IBM iDrive fiasco. The average person wants an appliance... not desktop WindowsXP. no blue screen, no app crashing, no locking up... the list goes on. Nor do they need the flexibility either. Enthusiasts might, but the millions of current nav system users don't. This is partly why I've thought WindowsCE as it stands now, is a better OS solution. Better, easier, faster development and compatibility into the MS world... which is honestly what most people have at home and work anyway.

Danielkh makes an excellent point... limiting what and how end users can do things is extremely important.. cuts down on support calls and corporate liability. Smart business...

danielkh · 05-04-2008, 04:45 PM

And I also think you need to look at what sync is. Comparing it to SD isn't like comparing a harley to a tricycle. It's more like comparing a Harley to a refrigerator. Sync is nothing more than a software interface for connecting an ipod or bluetooth phone to your car. No big computer, no big harddrive running everything in your car. Just a phone and an ipod. There is no touchscreen on the $350 model. Just a button and a speaker. It's not what you would call even your bottom of the line car computer.

kev000 · 05-04-2008, 04:55 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by danielkh

...who would you trust more for your music and video services and codecs?

By limiting your player, you limit people blaming YOUR software for problems. Perfect business decision IMHO.

eh, I know you didn't confuse open source with open standards, another post earlier than yours did. I was just lumping my responses to everyones posts into one. My bad...

IMHO, and I seem to be alone in this, I would trust a player that I can actually see what it's doing. I'd like to believe the end user would chose a peice of software that has open access. It's amazing to me how BSD has gone so long without a major vunerability even though hackers have full access to the code. Inside the "black-box" that is MS software, I have no idea what it's actually doing. And if the player has a problem, I have to wait a long time for MS to fix it. At least I can freely patch mplayer or gstreamer and not have to wait for someone else to fix it.

To the end user, if an app you depend on has a problem, you have a problem. There's really no difference in the user's eyes.

It's smarter to abstract your code away from any specific player so if the time comes that you run into a wall, you can just write another wrapper around another player, drop it in and run.

@jmbickham: Excellent point about the slow movement of the auto industry.

danielkh · 05-04-2008, 04:57 PM

Ok, HERE is your aftermarket sync. As you can see, sync is overpriced.

http://direct.motorola.com/ens/carkits/learn-t605.html

$180 from Motorola and it is EXACTLY the same thing as sync. You might need a harness that runs about $50 to go through your HU.

danielkh · 05-04-2008, 05:00 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by kev000

Inside the "black-box" that is MS software, I have no idea what it's actually doing.

That is ABSOLUTELY the point we are trying to make! For the general population.....that's grandma and grandpa......buying the latest Ford Focus....

If they can see what it's doing, they can CHANGE what it's doing. And if you don't know what YOU are doing, you can brick your system. End of story.

Edit: Now......with that said......who has the bigger audience......the developer that locks up their software so that people can't go willy nilly all over it, but it's stable as a rock?

Or....the developer that lets EVERYONE in to do whatever they want to the code, even those that have never even SEEN code.

The best example is right here in this forum. Streetdeck is, to a large degree, locked up. However, it is open just enough for people to get themselves into a lot of trouble. Why are there so many bugs listed? I'm running the latest and greatest and I don't see any of them (ok, a little white lie, but play along. I'm going somewhere with this). Why is that? Is the program at fault? Is the developer? Take a look at every problem and see who gets blamed.

bigwh00p · 05-05-2008, 01:49 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by danielkh

Ok, HERE is your aftermarket sync. As you can see, sync is overpriced.

http://direct.motorola.com/ens/carkits/learn-t605.html

$180 from Motorola and it is EXACTLY the same thing as sync. You might need a harness that runs about $50 to go through your HU.

That's not SYNC-like at all. That's only a bluetooth hands-free kit with an Aux-in port. I would say this is more like the SYNC system that's in the Ford vehicles:

http://www.crutchfield.com/S-cal9kIT...spx?I=108DP2US

One thing though, is it's not voice-activated and you need to buy "add-ons" to get the bluetooth functionality.

johnk · 05-08-2008, 09:17 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by danielkh

That is ABSOLUTELY the point we are trying to make! For the general population.....that's grandma and grandpa......buying the latest Ford Focus....

If they can see what it's doing, they can CHANGE what it's doing. And if you don't know what YOU are doing, you can brick your system. End of story.

Edit: Now......with that said......who has the bigger audience......the developer that locks up their software so that people can't go willy nilly all over it, but it's stable as a rock?

Or....the developer that lets EVERYONE in to do whatever they want to the code, even those that have never even SEEN code.

The best example is right here in this forum. Streetdeck is, to a large degree, locked up. However, it is open just enough for people to get themselves into a lot of trouble. Why are there so many bugs listed? I'm running the latest and greatest and I don't see any of them (ok, a little white lie, but play along. I'm going somewhere with this). Why is that? Is the program at fault? Is the developer? Take a look at every problem and see who gets blamed.

If you use FLAC files, you will see plenty of bugs.

danielkh · 05-08-2008, 09:53 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by johnk

If you use FLAC files, you will see plenty of bugs.

This is going to sound like a stupid question, but I see it all over the place. What is FLAC?

Caelric · 05-08-2008, 09:58 PM

lossless compression system for digital music. Even 320 kbps mp3's lose some fidelity, and some people claim to be able to tell the difference. FLAC files are exact copies. Obviously, they take up more room.

danielkh · 05-08-2008, 10:00 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by Caelric

lossless compression system for digital music. Even 320 kbps mp3's lose some fidelity, and some people claim to be able to tell the difference. FLAC files are exact copies. Obviously, they take up more room.

Thank you! Been driving me nuts trying to figure out what that stood for. lol

kev000 · 05-08-2008, 11:31 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by johnk

If you use FLAC files, you will see plenty of bugs.

can't you just blame that on WMP?

Nola111 · 05-09-2008, 10:05 AM

Dan, FLAC = Free Lossless Audio Codec. They sound really good, take up a lot more room than an mp3/wma, and a good deal less room than a wav. Lots of common media-playing software don't support their tags, unfortunately.

@Caelric - they are not an exact copy. A true bit-for-bit exact copy is only contained in a wav or AIFF file. However, FLAC does not use compression algorithms which remove frequencies like mp3/wma does. As far as the ear can tell, it is a lossless copy of a CD, but bit-for-bit is not an exact copy, as FLAC does remove bits. Logically it can't be an exact copy at half the filesize of a .wav. For all intents and purposes though, and far as the human ear can tell, you are right, it's WAY more an exact copy than a mp3/wma is!

Wow, talk about getting off subject from the thread topic... sorry!

danielkh · 05-09-2008, 10:42 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by Nola111

Wow, talk about getting off subject from the thread topic... sorry!

Much appreciated education! Thank you very much. They'll get over the "off topic" part.

Caelric · 05-09-2008, 12:34 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by Nola111

Logically it can't be an exact copy at half the filesize of a .wav.

Well, not quite true. There are compression algorithms that compress things and yet retain an exact copy when expanded. For example, if you have 5 ones followed by 5 zeros (everything is ones and zeros...), it takes less room to state 5 ones followed by 5 zeros than it does to state 1111100000, and yet, you still have an exact copy.

Very basic, I know.

I was under the impression that FLAC was an exact copy, with that type of compression. I could be wrong. Either way, I know it is lossless, and I also know very few, if any, people have the ears to tell the difference between a FLAC copy, and an MP3 recored at 320 kpbs. All my MP3's are at 320, and I have no intention of re-recording them into FLAC's