5 ms·

It seems like your argument is against the existence of the device. I disagree. I think it's a much nicer experience than anything that involves plugging in a d

by detst 14y ago

It seems like your argument is against the existence of the device. I disagree. I think it's a much nicer experience than anything that involves plugging in a desktop computer. Although, I do think it should be priced <= $200. I was simply saying that being able to connect directly to speakers is a nice feature that doesn't come at the expense of anything else.

rdl 14y ago
Amps and power supplies are expensive. That feature is probably responsible for $100 of the $300 price. Maybe more. (the relationship between BOM, assembled cost, and retail price isn't always obvious). I'd rather have no amp for $50-100, or amp+speakers for $300-400 (in a single portable package). Volume is already going to be variable based on speakers and speaker placement, so having an outboard power amp wouldn't really hurt the user experience.
freehunter 14y ago
My argument is against the idea that 18-25 year olds would be buying this for $750 even if they don't have a large TV or a stereo system. It's significantly more expensive than an HDTV plus a discrete stereo. It's also more expensive than using the computer you already have coupled with Windows Media Center, MythTV, or the solution Apple has. Launching one program then using your bluetooth/IR remote control isn't exactly an inelegant solution. There's a market for this. The problem is, it's made nearly inconsequential by the $750 price tag for the whole kit.
- detst 14y ago
  > My argument is against the idea that 18-25 year olds would be buying this for $750 I agree but it's only $300. As I said before, I think it should be $200. > Windows Media Center, MythTV [...] using your bluetooth/IR remote control isn't exactly an inelegant solution I was using MythTV years ago, so I'm not personally disagreeing but the average person would violently disagree. You can argue for Apple's solution but that's not really my point. My point is that this thing (especially at $200) is a much better solution than anything involving a desktop computer and that directly connecting speakers is a nice feature. Additionally, look at how easy it is to play a/v from your friends' phone or tablet without any setup; it just works and doesn't require any wires. @rdl: If it really does add $100, I'd be nice to see it as an optional feature but I stand by the utility of the feature.
  - freehunter 14y ago
    I agree but it's only $300. As I said before, I think it should be $200 Unless you want the speakers and speaker cables they're selling with it, the speakers are $400 and the cables are $50 for two.

by detst 14y ago

rdl 14y ago

Amps and power supplies are expensive. That feature is probably responsible for $100 of the $300 price. Maybe more. (the relationship between BOM, assembled cost, and retail price isn't always obvious). I'd rather have no amp for $50-100, or amp+speakers for $300-400 (in a single portable package). Volume is already going to be variable based on speakers and speaker placement, so having an outboard power amp wouldn't really hurt the user experience.

freehunter 14y ago

My argument is against the idea that 18-25 year olds would be buying this for $750 even if they don't have a large TV or a stereo system. It's significantly more expensive than an HDTV plus a discrete stereo. It's also more expensive than using the computer you already have coupled with Windows Media Center, MythTV, or the solution Apple has. Launching one program then using your bluetooth/IR remote control isn't exactly an inelegant solution. There's a market for this. The problem is, it's made nearly inconsequential by the $750 price tag for the whole kit.

detst 14y ago
> My argument is against the idea that 18-25 year olds would be buying this for $750 I agree but it's only $300. As I said before, I think it should be $200. > Windows Media Center, MythTV [...] using your bluetooth/IR remote control isn't exactly an inelegant solution I was using MythTV years ago, so I'm not personally disagreeing but the average person would violently disagree. You can argue for Apple's solution but that's not really my point. My point is that this thing (especially at $200) is a much better solution than anything involving a desktop computer and that directly connecting speakers is a nice feature. Additionally, look at how easy it is to play a/v from your friends' phone or tablet without any setup; it just works and doesn't require any wires. @rdl: If it really does add $100, I'd be nice to see it as an optional feature but I stand by the utility of the feature.
- freehunter 14y ago
  I agree but it's only $300. As I said before, I think it should be $200 Unless you want the speakers and speaker cables they're selling with it, the speakers are $400 and the cables are $50 for two.