Slashdot Mirror
When Internet Radios Get Affordable
DeviceGuru writes "Grace Digital Audio has just released a new device that functions like an Internet radio tuner in a whole-house audio system and is being sold at a surprisingly affordable price point. The Solo Wi-Fi Receiver works in tandem with Reciva's Internet radio station selection web service, provides excellent Pandora support, and also supports optional Internet services such as Live365, MP3tunes, Aupeo, and Sirius. It has built-in buttons and a display for easy control, comes with a dedicated IR-remote, and is supported by a free iPhone remote access/control app. We hear a lot about the high-end Sonos gear, but at just over $100, this little gadget seems like a breakthrough in cost-effective Internet radio, much as the Roku Netflix player broke ground in low-cost Internet video streaming."
You can always make your own
It works great, only $75
An Ipod Touch can receive Internet radio through various apps, and it can fulfill many other functions as well. Why bother buying these one-purpose devices that usually cost almost as much, if not more than an 8GB Ipod Touch? There are probably smartphones (including the iPhone) that can do it, as well.
How is a pricepoint different than a price.
It's harder to sound like a douchebag if you only say price.
I've got to admit that I get a lot of use out of iHeart Radio.
I still won't pay for radio, though. I buy a lot of music that I hear on radio, so I figure it's a good enough promotional mechanism for music that it should be free. As far as "talk" radio, no thanks. I don't need any more voices in my head telling me what to think. I'm happy with the occasional podcast (some of which I'll subscribe to, such as Red Ice Radio from Sweden or Mysterious Universe from Australia).
The player or "internet radio" is a different matter though. I don't see why it should ever cost more than a regular radio plus a $10 wireless adapter. And I'll either plug it into my existing speakers or a pair of headphones. I guess I'm old fashioned but listening to radio via 3G feels wrong, like why should I take up bandwidth to hear music that I can get otherwise. I know it doesn't make sense because iPhone and iPad users don't seem to worry about it, but that's the kind of hairpin I am.
And, depending upon where I'm at, the "regular" radio is plenty good for me. Like if I'm near Monterrey, CA, there's a great station that plays Hawaiian music 24/7 and in New York there's a half-dozen stations that play great rock, jazz or classical music with minimal commercials. Things have been a little rougher here in Chicago ever since the public station WBEZ stopped playing jazz all night. Still, there's enough good stuff on there that I keep my car radio glued there just like the middle eastern cabdrivers. When I walk the dog, I take the mp3 player, which has an FM radio. Except for sports, AM radio is a total waste of the spectrum. Everybody is hollering about how Obama is black and doesn't have a birth certificate or how the mexicans are taking over, interspersed with commercials for erectile dysfunction (which leads me to believe that conservativism and E.D. go together somehow, though it seems they don't have any trouble getting it up for their 18 year-old rentboys).
One more thing that I like radio for is sports. For some reason, probably dating back to my childhood, I'd rather listen to a White Sox game on the radio than watch it on TV. With a good announcer (like Bob Elston when I was a kid and Ed Farmer now), my brain does a better job of creating the visuals than television cameras ever could. Oh, I also like the Bears and Blackhawks on WGN. The announcers are all homers, just like it should be. I don't listen to the Cubs, ever, because they suck dick and anyone who likes them sucks dick (you can look it up).
You are welcome on my lawn.
I'm not really seeing the market for this.
That's because you are a tech weenie. For you, going to websites and downloading software patches comes as naturally as hair dye comes to a platinum blonde. But the truth is, downloading patches and setting up handler applications and all the other stuff that you have to do is... HARD for most people!
As a software engineer, I find over and over again that "possible" isn't the same as "easy" or "automatic" or even "useful".
Some years ago, I wrote a tool to keep paperwork in electronic format, at a tremendous savings to our client organizations. My first attempt was usable, but required significant training, and we got a few nibbles. My next revision was better, and we got some strong interest from previously cool clients. My most current revision is drop-dead simple to use, needing little more than a button click, and customers are practically lining up.
It can be very hard to do, but easy is, for most people, the difference between doable and not worth the bother. I've many times wanted to listen to KGO radio in San Francisco. I can sorta get it with an AM radio, but it's static-y and unpleasant. I can stream it online, but to do this, I have to get a big, relatively expensive computer, plug it into the Internet, turn it on, load the browser, go to the website, and click to start, then plug the speaker jack into my stereo.
So I end up with a pile of wires, and a laptop that likes to fall asleep every few hours of listening while burning about 60 watts. Ouch!
If only I could just hit the power switch, and then turn a knob to the "KGO" station... ? I'd be pretty likely to buy something like this.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Well, I have an HTPC, but still I recently built and installed a DIY-version of the Squeezebox. Why? Because for listening to music an HTPC is a bit impractical (need to switch on TV, HTPC and Amp) and overkill (That's a full fledged PC used exclusively to play a dinky little FLAC/MP3). Also, it's nice to have an internet radio/alarm clock in your bedroom, or be able to distribute music throughout your home.
He who laughs last, thinks slowest.