Loading Profile...
CHAMP
Follow the Unix Philosophy!
I personally think that Songbird should be built with the philosophy of Unix, which is, in a nutshell: do one thing and do it well.
If Songbird is built into a stripped down media web player with limitless customize-ability that would be perfect. Everyone would be able to have their own personalized music player, they'd all be songbird but it would be Your songbird. On top of that the developers at POTI wouldn't have to worry about huge feature lists.
The goal should be to build the best possible foundation. Build a rock solid base for all the other (non-necessary) features that users want. After that you'd just need to build add-ons that give that added functionality to the player.I don't want a media web player that does everything, I want a media web player that CAN do everything.
Take iTunes for example, it is a fully loaded media player. It does everything: movies, got it, music, definitely, pictures, not really but it can put them on your iPod, Podcasts, oh yeah, audiobooks, sure. On top of that iTunes has all kinds of media views and features that you likely won't use. But what is the cost? iTunes is bloated, it is does everything but it is a system resources monster.And every release gets slower. I don't want songbird to become the open source iTunes, it should be better.
The goal feature list for the program itself should be quite short:
Any features beyond these are just extras, you don't really need 12 media views or Last.FM support or even concert ticket information, these sort of things, and really anything not on the list above should be an add-on not a nice core feature.
Unix it, baby!
If Songbird is built into a stripped down media web player with limitless customize-ability that would be perfect. Everyone would be able to have their own personalized music player, they'd all be songbird but it would be Your songbird. On top of that the developers at POTI wouldn't have to worry about huge feature lists.
The goal should be to build the best possible foundation. Build a rock solid base for all the other (non-necessary) features that users want. After that you'd just need to build add-ons that give that added functionality to the player.I don't want a media web player that does everything, I want a media web player that CAN do everything.
Take iTunes for example, it is a fully loaded media player. It does everything: movies, got it, music, definitely, pictures, not really but it can put them on your iPod, Podcasts, oh yeah, audiobooks, sure. On top of that iTunes has all kinds of media views and features that you likely won't use. But what is the cost? iTunes is bloated, it is does everything but it is a system resources monster.And every release gets slower. I don't want songbird to become the open source iTunes, it should be better.
The goal feature list for the program itself should be quite short:
- Audio Playback
- Video Playback
- Music Library Management (Includes metadata stuff, album art management, etc.)
- Video Library Management and all the things that entails
- Mad customization skills (this includes everything to an extensible media core, feathers, extensions, and whatever other aspects of Songbird that can be customized)
- Media Web playing
- MTP (and other devices) support
- Web Browsing
- Stability
- Stability
- Stability
Any features beyond these are just extras, you don't really need 12 media views or Last.FM support or even concert ticket information, these sort of things, and really anything not on the list above should be an add-on not a nice core feature.
Unix it, baby!
I’m excited
37
people like this idea
I like this idea!
Tell me when this idea gets some attention.
The more people who like this idea, the more it gets noticed.
The more people who like this idea, the more it gets noticed.
-
Inappropriate?The most important thing to consider when developing an application is the user. What does the user want? The user, even if he doesn't know it, wants a stable product, not a semi-stable feature laden product. He may think he wants that because of all the cool features available but he doesn't really want that.
We've all had the experience where a program we prefer, or perhaps love, crashed unexpectedly, it leaves you with a feeling of betrayal and sadness. You realize the the program that you've been using isn't as great as you thought it was, and that's not a nice feeling.
I, personally don't want to feel betrayed, or otherwise let down, by Songbird (it's so awesome) I want to love Songbird (the way I currently do) and I don't want to end up in a love-hate relationship with it either. (eg. I like the concept or whatever but I hate the way it crashes or whatever)
Unix it, baby! Please!?!?!
I’m anxious
-
Inappropriate?Performance has been a big issue with Songbird since it's infancy (yes I was there, since version 0.2) the simple, and, I think, reasonable, solution is to focus on that, screw *most* of the other features, don't get me wrong there are things, besides performance, that should be worked on as well but it is important, after all.
Consider this, if you build a house, what is the most important part? The decorations? No. The walls or the roof? No. It is the foundation, without that foundation you cannot build the worlds best house. Now let us apply that to Songbird: When building Songbird what is most important? Not the extraneous features, nor anything else that is not a part of the base application. What is important is what makes Songbird unique: Add-ons, Media Web API, Media Core API, Media Views, Feathers, the fusion of web browser and media player, it's open source. These are the features that need to be worked in.
Once the Media Core API is finished POTI won't need to write most of the heavily requested Add-ons any developer with the desire and abilities could write and EQ or a Sound Enhancer. But unless POTI can get the core right Songbird could miss out on a lot of awesomeness. -
1 Comment
Add a comment
This is one of the best points
-
Thanks! -
Inappropriate?I couldn't have said it better myself. I think you'll find that most of the features you describe as bloat are in fact add-ons. Last.FM support, Concerts, MashTape -- I think that covers everything you mentioned. Don't like Last.FM? You can choose not to install the add-on at first-run. Of course, we think some of the addons are pretty kick-ass (particularly a few of the ones we build ourselves, can you blame us?) so they get offered to you at install time to make sure everyone has the chance to try them out.
As for the stability issue, yep, it's the most important thing to us. We're all working hard to nail down the top crashes, to smooth out the UE bugs, and to make every little piece of the app shine. If you find things we missed... let us know, and we'll put it on the list of things to fix. -
Inappropriate?@pvh: Oh no, I love Last.FM! I just don't think that it needs to be part of the core application, because not everyone uses it and it, therefore, would be bloat. I personally love addons and I wouldn't change the install-particularly-awesome-addons-on-first-run window or anything. I think it's awesome that they are offered and that you have a chance to install some of the things that a lot, but not most, people would want as part of their Songbird experience.
What I was after, though, was sort of a reply to a lot of feature requests, like, for example, I remember reading a feature request asking for the inclusion of feature in the core app that something like three people would use. (this is an exaggeration of course but I hope you get what I mean)
I really wanted to point out that Songbird, in and of itself, will not, and should not, include each and every feature that people want it to include. That would be ridiculous and a waste of Songbirds potential. Songbird is meant to be customized and that should be taken advantage of. Additional, non-essential, features should be made as and offered as addons. (the way they are now)
Keep up the good work guys! Songbird is amazing, can't wait for 1.0!
PS: One thing I would like that is a little lacking, which you really don't have much control over, really, is the number of media views that Songbird has. This is really an amazing, and very unique, feature that Songbird has that is rather under represented. I love being able to look at my media library in lots of creative ways, but it's hard when there are, maybe, six working and pseudo-working media views.
I’m excited
-
Inappropriate?Well, I keep writing 'em, but it turns out I have a job to do so they tend to languish a bit. I have released three now -- I just released the first pass at Vertical Filter panes, and there's the Metrics view for stats nerds and bubbles, which is a bit of senseless eye candy. MattC has done two, but I think he only released the tag cloud and not the light-boxed album art one he did. I keep bugging him to clean that up and get it out there, but he's just so busy he's hard to pin down. Anyway... if you have ideas, make 'em happen. Really, they're pretty easy to make even with just JS/web design skills.1 Comment Add a comment
This is one of the best points
-
Thanks for the effort man! Songbird rocks!
-
Inappropriate?Don't forget my ♪Photo view!
http://addons.songbirdnest.com/addon/...
I’m totally self-promoting
1 Comment Add a comment
This is one of the best points
-
Dude! I love ♪Photo view! Can't wait to use it with v1.0!
-
-
Inappropriate?I agree with you, i want a robust super stable ultra lightweight media player that is simple, great and will give you the option to add functionality (like all the add-ons).
I’m confident
-
Inappropriate?I remembered that idea from way back, and I think it is a important one!
-
Inappropriate?"Do one thing and do it well" sounds like the complete opposite of a "player with llimitless customize-ability". Do one thing means no features. I like the features of songbird, in fact, it's the only player that has the combination of features that I need/desire/expect. Like being cross platform, with library support, and inline editting. It does a lot more than just play music, it gives me more control over my music.
3 Comments Add a comment
This is one of the best points
-
No, you're missing the point. We're saying thaf Songbird should be distributed as a bare-bones application with only a few minimal functions, i.e. Imoprting/playing music and Songbird's web browsing capabilities. From there, you can add any and all other functionality that you can think of, via add-ons. The advantage of this is that you are essentially building your own music player. You're adding only thr functionality you want, and you aren't stuck with any features that the developers thought were necessary; features that you think you could do without.
-
well said.
-
Oh, okay, I get. Like how other software forces you to use some "helpful" function that you find more annoying and/or destructive. I found Songbird because I was looking for something that didn't try to "help" me out by restructurizing my entire library.
I see the good in the philosophy, if its used that way. But I can see it being used like: "yeah, sorry no functions work, but that's not our problem, take it up with someone else." -
Inappropriate?Okay that is fine but I think that the "customize-ability" should be extensive!
The more features that get cranked into a program the more bugs are appearing !
If i can switch of "fetch album art" there is no way it messes up my library!
The same holds true for Cd-ripping, visualizations, metadata editing , external player support......... some people might not need .......
So the better frame there is to switch on and off features the less of a bloat a program becomes.
Finally if features are implemented as add-ons there is more potential for creative alternative "add-ons" that probably do a unexpectedly fine job.
I’m happy with the bird
CHAMP
EMPLOYEE
EMPLOYEE
CHAMP
