Winamp News

[ChiggyChiggy]

Why should SHOUTcast look to become a Spotify clone?

Because its whats driving the market for streaming songs and such, you cannot deny and say outright that SHOUTcast has over time lost its relevance to the likes of them.
But SHOUTcast is different although similar.... in that anyone can host their own broadcast... which is what gives it an edge.

Winamp has been around for a long time. Those who laugh should have more respect and simply not use it, if it doesn't fit their needs. Winamp's core functions do what they do better than anything else. If you youngsters can't get with that, there are other apps to do what you're looking for.

There are ways to add features (like what Spotify provides), for those who want them, thru plug-ins and/or online services. Attempts to evolve and add new things to the core app itself, in order to appeal to the younger generations, has historically been met with protest. People refusing to upgrade and calling the new versions bloated.

I was talking about SHOUTcast mainly here more than Winamp

Thats the thing though, if it isnt "out of the box" then people just dismiss it and look for something else, Winamp's built in features are just great and one of the greatest if not the best, but without stuff being relatively simple people tend to jump to the next thing..

Spotify is a media player and a streaming application; it isnt that far off from what Winamp is (Spotify is crap at managing local music files though, this is where Winamp owns it) But it balances them gracefully. Its a streaming application with music discovery front and center but also has your local library there with you to mix in, you cant deny that this is where Winamp wanted to be once.. (recall how its older 5.x installers always would make you subscribe for new content?)

Perhaps just a really good looking smooth skin and a rework of its options is all Winamp needs as far as the non streaming related features of it go...

The current generation has been spoiled by the 'out-of-the-box' experience of the next new thing, imo. They have forgotten how, never learned, or won't take the time, to examine available options that could have apps like Winamp provide much of the same functions. That said, Winamp does have what some would call an intimidating number of options.

Although i agree with you, you have to keep in mind that if you arent familiar with something and you have to tinker with it to get what you want, then its more of a headache than a blessing. Ease of use is what makes people adopt something (look at itunes and spotify for example.. not that great.. but still the most popular in their category, simply from that and good looks alone)

[Aminifu]

Its a streaming application with music discovery front and center but also has your local library there with you to mix in, you cant deny that this is where Winamp wanted to be once.. (recall how its older 5.x installers always would make you subscribe for new content?)

I disagree. Winamp never tried to make music discovery front and center. However, it did and does provide ways to do that. Have you looked at the Moodagent service? Other related features/services in this area were dropped due to lack of user interest. Winamp is first and foremost a digital media player (specializing in audio files) and media file manager, imo. It started with playing local media and added support for streams after streaming started.

Other than core components, I don't remember being forced to install or subscribe to anything. However, I've only used the custom install process and don't know what the automatic process does. What new content are you talking about? Of course some online services (supported by vendors beyond AOL/Nullsoft control) had conditions placed on their content. There was no requirement to install and use those services.

Although i agree with you, you have to keep in mind that if you arent familiar with something and you have to tinker with it to get what you want, then its more of a headache than a blessing. Ease of use is what makes people adopt something (look at itunes and spotify for example.. not that great.. but still the most popular in their category, simply from that and good looks alone)

Again I disagree that ease of use is what makes people adopt something (unless you are just referring to the current generation). I'm old school and 'ease of use' is not as great has some say it is. I think that just locks you in to a limited range of functions and controls what you can do. I'd rather read a few instructions and have the freedom to tinker. I don't mind having to think a little bit.

Good marketing can persuade people. Apple has good marketing. I don't use Apple products because they are overpriced, force you to buy all new hardware (instead of update/upgrade firmware and/or components) too frequently, and make it overly difficult or impossible for software not provided by Apple to work with them.

I focus on what a product can do (not how easily it does it). The better products (in terms of function) are often not the most popular. What seems hard at first usually becomes easy, once it is learned and familiar. Technology should help people do things, not make people lazy and dependent. As to good looks, beauty is only skin deep and very subjective. There are hundreds of user interfaces, but you have to look for them and add a different one yourself.

[DrO]

Maybe you should have left SHOUTcast the way it was instead of messing it up? I don't know why everything has to be redesigned & messed up all the time. My Father-in-law had a real good policy, if it works, DON'T try to fix it, You'll break it.

If only it was that simple...

We couldn't leave it the way it was, because the previous owner owned all the content and didn't include the design/ui in the package.

We are currently redesigning the site and rewriting the in-client services etc. from scratch, because there's no alternative (other than there being nothing there at all). The content that's up at the moment is just a temporary solution until the new design is ready.

and in addition to that, the previous shoutcast.com was a far from ideal solution as it had been left as a 'beta' site since it was (incompletely) re-done and there were a number of usability issues with it that needed to be fixed with it, most of which would have entailed a new site anyway.

as for the in-Winamp solution, it never felt like it was part of the player and that was it's biggest failing compared to the previous 'native' version that was replaced 8-9years ago iirc. and also things have changed a lot in that time in relation to what browsers can do as well as what is expected from a UI, so things have to change irrespective of what is liked (and if not liked, the old ways can still be used until they're dropped / intentionally broken so devs don't have to waste time supporting things that only a few actually use e.g. SHOUTcast TV).

and DJ-SirDuke has shown a number of times now to not like any of the changes which are made be it for the site (which was a mess) or the tooling (which is done to do what others are asking for and i suspect is using an older build of the v1.x DNAS than the last publically provided version despite all of the access issues that a v1.x DNAS has).

and like is seen in the posts following after DJ-SirDuke's post, people do want to see changes in things (hence the dichotomy that Winamp and SHOUTcast are under in that people don't want change but then they want it to be current and modern - which doesn't generally work out).

[DrO]

A suggestion for the eventual new SHOUTcast is to make it work more like Spotify. (If not outright copying the way Spotify works)

The way Winamp and SHOUTast work currently, are tbh a way of old to say the least... (like opening a SHOUTcast stream requires a playlist file be downloaded... why not have a protocol?)
SHOUTcast was there before Spotify was ever even born but its been all but forgotten in the sands of time.. Its only users are users that know it from its glory days of the early 2000's and whatever word of mouth said users can pass along.

To be relevant once more SHOUTcast needs to adapt.. Things have changed so much as far as streaming media goes since it was born with the likes of SHOUTcast in the 90's, but while the world moved on; SHOUTcast (and by association too Winamp) have stagnated so hard.. SHOUTcast used to MEAN streaming media once.

SHOUTcast still means streaming media, however it's a different type. by saying Spotify, you're looking for on-demand instead of pre-scheduled content and for a lot of people, a more traditional radio is what they want and that is what SHOUTcast is doing. sure it'd be nice to have the means for it to be a more general content delivery setup so you can do on-demand aspects along with pre-scheduled e.g. the live stream and old recorded shows within a single server (instead of a DNAS + another to do the file provision).

but all of that comes down to the broadcasters and if they a) want it and b) are prepared to update to newer DNAS software to get that. also how the SHOUTcast API would have to potentially change inorder to cope with rather than seeing things as stations, as media and that then gets into a whole massive pile of pain as we'd then have to be far more careful on what is provided over the current station only model i.e. a ball ache of licensing.



as for the other points about playlists and no protocol, there is an ICY url protocol that Winamp can use but was never adopted and playlists are done on other services as well, it is mainly that they hide away such things, but whatever the service, somehow the client has to be provided with the stream / song url(s) to know what to play. sure the way that Winamp handles things could be altered so it feels more seemless, but then is knowing what is actually going on not a bad thing?

whatever the case, a lot of the issues / usability quirks can be resolved and improved but it's a balancing act between annoying users who don't like change vs those who don't mind vs expectations that x, y and z will always work as-is and has been seen time and time again, when some things have to be broken to fix critical issues and for some, that stops their use of newer Winamp clients due to an over reliance on a skin / plug-in that the author doesn't care about vs the dev team trying to do the best that can be done for the product so it'll keep working and doing better on newer OSes.

so sure things can be fixed and make them wonderful again, but if users don't want to or will not update, what is the point of having a dev team other than making new versions for a few people and themselves (as that's how it was coming across based on feedback around the closure notice in that people were sad to hear it was going but they were only using v2.x anyway, so it was that sort of lack of interest to keep updating to current releases that then produce the argument of why have a dev team if people aren't downloading / using what is being provided?).


whatever the case, it's likely that Winamp and SHOUTcast will be seeing changes (whether old stalwarts like it or not) and that people need to remember it is being done for the better of the products to try to make them more relevant and that if they want to see support continued (as that causes a lot to ditch Winamp even if they'd not bothered to update the client for years) then the newer versions need to be used and to bear with us during the transition whilst a new direction is found.

[p0rt]

did google buy it, to bring back shoutcast tv and backend to youtube streaming, and all the infinate relays and pipes

more "versitile" and scalable then adobe media server http://www.adobe.com/uk/products/ado...-standard.html

standard mp3 radio streaming can remain free

[DrO]

SHOUTcast TV is dead. end of.

[p0rt]

its not end of, if the new owners brought it for a reason, the server code is already done with infinate scalability

make shoutcast 2 work with shoutcast 2, and different format of video streams, and shoutcast 2 will be selling for $1000, and people would probably choose it over adobe, all your CNN, BBC, and other channels who need alot of servers and relays

i dont mean shoutcast tv as it used to be, shoutcast tv existed once, it can exist again only in a full media server

preying eyes who would actually buy shoutcast that earns no money had to have seen something

[DrO]

make shoutcast 2 work with shoutcast 2

you really are clueless about things and comments like the above that i've quoted just make no sense at all.

SHOUTcast TV hasn't been a default online service during client installs for a few years. as well the view was dropped a while before the announcement to close Winamp was made as part of a general review (which was pretty much the only thing providing access to the ~80 or stations that were still working which had a total listener count less than 500).

additionally there had been no development of the NSV tools for almost a decade, and although the format can be relayed without issue though the v2 DNAS, ~80 stations bothering to be listed (it's a factor of ten below that on that Icecast listings) just shows that pretty much no one is bothered about NSV.

and there is little point in expending a mass of resources to make a new SHOUTcast TV (in response to your edit) as there is just no point in doing it. if rdio couldn't make the vdio service work, how on earth is it even sensible to try to resurrect something that was ditched a decade ago? it doesn't and the reality is that Radionomy are audio focused, not video focused, just as SHOUTcast has predominantly been throughout all of it's time.

[p0rt]

im not clueless, if video streaming is added to shoutcast 2, and shoutcast 2 becomes a full media server, big companies that need alot of relays and servers would probably choose shoutcast over adobes media server

you think too small and stuck in your free radio streaming service

shoutcast radio can still exist as it does today

for someone to buy something that earns no money, what shoutcast could actually become is the selling point

+ you have Theora and WebM free file formats for html5 players http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video

and dont need to pay licences to adobe to use flash

[KMNS]

Playback from radio streaming is impossible with HTML5 sadly. So far only Safari works because it uses QuickTime for playback.

[p0rt]

php file explode the pls of the server, and get the stream url, and use curl to get the content type/mime and echo it into your video/audio player tags

http://www.satya-weblog.com/2010/07/php-curl-get-returned-content-mime-type.html

[Remog]

So are current pro users going to get some love?

Will things change for us? Would we get some beta access early - 'cause that would be sweet.

[Victhor]

More Winamp skins, just Classics, but a lot (5448):

http://www.winampskins.info/

And I would add another one just for the sake of archiving (besides it has a couple of hard to find skins):
Customize.org

[OrajelJunkie]

Winamp is the greatest invention ever and this news has me nervous.For a couple years i was worried that there were never any updates but i had finally accepted it was just dead.At least i could still use,which i do ALOT.
I'm totally against any change.Winamp is perfect.

[DrO]

I'd disagree with that last comment. none of the Winamp clients are perfect and there's still a long way to go to make them anywhere near perfect.