Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Gloolabs Readies A Java-Based WiFi Audio Device

Posted by timothy on Wed Dec 17, 2003 02:04 PM
from the field-crowding dept.
Wireless Networking Java Programming Hardware
An anonymous reader writes "A new Java powered home entertainment audio device design promises to simplify sharing computer music files among computers and stereos in connected homes. Gloolabs's Gloo is Java middleware that puts an iPod-like interface on music files it "discovers" around the network. Gloo, which will be licensed to multiple device makers, is available now on one device that runs embedded Linux, and Gloolabs is currently bootstrapping a Gloo developer community. Gloolabs is currently taking orders for the $250 MacSense HomePod, the first Gloo-based device, which will ship in January 2004. A limited quantity of the $350 Developer Edition is available now."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Gloolabs Readies A Java-Based WiFi Audio Device 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Open-ish source.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tcopeland (32225) * <tom&infoether,com> on Wednesday December 17 2003, @02:05PM (#7747204) Homepage
    ...or something like that. From the GLOO site:


    Open firmware philosophy - The Java source will be made available to the GLOO
    developer community. Developers will be able to enhance any of the software
    components including the firmware running on the hardware.


    So, buy the Developer's Edition and you get the source code. Cool.
    • "Gloolabs will launch a developer community and standalone SDK the first week of January, according to Saal. The SDK will include a hardware emulator, enabling developers to hack Gloo on their desktops, regardless of whether they have purchased any hardware. "

      • Re:Open-ish source.... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Phil John (576633) <phil@w[ ]tarsltd.com ['ebs' in gap]> on Wednesday December 17 2003, @02:30PM (#7747482)
        Try doing your homework:

        The Java SDK source is indeed available and no, you don't have to pay for it! How else do you think the FreeBSD port of Java works? You can get it from http://wwws.sun.com/software/communitysource/j2se/ java2/download.html [sun.com]

        As for the speed of Java, why do people still push around this piece of FUD? With dynamic optimisations Java is starting to rival the Speed of compiled code, sometimes even beating it. No, I don't have any benchmarks to hand, since benchmarks are the Root of all Evil(tm)

        True, you cannot share the source code to the Java Platform. Welcome to the Real World(tm), not everything is free, some companies *gasp* actually want to keep some things proprietary, be thankful we have the source to play with/port to other systems at all.

        I see you have been modded as a troll since I started writing this, I'm still going to post it, just so others who think along the same lines as you can get the facts.

        • With dynamic optimisations Java is starting to rival the Speed of compiled code, sometimes even beating it.

          Now this is FUD...

          Yippie, *some* expertly written Java *can* come close to being as fast as *poorly* coded programs, written in compiled languages. Big whoop.

          The proof is in the pudding, as they say... For all the wonderful things you can say about java, I can download hundreds of java programs, and watch as they craw... Just as benchmarks are the root of all evil, so too are unrealistic, out of

          • Re:Open-ish source.... (Score:4, Informative)

            by HisMother (413313) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @04:21PM (#7748424)
            >Yippie, *some* expertly written Java *can* come close to being as fast as *poorly* coded programs, written in compiled languages. Big whoop. Bzzt, sorry. Looking at one computationally-intensive domain I'm familiar with (rule engines,) those vendors (like ILOG) that offer both a Java and a C rule engine tend to have performance within a factor of two for the two implementations. Many Java rule engines absolutely kick the asses of rule engines written in C. Why do people like yourself feel threatened by the reality of Java's good performance?
        • I see you have been modded as a troll since I started writing this

          Man, and I thought my refreshing the main page every 15 minutes hoping for a new story was bad.

          We now have a poster who refreshes the posts he's replying to, while he's replying to them, just to get that second-to-second info as to their moderation status :)

          You sir, are my new Slashdot idol!

        • Re:Open-ish source.... (Score:4, Informative)

          by dasmegabyte (267018) <das@OHNOWHATSTHISdasmegabyte.org> on Wednesday December 17 2003, @03:50PM (#7748136) Homepage Journal
          Java generally BEATS code written in a non garbage collected language when there is enough memory on the machine and many objects are quickly created and dropped. For example, i wrote a mail merge program in Java. For the average size merge we ran (2000-3000 addresses), it was usually 40-50% faster than C++, because the "garbage" of unused, unreferenced variables could be left behind when an address record would go out of scope. This would fill up memory, but since we had enough memory to fit the garbage of 2000 records while we did the important i/o work, it wasn't an issue.

          And newer (since 2001) versions of the Java VM further improved this code, as garbage collection is handled on a separate thread. So while in C++ you're spending 200 cycles doing nothing, waiting for the disc to be accessed, then deleting the record, I can spend those 200 cycles cleaning the heap.

          C# under .NET is approaching this level of speed as well. In another 10 years, people are going to talk about the old days when code was written for just one type of operating system, and one type of hardware, and when it was written without automatic garbage collection or memory management, or array bounds checking (the thing that PREVENTS buffer overflows?) And they're going to laugh at all the people clinging to C like the cavemen they are.

  • useful (Score:5, Funny)

    by petwalrus (645792) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @02:10PM (#7747273) Journal
    Now I can play my neighbours mp3 collection in the convenience of my living room!

  • I ordered mine in JANUARY (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Of 2003. They said it would ship in March.

    Still waiting.

  • "Pod"? "Pod"?? (Score:5, Funny)

    by heironymouscoward (683461) <heironymouscowar ... OTcom minus poet> on Wednesday December 17 2003, @02:10PM (#7747276) Journal
    This is the buzzword for 2004? We are living in an alien spaceship?

    A HomePod sounds distinctly like a scene from "Invasion of the Body Snatchers".
    • I have no podding idea what the pod you're podding about. Jesus H. Pod, make some podding sense every once in a pod, will ya?

      (Here's podding that this pod gets podded down as pod. Dumb podders.)
    • A brand new urinal design for the new millenium...

      The PeePod(tm).
      • Ah, the PeePod I almost peed myself laughing.

        Let's have fun and rename a few things...

        Cubicle -> The WorkPod!
        Hotel room (by the hour) -> The JoyPod
        Sauna -> The HotPod
        Hammam -> The SteamPod
        Car -> The DogPod
        Contact lense holder-> The EyePod
        Church -> The GodPod
        Red sports car -> The JockPod
        Space Shuttle -> The BarfPod

        Ah, the joys of Podding.

  • Neat idea, but (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ActionPlant (721843) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @02:12PM (#7747308) Homepage
    I'm already thinking of security compromises. What's to stop an outside source from eventually being able to search this in an attempt to determine if you have illegal music? Also, error logs could pose a problem. I'm assuming they have that worked out, but using java to do this worries me. With an intelligent search, the ability to spider your own network looking for files...should it grab the *ahem* "wrong" file and surprise you with it when your parents are visiting...uh oh.

    Damon,
      • I like the phone idea. Now we need to see a big advance in securityto ship with it.

      • Re:Neat idea, but (Score:4, Informative)

        by Crazy Man on Fire (153457) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @02:37PM (#7747514) Homepage
        I can't imagine a single /. user (hopefully) who doesn't have 128-bit WEP

        WEP (128-bit or othewise) really isn't very secure. If you're that freaked out about it, you should be using something else...
        Of course, 128-bit WEP is better than nothing, but it really isn't any better than any other strength WEP.

        From this [arstechnica.com] Ars Technica article:
        Using today's computing horsepower, this feature (128-bit WEP) increases the time it takes to brute force crack a WEP key from a few days to approximately 20 weeks. While it seems like a good idea, there are several key areas where this security initiative falls short of the definitive security solution. On top of the management problems using static WEP keys there are two serious issues that plague 128 bit WEP. First of all, the attacks on WEP have nothing whatsoever to do with the key length itself. Whether you are using a 64 bit or 128 bit WEP you still have the exact same 24 bit IV which is the source of the weaknesses. This increases security absolutely zero for today's wireless implementations because no one bothers to brute force a WEP key when it is so easy to use one of the other attacks.
      • I have 104-bit WEP enabled on my AP, but I don't do anything beyond that. From what I've read MAC filtering is really easy to get around, so I don't bother with that, and VPN would be overkill. There's nothing interesting or important on my network anyway, so I'm not so worried about it. Besides there's at least one other WEPless AP at my apartment complex, so why would anyone bother trying to crack mine.
        • Why? Because you're there. Seriously, saying there isn't anything interesting on your network just shows that you don't know what makes an interesting target. I'm not proud to admit that I've gotten into other people's system just to read their e-mail. If you don't think that's a big deal, just send me your e-mail for the last 7 months so I can forward key bits to your friends and family. Don't forget all those order confirmations from online stores. That's pure gold!
          • With WiFi there everything is so easily sidestepped that I don't see the point of bothering with it. WEP is like locking a door, not fool proof but it's something, so I do that. MAC filtering, turning SSID off, I don't see the point. Sure it's possible someone will read my e-mail, but it's not real likely, and online ordering and banking is all SSL'd .

  • Impossible equation (Score:3, Funny)

    by JamesP (688957) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @02:17PM (#7747360)
    Java + Wi-FI + Audio

    I reckon the universe is going to explode....
  • seems the latest slimp3 device does this stuff. somebody please clarify why this is better/different than the current market offerings?

  • Ouch (Score:4, Interesting)

    by djupedal (584558) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @02:23PM (#7747419)
    "*While standard ACC files are supported, Apple Music Store Downloads are not due to DRM restrictions."

    A bit of creative capture should solve this, I believe. However, it bodes not well for other formats.

    • Re:Ouch (Score:3, Interesting)

      by laird (2705)
      Right, there are two basic approaches (that I can think of) to playing DRM'd music on a device like this.

      1) Implement the DRM on the device, and handle the key management, etc., so that the device has the same rights to decrypt and play the DRM's content.

      2) Use the DRM on the desktop computer, and stream the result to the device.

      I think that (2) is the better approach, because it means that you don't need to do the work of porting a zillion proprietary DRM systems to your box, but can leave that on the d

  • Lack of creativity (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Clsid (564627)
    Although I like the idea from a technical side and they open source approach they are adopting, I wonder if it is really that hard to make a new device that's not a blatant copy of the iPod design.
    • I've used some of the devices that don't copy the iPod scroller -- such as the Napster player and Dell's music player, the Archos, the Zen -- and they're all much harder to use. Most of them use a similar idea besides...scroll arrows that act exactly like the pod's wheel does, only without the precision. As for the buttons in a four corner position, technically this isn't iPod design. The older iPods had four buttons but they were arranged in a sort of a prong-of-an-iron-cross fashion around the wheel, h
  • I live in a dense apartment block, and while I only own a PDA currently, it has 802.11, and I've used it to pick up over 17 (17!!) open access points within range of my apartment. Most of these people have extensive mp3 collections which look highly illegal (though since I don't own a computer and I've never talked to them, I don't know if they have the new Strokes album through iTunes or what...). One guy has like the complete works of Jimmi Hendrix; it's awesome.

    Anyway. I could buy one of these things, h
    • It doesn't just magicly pick up mp3s on computers, you have to install a GLOO server on the computers that will do the sharing.
    • Most of these people have extensive mp3 collections which look highly illegal...I've never talked to them

      Devil's advocate, but please don't take the RIAA's route in assuming that mp3 == illegal. I personally have over 400 albums worth of mp3s on my computer, all 100% legally obtained by ripping my CD collection many moons ago.

      Unfortunately for anyone who lives close enough, they're not shared over my wireless connection. Well, unless you can get onto non-shared drives on a computer that denies connection
  • Are there any other such devices that pick up internet radio (Shoutcast-only is fine) besides MP3 playing? I don't think the Slimp3 does radio, right?

  • Hey idea guys... (Score:3, Funny)

    by rubenmiranda (680189) <rubenmiranda@gmail.com> on Wednesday December 17 2003, @02:38PM (#7747525) Homepage
    Want to come up with a real moneymaker? Make a Wi-Fi shower stereo. To me that's really where the power lies in making music asccessible...making it accessible where you sing like a dying cat!

  • Ogg? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Damon C. Richardson (913)
    No Ogg? forget it! ( here's my dollar walking away ).

    • Re:Ogg? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Keith Russell (4440)
      No Ogg? forget it! ( here's my dollar walking away ).

      Ah, but that's the beauty of HomePod: Open firmware! I'm sure it won't be long before you can download a patch that supports your Codec of Choice. So don't let that dollar get too far away.

    • Nope. The only open format supported by this thing is AAC, which is a part of the Mpeg-4 standard and has about a dozen types of compression, many of which are comparable to OGG in size/quality, and some of which easily beat it for specific uses.

      The whole POINT to Ogg was that it was going to be high quality for the audiophiles, have small file sizes for the network users, and have none of the licensing issues of MP3, WMA, etc. Well, AAC fulfills all of those points.

      Ogg is good and all, but it's a forma
  • Imagine if your auto radio exchanged music files with other cars it passed.
  • What I'l love to know is, if I keep this in my bathroom, will the humidity from the shower kill it? Methinks it will be ok since I have a $20 clock-radio/CD player in there now, and it's ok. I don't know if I want to risk the $250 though...

  • They're probably going to have to change the name. Using "HomePod" to refer to a digital music player is too close to "iPod." I wouldn't be surprised if they get a friendly letter stating that in legalese.
    • You know what...I'll take the karma hit and ask why this was modded down. This is a viable point of view, and instead of modding it down why not respond to it. I don't know how good Java works on such limited processing power, but seeing as it has been around for a while now and is being improved then it could be ready to take on such things. But from my own personal experience with writing Java programs, it doesn't have the same speed as a natively written app. Could someone prove or disprove this thou
      • Of course Java apps don't have the same speed as natively written apps. You sacrifice something for cross-platform support and that something is speed.

        I had thought that that much was bleeding obvious. Looks like I was wrong.
        • So then you'll agree that a device like this could be done better with a different language? It's not like the code will be ported to anything else, unless that was their goal. Which I can see...create a low-powered wireless music player, write code in Java, sell device, release code for someone to port to some other low-powered device. Seems like a half decent goal, and looks like what they are doing with their "Developer's Edition" of the device.

          On the other hand, I've read elsewhere in this story's
          • Well, you're missing the fucking point, man. By writing an app in Java, you write the app once. The effort involved in porting it, or at least the bulk of it, is done by whoever writes the virtual machine. They're writing the optimizers and JIT compilers that do what you'd have to do to make the app more "efficient." Nowadays, the Just In Time compiler on most VMs makes code as efficiently as a runtime compiler...and for an app that runs forever, it'll never get recompiled.

            Could it be done "better" in
      • Since you asked...

        The current version of Java code cannot be distinguished from natively compiled code. (At least on a 2 GHz P4.) You don't have to take my word for it. Download Eclipse [eclipse.org] and see for yourself. BTW Eclipse is written in Java.

        As for Java working with limited processing power, you have to remember that there is a Java Micro Edition [sun.com] available for embedded devices.

    • The boys of Freenet have written a very efficient system in Pure Java (that is, no native code allowed...except the tray icon). I've written very efficient code in Pure Java. In fact, I wrote a merge mailer in Java that was faster than the same code in C++ (reason? java garbage collection is more efficient).

      The days of Java being a second fiddle language ended some time in 2001. I can't believe that people are still clinging to their native code for any reason other than access to a specific toolkit.
    • why do all these players need extra software?

      Because there are very severe penalties for doing it over just file sharing. It's why the audiotron takes 45 minutes or more to scan a large music collection when it crashes, can't handle collections of more than 10K songs, and doesn't have sophisticated search capabilities or a decent web interface. All these things need a more powerful device.

      Slim Devices pioneered the "thin client" approach, which solves all of these problems and furthermore, makes it possi

    • Re:ACC files are NOT standard! (Score:4, Informative)

      by dasmegabyte (267018) <das@OHNOWHATSTHISdasmegabyte.org> on Wednesday December 17 2003, @04:15PM (#7748378) Homepage Journal
      AAC may be new (which is what you're talking about) but it is certainly standardized.

      "Standard" in that phrase refers to files that meet the Mpeg-2/4 standard for AAC audio in an LC profile, which Apple Music Store Downloads don't (they encrypt the data, which decrypts to standard AAC during playback if a license file is available). They are quite "standardized," which means a standard has been published describing how to write a decoder for each of the 9 profiles, and most PC uses of AAC use the Low Complexity profile. They are most certainly as much a "standard" as MP3. As for programs and devices not playing them...that'll clear up quickly. At present, there are a dozen media player options for Mac, Windows and Linux, and since Apple's built AAC support into iTunes and the iPod, more portables will be jumping on board soon enough.

      AAC files [audiocoding.com] (why do people have trouble with those letters? It's double As, then a C, stands for Advanced Audio Coding, doesn't look like the start of te word ACCessory) are the new MP3 in just about every way except one: they don't have MP3's expensive licensing costs.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.