I want an AVR with Android or Linux onboard

[Blumlein 88]

Yes please leave us dumb TV or monitors that are just monitors.

 

[Vasr]

HTPC is so 2010. We've moved onto Android boxes and Rasberry Pi's. You might join us since it's 2021.

Those are such toys. You might want to join us when you grow up to want to play with up-scaling and color processing video utilizing everything the latest graphic cards can do (that the latest TVs cannot) or be able to do software audio dsp decoding/processing on a machine without introducing huge latencies or generating smoke out of the toys. On the other hand, these grown-up toys can already do the tiny things you want to play with.

But seriously, people who are just into streaming 2-channel audio aren't the right people to suggest an overhaul of the AVR industry.

Yes. I agree that this requires a different thinking about an AVR from a manufacturer. It would best be suited by an open architecture. And in fact, it makes a lot of sense to me to make it a pre-processor with amplification. And ditch the idea of cramming multi-channel amplifiers into the device. Let the user buy external amplification.

But I disagree that this would necessarily disadvantage an outlier from entering the market. In fact, this could make it easier because they can focus on developing hardware, vs. also creating the more complex firmware that is now in AVRs.

This is not apparent in armchair engineering-minded thinking but I have actually been working on something related for a while. A way to re-architect an AVR into separate modular components (the opposite of making a single box modular inside) and tied together with an optical back-plane and a complete software driven control for plug-and-play of these modules. Includes a box with an application server I mentioned earlier that provides an open-architecture for ISV apps. The ability to grow seamlessly from 2.0 needs to 11.x.x or more as the need develops.

This way components that get outdated quickly can be replaced faster and cheaper than replacing the entire box and you only buy what you need at any time. As a way of disrupting the current AVR industry. So, I am not disagreeing with you on the concept. I realized earlier on that a single box with an open-architecture was neither technically nor economically feasible except for some trivial applications.

I have shared this with a few of the audio hardware manufacturers to get their feedback and to do a sanity check. They all agree on the goals and solution from a technical point of view (that is the easy part) but no one has been able to suggest a viable business model/plan that will make it viable to enter this market. These are people who have been in the business for decades and I trust their experience.

I have enough contacts in the investment industry to get venture capital IF there is a compelling business case and a market-entry plan (even though getting venture capital for hardware projects is super hard) but I have been unable to get even to that point that I can present to a VC with a straight face.

There are a lot of issues when you get into the details that is common to a platform-play and the bane of a zillion startups - the chicken-and-egg problem of platforms and "apps". Build a platform and they will come never works. You have to start with a vertical integrated slice that can get into the market. But if you are successful in doing this, there are far better ways to grow the business with vertical integration than an open platform. Sonos is a good example of this approach and there are limitations to what you can do.

Hardware businesses are capital inefficient with very low margins. So, saying one can just focus on hardware for others to build software isn't always a practical one. The Dirac integration is a perfect example. The cost of integrating just one licensed product drives the product price into niche market segments. You cannot depend on license-free third-parties delivering to make your hardware product usable.

What is ideally beneficial to a consumer isn't necessarily a viable business model (otherwise all audio would be cheap if not free).

I am happy to talk about this off-line to any entrepreneurs or product-management experienced people that understand what it takes to build a company behind a product not engineer types (with suggestions like "use Dante and everything is solved").

 

[Chromatischism]

This is not apparent in armchair engineering-minded thinking but I have actually been working on something related for a while. A way to re-architect an AVR into separate modular components (the opposite of making a single box modular inside) and tied together with an optical back-plane and a complete software driven control for plug-and-play of these modules. Includes a box with an application server I mentioned earlier that provides an open-architecture for ISV apps. The ability to grow seamlessly from 2.0 needs to 11.x.x or more as the need develops.

This way components that get outdated quickly can be replaced faster and cheaper than replacing the entire box and you only buy what you need at any time. As a way of disrupting the current AVR industry. So, I am not disagreeing with you on the concept. I realized earlier on that a single box with an open-architecture was neither technically nor economically feasible except for some trivial applications.

I have shared this with a few of the audio hardware manufacturers to get their feedback and to do a sanity check. They all agree on the goals and solution from a technical point of view (that is the easy part) but no one has been able to suggest a viable business model/plan that will make it viable to enter this market.

Interesting. This is why LG dropped the modularity from their phones. It's a good idea but not a viable business. So unfortunately we are going to continue piling on to our landfills.

 

[raistlin65]

Those are such toys. You might want to join us when you grow up to want to play with up-scaling and color processing video utilizing everything the latest graphic cards can do (that the latest TVs cannot) or be able to do software audio dsp decoding/processing on a machine without introducing huge latencies or generating smoke out of the toys. On the other hand, these grown-up toys can already do the tiny things you want to play with.

You seem out of touch with why this migration to Android TV boxes and Rasberry Pi has happened.

But seriously, people who are just into streaming 2-channel audio aren't the right people to suggest an overhaul of the AVR industry.

I thought we were talking about AVRs, which means more than just 2 channel audio processing???

This is not apparent in armchair engineering-minded thinking but I have actually been working on something related for a while. A way to re-architect an AVR into separate modular components (the opposite of making a single box modular inside) and tied together with an optical back-plane and a complete software driven control for plug-and-play of these modules. Includes a box with an application server I mentioned earlier that provides an open-architecture for ISV apps. The ability to grow seamlessly from 2.0 needs to 11.x.x or more as the need develops.

This way components that get outdated quickly can be replaced faster and cheaper than replacing the entire box and you only buy what you need at any time. As a way of disrupting the current AVR industry. So, I am not disagreeing with you on the concept. I realized earlier on that a single box with an open-architecture was neither technically nor economically feasible except for some trivial applications.

I have shared this with a few of the audio hardware manufacturers to get their feedback and to do a sanity check. They all agree on the goals and solution from a technical point of view (that is the easy part) but no one has been able to suggest a viable business model/plan that will make it viable to enter this market. These are people who have been in the business for decades and I trust their experience.

I have enough contacts in the investment industry to get venture capital IF there is a compelling business case and a market-entry plan (even though getting venture capital for hardware projects is super hard) but I have been unable to get even to that point that I can present to a VC with a straight face.

There are a lot of issues when you get into the details that is common to a platform-play and the bane of a zillion startups - the chicken-and-egg problem of platforms and "apps". Build a platform and they will come never works. You have to start with a vertical integrated slice that can get into the market. But if you are successful in doing this, there are far better ways to grow the business with vertical integration than an open platform. Sonos is a good example of this approach and there are limitations to what you can do.

Hardware businesses are capital inefficient with very low margins. So, saying one can just focus on hardware for others to build software isn't always a practical one. The Dirac integration is a perfect example. The cost of integrating just one licensed product drives the product price into niche market segments. You cannot depend on license-free third-parties delivering to make your hardware product usable.

What is ideally beneficial to a consumer isn't necessarily a viable business model (otherwise all audio would be cheap if not free).

I am happy to talk about this off-line to any entrepreneurs or product-management experienced people that understand what it takes to build a company behind a product not engineer types (with suggestions like "use Dante and everything is solved").

I wasn't actually thinking that a move to an OS-based implementation in AVRs would come from a startup.

If it doesn't come from existing AVR makers, rather it would come from elsewhere in the audio and/or video electronics industry from players who have not been making AVRs. Who are looking for a new entry point into the AVR share of the market. I imagine it would be difficult to form a startup to do something like what you are interested in.