YAZSOFT SUPPORT  Please provide hard data to back-up your claims.

Playback was specifically tested against Rivet, Medialink, and other Mac media servers and wins by a long shot in both performance, and reliability on both wired and wireless networks. The technology powering Playback, also powers sites like YouTube. If you find YouTube slow, by all means, try another product.

Else, if you have hard data to provide, feel free to email them directly to us at playback@yazsoft.com and someone will be happy to take a look. Posting on MacUpdate, while nice, is not the best place to get support.  
(Version 1.0)

SAP1  Download size (from the MU page - right next to the "Download Now" link)

Playback: 18MB download

Rivet: 1.6MB download

Unpacked size (as seen once the application is actually installed)

Playback: 50MB

Rivet: 3.6MB

Real Memory Used (as seen in Activity Monitor)

Playback: 32.6 + 20.3 + 0.7 = 53.6MB

Rivet: 32.3MB

CPU used during playback of a movie file (same file, as averaged by eye on Activity Monitor)

Playback: less than 1 percent

Rivet: less than 1 percent

Feeling of speed (listing a directory with 85 full length movies in it):

Playback: 29 seconds - mostly wasted on QuickLook server churning away

Rivet: 4 seconds

At first I thought this last test was some sort of cruel joke, but I checked again because I figure maybe some kind of cache was causing this - and yes, upon quitting, restarting Playback, and going back to the same directory, the directory loaded in 2 seconds.

http://www.uploderx.net/dphrag/Picture_1837.png

http://www.uploderx.net/dphrag/Picture_2858.png

http://www.uploderx.net/dphrag/Picture_3970.png

http://www.uploderx.net/dphrag/Picture_4892.png

These were all done with a 2GHz MacBook w/ 2GB RAM, connected via wireless G to a wired 360.  
(Version 1.0.2)

SAP1  Is that data "hard" enough?  
(Version 1.0.2)

NAVDEEP BAINS  Hello,

Sure, the data is fine. I just don't see the part where we look bad in comparison to Rivet.

QuickLook will take the same amount of time to generate a thumbnail regardless of what application is calling it. You can turn the thumbnails off if you prefer. If I'm reading your message correctly, Playback listed the same directory *faster* than Rivet once the thumbnails were cached.

Yes, the download is larger. The memory usage will be close to equal. Playback Menu is taking a much larger chunk on your system than it does on mine, which is strange. If you send us an email, we would be interested in finding out why that is.

Thanks,

Navdeep Bains

Playback Developer  
(Version 1.0.2)

SAP1  I'm not saying your app is bad. Let me rephrase the post:

Rivet, Connect360, and whoever else were all here first. The lot of us all needed an app to share media to the 360. Some of us chose Connect360, others chose Rivet. Now what you're asking us (the paying public) to do is drop $15 on your software to replace another piece of software we've already bought.

It seems the selling points you have here are Growl support and bandwidth limiting. I need to ask, why? Growl support so that I know when my brother/parent/roommate is watching a movie on my Xbox? Bandwidth limiting for an application that doesn't support transcoding? To me, that's bloat. The difference in speed is insignificant - two seconds doesn't make me want to spend $15.

- and no, I will not help you debug your software. I test commercial software for a living. You write commercial software for a living. Why should I freely give you my time to help you sell more of your product when there is no benefit to me?  
(Version 1.0.2)

NAVDEEP BAINS  Hello,

I have to say that the tone of your posts is confusing to me. If you don't find Playback's feature set compelling, that's fine. We're offering an alternative to the choices already available. We're not accosting you at gun point. If we've said something rude or offensive, I'm not aware of it.

I requested that you email us on the assumption that you were considering Playback as a user. In that case, there would be an obvious benefit to you. However, it appears that my assumption was incorrect. You clearly have no interest in using Playback.

Thanks,

Navdeep Bains

Playback Developer  
(Version 1.0.2)

YAZSOFT SUPPORT  SAP1: Thank you for your input.

Based on your comments I can only say, feel free to continue using whatever application you feel is "good enough" for your needs. Playback is a rock solid performer that we developed because "we" didn't feel what was out there is "good enough" and wanted to provide an alternative that "we" feel is better. Maybe we're just very picky and have higher standards, who knows.

Rest assured though; we will continue to develop, improve, and tweak Playback the way we have outlined and in-line with the loads feedback and suggestions being received. So far, real user response continues to be nothing but encouraging and we have big ideas on the way.

You're welcome to try Playback again at anytime.

To conclude, Playback is also priced to be accessible by everyone. It's $15 for 3 (three) licenses vs much higher prices for simply 1 (one) license with some of the other apps out there. When a user buys Playback, they can share 2 of their licenses with anyone they choose (friend, family member) or install it on 2 other Macs... legally.

Johnny  
(Version 1.0.2)

SAP1  I guess Navdeep has missed my point, so let me be blunt: you're too late to the game. Why should I pay for your app?

You have still failed to answer the following questions:

Why is Growl integration important?

Why is bandwidth limiting in an app that doesn't transcode important?  
(Version 1.0.2)

NAVDEEP BAINS  Hello,

If you have a feature you would like to see, we're listening. However, if Playback's mere existence offends your sensibilities, there's not a whole lot we can do about that.

This is not an appropriate forum for a debate and I have no interest in engaging in one. This will be my last interaction with you. Have a nice day!

Thanks,

Navdeep Bains

Playback Developer  
(Version 1.0.2)

SAP1  You're not listening. You haven't even answered my questions about why you have growl integration and bandwidth limiting in your app. It seems you and your second "Yazsoft" account are more interested in beating around the bush than just answering a couple simple questions...  
(Version 1.0.2)

TRONDAH  SAP1, what are you trying to accomplish? Playback is a really good alternative. Ok, so you don't need Growl support. Turn it off. You don't want bandwidth management. Don't use it. In my experience, Playback is a lot more stable and performs better than MediaLink which I've used before. The developers are also extremely helpful both here, on the forums and on mail. The price is for _three_ licenses. That right there is reason to switch. If you don't feel like it adds any value to you, nobody is forcing you to abandon what you already use.

The only reason I can see for your bickering is because you are the developer of an alternative and don't like the competition.  
(Version 1.0.4)

MACUPDATE ADMIN  From the developer's site:

Users should be aware of the following limitations in the current version of AccuBeatMix. Most of these limitations are due to iTunes' interfacing model.

no iPod support (yet!)

no CD support

no support for m4p (AAC protected) or other DRM-protected files

no equalizer support

no "Radio" support

no AirTunes support

Transitions are blocked while any window (e.g. track information) is open in front of the player window in iTunes.

not compatible with Volume Logic or SRS iWow  
(Version 1.1.3)

MACUPDATE ADMIN  You should have looked before you leapt. Your review is not valid (since the software is not stated to work with iPods), and will be deleted.  
(Version 1.1.3)

JORIS VERVUURT  Does this make any difference?  
(Version 3.7.1)

PAULC  Basic is exactly the correct language to use for single purpose software... perfect choice.  
(Version 3.7.1)

THE MAN IN THE BLACK SEDAN  Basic is messy and impossible to debug, but yes it is fine for single purpose apps.  
(Version 3.7.1)