GrateDigger
Play files directly from Dropbox (Stream) and no need for the files to be on the local drive...
DropBox or NAS
DropBox or NAS
Posted Tue 30 Jan 24 @ 5:44 pm
PhantomDeejay
No, nope, bad idea :P
Honestly,
1) You can play files directly from a NAS already
2) Dropbox doesn't work like that. Unless Dropbox provides an API that provides access to your files to third party applications, this is not possible. The file(s) need to be downloaded locally first.
And relying on such an implementation for your core music library is not a good idea.
What happens if internet cuts down, or router goes north e.t.c. ?
There are hundreds of horror stories out there from people who relied solely on streaming services for their music library, only to show up in a gig and not be able to access it..
Remember, Dropbox is not a pool that offers you files you don't have. It's a cloud service that hosts files you already have.
Yes, it would be a good idea to have your main library stored locally and then files that you'd probably never play on Dropbox. For this there is a work around already. Remove the folder(s) from your Dropbox sync preferences.
And if you need a file from one of these folder(s) at some point just use your browser to quickly download a copy.
I'm not saying that as a concept it's a bad idea. But for the moment, it seems that in reality it would become a bad idea..
PS: Personally, I do use Dropbox, to host my entire music library (and yes, save it locally)
Honestly,
1) You can play files directly from a NAS already
2) Dropbox doesn't work like that. Unless Dropbox provides an API that provides access to your files to third party applications, this is not possible. The file(s) need to be downloaded locally first.
And relying on such an implementation for your core music library is not a good idea.
What happens if internet cuts down, or router goes north e.t.c. ?
There are hundreds of horror stories out there from people who relied solely on streaming services for their music library, only to show up in a gig and not be able to access it..
Remember, Dropbox is not a pool that offers you files you don't have. It's a cloud service that hosts files you already have.
Yes, it would be a good idea to have your main library stored locally and then files that you'd probably never play on Dropbox. For this there is a work around already. Remove the folder(s) from your Dropbox sync preferences.
And if you need a file from one of these folder(s) at some point just use your browser to quickly download a copy.
I'm not saying that as a concept it's a bad idea. But for the moment, it seems that in reality it would become a bad idea..
PS: Personally, I do use Dropbox, to host my entire music library (and yes, save it locally)
Posted Wed 31 Jan 24 @ 7:43 am
groovindj
FYI Denon Prime series can use Dropbox as a source, and browse, load & play tracks stored in the cloud.
Posted Wed 31 Jan 24 @ 11:44 am
DJ VinylTouch
+1
@PhantomDeejay just to add to what others have already said...it would be nice if Cloud Storage (hopefully with the implementation details abstracted on top of the different cloud API details) syncing could be managed directly from VirtualDJ. It would be an extension of regular storage principles in a modern computer and behave similarly to the Beatsoirce streaming option by having:
I know it's possible to do all this manually outside of VirtualDJ, but as @groovindj said, competitors have already seen the value of including this in the offering directly, especially as the DJ software can now ensure that its understanding of the database is consistent with what is provided by the cloud storage (minus the user modifying stuff outside of using the software).
I REALLY would stress:
Maybe the fully managed option (a-la Rekordbox) could be offered too but it seems like an all collection or nothing approach which I (and maybe others) don't like (correct me if I'm wrong about this).
I think this would make the feature much better than competitors.
@PhantomDeejay just to add to what others have already said...it would be nice if Cloud Storage (hopefully with the implementation details abstracted on top of the different cloud API details) syncing could be managed directly from VirtualDJ. It would be an extension of regular storage principles in a modern computer and behave similarly to the Beatsoirce streaming option by having:
- A cache of locally accessible tracks that are guaranteed to be accessible (cache size adjustable)
- The ability to mark a track as always being accessible or not (so you can manage the entries in cache)
This can probably be even having a LRU algorithm to evict entries not used in some configurable amount of time to free up space for songs more recently used to be cached locally (maybe you can have a way to mark tracks from being exempt from this too to ensure it's always locally accessible) - All other tracks are temp fetched + temp stored for some duration (max maybe VirtualDJ uptime or some mix betweem that and the LRU suggestion if trying to be smarter)
I know it's possible to do all this manually outside of VirtualDJ, but as @groovindj said, competitors have already seen the value of including this in the offering directly, especially as the DJ software can now ensure that its understanding of the database is consistent with what is provided by the cloud storage (minus the user modifying stuff outside of using the software).
I REALLY would stress:
- Giving the ability to all major storage providers, with the ability to add more provider integrations if necessary
Not everyone uses Dropbox - Not tying this to any additional subscription - use this with whatever storage you have in with the provider, and in addition to whatever local storage options you already have.
Maybe give the ability to choose where to store files id moves from within VirtualDJ and give space warnings where necessary. Maybe even the possibility of using multiple providers if required.
Maybe the fully managed option (a-la Rekordbox) could be offered too but it seems like an all collection or nothing approach which I (and maybe others) don't like (correct me if I'm wrong about this).
I think this would make the feature much better than competitors.
Posted Wed 31 Jan 24 @ 2:41 pm
PhantomDeejay
1) VirtualDJ already has an open API for this kind of implementation.
So, if ANY service provider wants to write a small piece of code to make his service appear under "Online Music" folder, it is possible to do so right now.
2) As for "cloud storage" in general, deep integration requires much more work AND SUPPORT than meets the eye. I'm not against cloud storage in general (after all I do use Dropbox, and have my entire music library uploaded on it).
However, I don't find "deep integration" a good idea at the present moment, for general usage.
THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION, NOT ATOMIX OFFICIAL POSITION OBVIOUSLY.
"Younger generations" try to put as less effort as possible on whatever they do.
This results in a support nightmare even for tasks that are generally simple.
Imagine having to manage localy cached tracks, versus on-line tracks on a much bigger and widespread scale, and having to deal with connectivity issues when the "average teen Joe" tries it.. :P
Sure, at some point in the future cloud services will become more and more interconnected and embedded to software and hardware solutions.
I just personally don't think it's the right time.
I have to emphasize AGAIN that this is my personal take on the subject.
Atomix could bring such functionality to the software, in 5 weeks, 5 months, 5 years, or don't bother at all..
Just to make things clear!
PS: When I say "support" I don't mean only "technical support" on users. I also mean things required to support the functionality and usage of the given service.
So, if ANY service provider wants to write a small piece of code to make his service appear under "Online Music" folder, it is possible to do so right now.
2) As for "cloud storage" in general, deep integration requires much more work AND SUPPORT than meets the eye. I'm not against cloud storage in general (after all I do use Dropbox, and have my entire music library uploaded on it).
However, I don't find "deep integration" a good idea at the present moment, for general usage.
THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION, NOT ATOMIX OFFICIAL POSITION OBVIOUSLY.
"Younger generations" try to put as less effort as possible on whatever they do.
This results in a support nightmare even for tasks that are generally simple.
Imagine having to manage localy cached tracks, versus on-line tracks on a much bigger and widespread scale, and having to deal with connectivity issues when the "average teen Joe" tries it.. :P
Sure, at some point in the future cloud services will become more and more interconnected and embedded to software and hardware solutions.
I just personally don't think it's the right time.
I have to emphasize AGAIN that this is my personal take on the subject.
Atomix could bring such functionality to the software, in 5 weeks, 5 months, 5 years, or don't bother at all..
Just to make things clear!
PS: When I say "support" I don't mean only "technical support" on users. I also mean things required to support the functionality and usage of the given service.
Posted Thu 01 Feb 24 @ 2:31 pm
DJ VinylTouch
Thank you @PhantomDeejay for the responses. I agree it's a hard problem. Just some inline comments.
This is good to know. Is it in the Wiki docs?
I know there is a lot more to it especially in API and snychronization with cache issues, but that doesn't meant it can't be done, especially as competitors are already doing it. You can start with being as restrictive/draconian as possible in assumptions/abilities and then gradually open up with what can be done over time. How do you know which time is the right time? Is there a missing API, feature or standard that you think would be helpful?
Yep I do agree it complicates things on this end. But in reality, you, I and many others are doing this the manual way, outside of VirtualDJ already (and problems due to this method may eventually start cropping up under less experienced users). It's still prob a good idea to at least start brainstormimg this properly...handling collections on cloud/network attached storage will only increase as time goes on, and we would want VirtualDJ to stay ahead or with the curve, not behind it.
PhantomDeejay wrote :
1) VirtualDJ already has an open API for this kind of implementation.
So, if ANY service provider wants to write a small piece of code to make his service appear under "Online Music" folder, it is possible to do so right now.
1) VirtualDJ already has an open API for this kind of implementation.
So, if ANY service provider wants to write a small piece of code to make his service appear under "Online Music" folder, it is possible to do so right now.
This is good to know. Is it in the Wiki docs?
PhantomDeejay wrote :
2) As for "cloud storage" in general, deep integration requires much more work AND SUPPORT than meets the eye. I'm not against cloud storage in general (after all I do use Dropbox, and have my entire music library uploaded on it).
However, I don't find "deep integration" a good idea at the present moment, for general usage.
THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION, NOT ATOMIX OFFICIAL POSITION OBVIOUSLY.
"Younger generations" try to put as less effort as possible on whatever they do.
This results in a support nightmare even for tasks that are generally simple.
Imagine having to manage localy cached tracks, versus on-line tracks on a much bigger and widespread scale, and having to deal with connectivity issues when the "average teen Joe" tries it.. :P
Sure, at some point in the future cloud services will become more and more interconnected and embedded to software and hardware solutions.
I just personally don't think it's the right time.
2) As for "cloud storage" in general, deep integration requires much more work AND SUPPORT than meets the eye. I'm not against cloud storage in general (after all I do use Dropbox, and have my entire music library uploaded on it).
However, I don't find "deep integration" a good idea at the present moment, for general usage.
THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION, NOT ATOMIX OFFICIAL POSITION OBVIOUSLY.
"Younger generations" try to put as less effort as possible on whatever they do.
This results in a support nightmare even for tasks that are generally simple.
Imagine having to manage localy cached tracks, versus on-line tracks on a much bigger and widespread scale, and having to deal with connectivity issues when the "average teen Joe" tries it.. :P
Sure, at some point in the future cloud services will become more and more interconnected and embedded to software and hardware solutions.
I just personally don't think it's the right time.
I know there is a lot more to it especially in API and snychronization with cache issues, but that doesn't meant it can't be done, especially as competitors are already doing it. You can start with being as restrictive/draconian as possible in assumptions/abilities and then gradually open up with what can be done over time. How do you know which time is the right time? Is there a missing API, feature or standard that you think would be helpful?
PhantomDeejay wrote :
PS: When I say "support" I don't mean only "technical support" on users. I also mean things required to support the functionality and usage of the given service.
PS: When I say "support" I don't mean only "technical support" on users. I also mean things required to support the functionality and usage of the given service.
Yep I do agree it complicates things on this end. But in reality, you, I and many others are doing this the manual way, outside of VirtualDJ already (and problems due to this method may eventually start cropping up under less experienced users). It's still prob a good idea to at least start brainstormimg this properly...handling collections on cloud/network attached storage will only increase as time goes on, and we would want VirtualDJ to stay ahead or with the curve, not behind it.
Posted Thu 01 Feb 24 @ 3:34 pm
PhantomDeejay
I think we can close this one now and mark it as "Wish granted"
Right ?
;)
Right ?
;)
Posted Mon 18 Mar 24 @ 4:32 pm
DJ VinylTouch
I have yet to try it out but yes this was a very good move by you guys, especially as it is not an additional subscription tier and suppprts multiple major providers.👍🏾🍺
Posted Mon 18 Mar 24 @ 5:27 pm
GrateDigger
For all out there... I called it first... I was told it was not valuable... YOU BET!!!!!
Posted Wed 03 Apr 24 @ 11:56 am