The Bryston example is only because you compared your unit to it. That is really not fair to Bryston! Also, the Auraliti and the Bryston can use the app you use so that is a mute point as well.
I'm sorry that I did not make myself more clear. I was merely pointing out that a remote is not necessary and not as good as alternative remote applications. But if you want to spend money on a remote, you certainly do have that option. You'll simply have to purchase it from someone else. No problem.
How can you say less is more? Your solution is more of everything! It's two cases, two power supplies, two mother boards, two ram modules (one embedded), two different operating systems, two drives (one ssd and one hdd), two etherent connections, web interface, router and one usb connection.
Our goal with the StreamPlayer was to develop the most minimalistic digital music player possible. There are companies that charge up to $1500 to remove unnecessary software from Mini Macs. But you are still left with more hardware than required. This unneccesary hardware adds noise and complexity to the system and adds to the power supply requirements. It does nothing to enhance audio quality.
With the StreamPlayer, we've removed all the hardware and software possible. Instead of adding features that did not contribute to sound quality, we removed them until we were left with as minimal a system as we could build.
As for the need for two complete systems, it should be noted that the StreamPlayer does not require use of the StreamServer. The server is only there in case someone wants a matching storage device. The StreamPlayer will work with any music source you happen to have...vortexbox, MiniMac, Windows computer, Linux computer, NAS device, USB backup drive, etc. In fact, we would recommend those lower cost alternatives if they fit a customer's needs.
Any "all-in-one" storage device requires more hardware and software than a simple player device. That being the case, if you split the storage function from the player function, you end up with the cleanest, most stable player possible.
The player is simple, but you didn't invert it and the Alix project dates back to May 2008.
I don't recall ever saying we invented the underlying technology. We merely took existing technology and adapted it fit our needs (just as any manufacturer would). Bryston based their system on the exact same technology. We just took a different approach. They have a solid product that will meet many people's needs. We feel our approach will meet the needs of another segment of the market.
Obviously we could have developed a device that would meet your expectations. It would not, however, have met mine. And I was building this device for myself.
It is obvious your philosophy differs from our's where this project is concerned. That is perfectly OK. This is a free country and you have every right to your opinion. If you don't like our design, don't buy the product. I have absolutely no problem with that.
I built the player I wanted and am very pleased with the results. You are not. Now that we have established that, let's accept it and move on as we both have more important things to do.