Maybe we should start a Basic Functionality thread that doesn’t require us to vote on one specific feature. We could vote on a set of, to most people, basic features that all modern music players have, instead of voting them up in dribs and drabs. Maybe, now that they’ve got a parent company, a small team will be assigned to work on, say, Playlists as a whole.
It won’t work because there will never be a consensus on what should be in each Basic Functionality list.
The topic would inevitably become an unmanageable disparate list of “I want” posts.
That’s why we encourage people to create single function topics in Feature Suggestions.
1 Like
I disagree, and also, I would like to point out that the situation you’re describing is exactly where we are now.
Perhaps a better way to achieve consensus on a “Feature Set” method would be to have a conversation thread, and a separate “Send this to Roon Developers” thread, when the details were hashed out.
Regardless, I’m pretty sure several people on here could write up a “Playlists should be able to do these things at a minimum.” that few would argue with. It doesn’t have to be perfect to be actionable, it just has to make overall sense.
There was a thread for suggestions for playlists - from 2016.
Last updated July 2023.
.sjb
Thanks. Guess the whole idea is going nowhere. But hey, we’ve got mobile that barely works! And broken search, and online-only operation! Onward and upward!
If Roon was a collaborative effort, it would probably be called Spotify. I prefer the Roon team continue to develop their product as they see fit taking into account some of the feedback they receive and ignoring some. They know where they want to take their product, and so far, they have done a great job.
If you follow the link above, you’ll see that they asked for input on playlists, and then ignored it.
I agree about design by committee, in general.
I could be wrong - it has happened once before – but my take is that Roon isn’t focused much on GUI functions at this point.
Their main thrust the past few years has been on taking Roon mobile and it seems they still have a lot of that to work on, and then the next logical step for Roon is on integrating with Harman and Samsung hardware - i.e. once there is a Harman branded hardware Roon server and Samsung phone with Roon tech you can buy, it will come with ARC. I believe this is where development resources will go.
So while I agree with Andrew that the Roon forum has seriously suppressed discussions and expression of preference from the community around GUI functions and features – moving “Feedback” down and limiting votes to a tiny number – I think whatever form that takes, it is a tree falling in a forest with no one to hear it.
1 Like
I would calculate that the number of Samsung (and Apple) smartphone users who are clamoring for the ability to access their vinyl rip of a Wagner opera via their NAS at home would be infinitesimally low. I could be wrong.
Until Harman makes an appearance with a official statement of intent, who’s guess is best?
2 Likes
Well, wouldn’t it be more like Roon users, or the equivalent under a Harman brand, who want their playlists and metadata accessible remotely?
I too think it’s a niche thing, which is why I personally would have preferred, and would still prefer, to have Roon focus on completing/fixing/stabilizing/enhancing GUI functions.
Not sure where you are going with your point - i.e. are you saying ARC as a Harman integration won’t attract billions of users? I never said it would. Just that Harman had to have a reason to acquire Roon other than it may be 6 or 7 figure profitable, if it was.
And then my main point is I don’t see a massive future investment in the Roon branded GUI by Harman, so what is the point of suggesting and voting for enhancements?
1 Like
3 Likes