Amazon customers are looking for cheap. Roon isn’t cheap.
Amazon plus Roon would be $25 per month unless they decided to charge more or charge less than the current price.
What are Roon’s “unique requirements”? If Amazon already has stable APIs defined for its own Music app and the Alexa music back-end to search, access and control the Amazon HD catalogue (which I assume it does) then what more does Roon need apart from access to those same APIs?
It’s my understanding that roon requires periodic full database dumps/refreshes so it can merge its metadata and manage yor merged library. I’m guessing radio also needs it. It’s more than just browse and play.
Thanks. I didn’t know that but now you mention it that makes a lot of sense. Of course we don’t know for sure that the existing Amazon APIs don’t already offer that. Just clutching at straws
Spotify uses public/private key cryptography to lock their API against unauthorized use. I expect that Amazon does the same.
Not to take anything away from the accomplishment of building a huge company from nothing, but the image drawn by “one man and a dog” is not accurate. Bezos was already successful before he started Amazon, having most recently worked at a large hedge fund. That is what enabled him to take the company public very early. Additionally, he received a 300K loan from his parents.
Seems like you have personal issue with Amazon. This is not something Roon or audio related.
It’s not his fault that he got some money from his parents.
I assumed this thread would be more about the technical aspects of Amazon providing hires vs the company itself.
But as companies go, if felt better about dropping Tidal and going with Qobuz because I felt like they were targeting audiophiles.
For Tidal, think the audiophile part was something already part of the company when they bought it. Yes, they added MQA after their purchase but that’s been controversial.
With Amazon, don’t think they care too much about this other than a marketing move. If they were integrated with roon, it would be hard for me to stick with Qobuz because of their limited selection. I use Amazon for purchases and tv streaming already, so I don’t feel they are the enemy. If Qobuz could match their selection I might pay more to support them.
You are reading a lot into my post. I’m saying that he was not “a guy and his dog” in response to several posts above. That is a fairy tale. He was a hedge fund guy who had a good idea, received funding from several sources, and built a company with a lot of help. The OP gives the impression that he was some working class guy who built a business out of the back of his pickup truck. I’m not anti-Amazon, although I do think there are significant risks to having monopolies in various industries. That is why we have laws that are supposed to prevent that. However, I’m not arguing against using Amazon Music. I plan to try it. I’m just setting the record straight. Amazon was never some mom and pop business.
People have their own prejudices and biases for one reason or another. Why don’t we leave those out of these discussions?
TIDAL is Swiss. Jay Z owns I believe controlling intrest. You’re correct Tidal does pay the highest of any streaming service. To bring up Bezos makes little sense to me. It’s given many authors and musicians extra exposure Amazon is Not Walmart. Since Bezos took Amazon Public he’s been crucified daily. Amazon will adjust to proper work conditions. They’re incredibly innovative. Here’s a fun fact. Apple tried to buy Tidal for mostly their Mqa proprietary streaming algorithm. They refused. Citing apple as employee and politically unfriendly . Love Tidal hate Apple.
Bezos is brilliant give him time.
Can you share your source for this fun fact?
nope. Amazon is outstanding if comes to speed of physical delivery of ordered goods.
The movie section is a desaster already. you easily can spent 5mins until you found what you were looking for. Ok, since being a movie you might get served with 120mins playlength then.
Audio looks even worse but movies, you can easily spend 10 times 5 mins for searching while not getting a single match, mean 100% loss of time for simply nothing.
Coverage to be put in question
next to nothing in ultra HD
the few ones flagged ultra HD in 99% 24/48 … means lowest possible one
some of the albums flagged ultra HD are in reality 16/44.1 when being played (information about the files not the local audio device capabilities)
then there’s albums which simply do contain 0 tracks in total (Quboz suffers that issue in th beginning)
Perhaps it’s a good idea to pre-test something inhouse before going public.
And perhaps Jeff should ask himself if the
in-ear-eqipped, chartlist-driven, singletrack oriented mobile walkaroundies are the ones which would like to be extra charged for a higher quality, or if there’s chances that a second category of music listeners might exist willing to do so, in case one fullfills their aspects.
Booklets, reviews, artist information, ability to filter against wasting an afternoon browsing though unwanted crap…
You can easily make poeple pay for something special but sure not just for being informed about Jeff’s capabilities in having been able to copy a 16/44.1 flac file on top of an old existing 320Kbit mp3 and cried out “yeah we invented unlimited HD now”
And I doubt that time is the limiting factor … it’s more something to do with understanding about different types of customers.
MQA is not a TIDAL proprietary streaming algorithm.
Artists make more money if you buy their product. The sale of vinyl or CD’s gives them the highest profit margin. Next up is downloading digital media. But where artists get absolutely taken to the cleaners is with streaming. Streaming gives the artist a fraction of a penny (slightly more than 0.01 cents for each stream on the high end) . Of all the streaming companies, TIDAL (owned by Jay-Z) pays the artist moret per stream second only to Napster!! If you love music, BUY IT. If that is not your choice, at least stream from a service that does better by the artist.
Don’t hold your breath.