How much is Roon worth? What investments should it displace?

Roon Software Discussion
122

Roon is deemed expensive because it is quite expensive compared to other software, but as you say the total cost of software used to support your hifi system is nothing compared to the hifi system itself.

Part of the problem is the rise of ad supported free software, because of this users have got used to paying nothing for software. Its weird that that people don’t expect physical goods to be free but somehow expect digital goods to be free, although distribution costs are very low, the cost of software development and support is high, similar in a way (although not as expensive) as creating new medicines.

2 Likes
123

I couldn’t agree more with what you’re saying.
The development of software takes time, resources, and money.
People need to appreciate this. And yes, people do indeed tend to treat software as ‘valueless’. But do you really think that, for example, iOS 12 is ‘free’, and appears from nowhere. Of course not! Apple have probably spent millions on writing, developing, updating etc iOS over the years. OK, you don’t pay for it ‘directly’, but it’s built-in to the cost of the iDevice. And rightly so, IMO.
Companies like Roon operate differently, and use a different model to generate revenue/profit. They charge for their software up-front. And that’s absolutely fine.
And as for Roon being ‘expensive’? I know this is all relative, but I’ve spent more on a pair of Interconnect cables than I have on a lifetime subscription to Roon.
I think Roon is very good value, and IMO it’s a bargain.

4 Likes
124

Hah, something we agree on. Roon is not expensive, whether treated as a one off purchase or a subscription service. Dev doesn’t come free, neither does the metadata, crappy as it is.

1 Like
125

Wow! Have I hit a nerve?

When it comes to economics and market behaviour, you’re in my bailiwick, guys. That’s how I make a living. And judging by my career and my income, I’m not half bad at it.

So, first of all: @AndersVinberg

I’m sorry to have to say that that “hustler caricature” is taken from real life. The example of invoice scanning and e-billing treatment in accounting software is all too real, unfortunately.

Software developers jump on bandwagons, whether the bandwagon goes somewhere or not. Sometimes these fads lead somewhere, sometimes they don’t, like in the case of invoice scanning and e-billing, because treating invoices requires the intervention of a human to assess the nature of the content, the VAT treatment of the purchase, tax admissability, etc. Practicioners are slowly but surely realising this will never work.

This does not stop software vendors from shamelessly plugging these functionalites. Fortunately for us, everyone sells this stuff as an add-on module.

I can understand the need to try and recuperate an investment gone wrong. That doesn’t make it ethical though.

Unfortunately, the conversation I paraphrased isn’t fictional.

As for @Speed_Racer

Wow, you really miss the inevitable economic logic, don’t you?

  1. Lifetime subscriptions do not - I repeat NOT - generate extra cash. In the case of Roon, this means three years of turnover, full stop. Every customer who takes out a life subscription limits Roon’s future income. Since there is no extra turnover, just a prenumerando turnover for a limited period, there is no surplus of income that can be put to another use. Simple, basic. The only reason for a vendor to take such a step when working from a subscription model is lack of cash and even then it is economically unsound reasoning.

  2. I am assuming human nature and corporate behaviour. Sooner or later, the dead weight of lifers will make itself felt, if only by the cap they have put on future earnings. Each one of you falls in the category “must receive service - generates no income”. Economically, from that point on, you are a liability, not an asset. Economics might not be a truly exact science (too many variables) but the models are accurate enough to predict general outcomes. This one is a no brainer.

  3. and 4) are thoroughly explained by 1) and 2). You chose a long term advantage, while Roon chose a short term advantage in the same transaction. Surely you see these two are diametrically opposed.

4 Likes
126

Unassailable Logic here

127

  1. Of course lifetime subscriptions generate extra cash. If they did not, there would be no point in offering them. If I pay $499 for a lifetime subscription versus $119 for an annual subscription, Roon gets $380 more, which is 4.2 times the funds, on day 1. That generates more cash to invest in and grow the annual subscription customer business. After 4.2 years, or actually a little longer due to inflation, Roon has lifetimers on the books for free.

  2. If Roon does not offer lifetime subscriptions forever, which they say they will not, only a small subset of customers will be so called “dead weight”. The lifetimers may indeed be a liability but they will not be treated any differently. They can’t be as the service is the same for everyone and support is provided in public view.

  3. and 4. Roon clearly thinks the short term advantage for them is not outweighed by the long term advantage for lifetimers. Otherwise, they would not offer lifetime subscriptions. You are certainly free to disagree. However, lots of companies have offered lifetime subscriptions while offering annual or even monthly subscriptions. Just do a Google search. So your opinion is not universally held.

2 Likes
128

Nope. Just an assailable opinion…

1 Like
129

In your opinion of course

130

Why not leave Roon to worry about their pricing? But, the product has to work as the website touts. Personally, it does for the most part. There are a few things that could be improved, but thats what discussion and “feature requests” are for.

1 Like
131

All most all box sets are terrible as far as metadata. BUT, that is not a fault of the software. It is because whoever set up the metadata did it in a very inconsistent manner. The last three days, I have been ripping my wife’s CD collection, with numerous sets, and I am so friggin’ frustrated at all of the inconsistencies. And this is using dbPowerAmp, which consults five CD databases, and tries to built the best average. AAArrrggghhh!!!

132

Even when you buy digital downloads, the metadata isn’t consistent, ie vol1 and vol 2 are different. I’m not sure how Roon can fix this, perhaps with some sort of reporting mechanism.

133

Roon runs rings around JRiver and any other program I have tried. For one thing, to me, it is far more intuitive, Plus, it is far less cluttered, and sounds fantastic. Combine that with its integration with Qobuz, and for me, it’s audio nirvana!!

6 Likes
134

The ‘quality’ of meta-data is basically out of Roon’s hands.
It’s OK, most of the time. Is that ‘good enough’ for me? Yes, even with major inconsistencies with classical.
I think you have to put these shortcomings, which as I’ve said are basically out of Roon’s control, in perspective with the overall functionality of Roon.
Roon is, after all, much more than just meta-data.

1 Like
135

Here is why I bought a lifetime license. I asked myself, based on all other software I have tried (including Plex, JRiver and several others highly regarded), are you likely to use Roon for at least four years, and do you think Roon will last at least four years as a company??? For me, it was a resounding yes, so a lifetime license saves me money!

4 Likes
136

I can only speak from MY experiences, which might be substantially different than yours, BUT Roon is magnitudes better that any other solution that I have ever come across. Yes, it’s far from perfect, but each update, IMHO, brings improvement, and their updates seem to happen more frequently than with other companies.

1 Like
137

The lifetime subscription would only generate extra cash if you only use it for less than four years. For anyone who uses Roon for four years or more, Roon actually loses income on the lifetime subscription.

138

That is true, but I don’t think that is exactly the point @Speed_Racer is making. To start a company, you need cash. Often, lots of it. Cash up front is king, because if you don’t have enough cash, there is no tomorrow to draw income from.
A model like Roon depends on both. Lifetime for now, annual for the future. At some point lifetime will go away. I’m sure Roon appreciates their users, but as it matures it doesn’t make fiscal sense to lose the higher income stream.

My experience for getting Lifetime was similar to yours but different in a couple ways. I really wasn’t so sure they would be around for four years, and I also worried that if Tidal dried up the whole experience would be a wash. But I did fall in love with the new experience of finding so many types of music by facilitated exploration. So I hoped it would last. I wanted it to last and was willing to spend money to help make that happen.

Richard Thaler got a Nobel Prize for behavioral economics, which I find fascinating. We don’t always make financial decisions ‘rationally’.

1 Like
139

Roon Labs isn’t new. They actually started out in 2007 as Sooloos, then Meridian bought Sooloos. In 2015, Meridian spun it out as Roon Labs. So, they do have a fairly good pedigree. Definitely not a recent start-up company!

140

@Neil_Russell

You’ve got the math right. Roon loses money on lifetime subscriptions and at the same time limits it’s earning pool because lifers are irrevocably withdrawn from the potential subscriber’s pool.

Ultimately, offering lifetime subscriptions is one of two things:

Option 1) Betting on the potential client pool being big enough to offset the long term loss on lifers;
Option 2) Starting out with a subscription model with the firm intention of changing the business model along the way or living in the hope of selling the company for big money, after which it becomes someone else’s problem.

Mind you, I’m not speculating or trying to guess at Roon’s business plan here. I’m just observing a state of being and summing up the possible motivations as I see them in everyday business life.

There are only a limited number of business plans, none of which are driven by altruism. A company that has to resort to fast earnings when it would logically go for a steady long term repeated income either wants to establish a market share very fast (and abandons the fast earnings ASAP) or has insufficient financial footing, in which case the fast earnings route soon becomes a losing proposition.

This is a general observation that tends to hold true.

I have no idea of Roon’s financial position, nor do I wish to know it. The operational side of Roon is Roon’s business, not mine.

The commercial side of Roon’s business, i.e. the product, is my business (in the sense of: it concerns me) as I pay for the product.

What many people do not seem to grasp is that I consciously chose to stick to the subscription system, instead of “investing” a relatively small sum in order to coast along at the expense of others in case Roon becomes a smash hit.

Economically this makes more sense to me than the virtual long term fiscal earning I would get by paying for a life subscription. After all: as long as I believe the product to be worth the price of an annual subscription, I will be paying for the subscription, thus helping to keep Roon in business.

I would argue that this is beneficial to both myself and Roon. Not mathematically of course: I will be paying much more than a lifer over time. But… I will be actively contributing to Roon’s continued existence. Lifers will not.

It is beneficial to Roon as well: they will continue to receive income from me, provided the product continues to satisfy me and the other dutifully paying customers. It is an incentive for Roon to keep up the level of quality and thus, to adress @AndersVinberg’s position on value, keep up the value of the product.

Delightful (for me that is) as the economical sideline is, it detracts from the main issue of this thread, which remains the question of how good Roon is in fulfilling their marketing promises. Or maybe it isn’t. As @grossmsj rightly states: there is such a thing as behavioural economics. Homo Economicus does not exist. Which is why I outlined my thinking in sticking to the subscription model, even though it will probably be costing me more in the long run. I wouldn’t be making this choice if I didn’t believe on some level that Roon might evolve into something better.

Those who think this thread is about Roon bashing are mistaken. But I am pleased that the economical side is being addressed.

141

Wow this thread really strayed from the original poster’s point about meta data. I am not sure why a Mod hasn’t moved all of the discussion of Roon pricing and economics to a new thread?

I think Roon has probably set its pricing about right. They want to incent (economically) people to join as customers and feel a commitment, so they set up a lifetime license. They chose to do this, maybe for cash flow, maybe not for cash flow, that is their prerogative. It is clearly valuable to them, and at such time it is not, it will go away.

If everyone was HAPPY about their price that means they set it too low. They seem to have a good number of people satisfied and some not satisfied and that is a good thing.

That they host a forum where everyone can go into detail about their pricing approach is a good thing too. Some companies would delete this thread.

I bought a lifetime license to support the company and the team. To me, it is a validation that I believe in them for 3 or more years and I think that gives them a positive vibe. Just my opinion!

I am enjoying the music!

3 Likes