Is ROCK included in the Nucelus-only requirement?

[danny (Danny Dulai)]

I posted these questions last week, and Brian quickly responded with his impressions, which I appreciated. But I was hoping to get a definitive answer from Roon directly (again, no offense to Brian). [I had originally posted to Support, but it was reassigned.] To recap my questions:

@brian is our CTO, and the @support reports to him. Hearing from @brian is hearing it from our executive team. It doesn’t get any more authoritative than that.

I’ll clarify here, because I’m not sure what he or you spoke about since you didn’t post a link to the conversation and I can’t find it.

The C4 documentation refers to the extensions as V1.0 alpha-1. In some environments this means ‘still testing’. But, documentation is out and downloads are available. Can you clarify?

The document was saved as a PDF and uploaded before we deleted the “alpha-1” from the little version number thing at the bottom. Just a small oversight that is fixed now.

The documentation adds that either Nucleus or Nucleus+ cores are required. Is this accurate?

yes

If so, is this prerequisite temporary while this release is further tested and stabilized?

This is not a “temporary” thing. That said, we may change the distribution of our software in the future.

Or is this a “permanent” part of your strategy to add value to the Nucleus proposition?

I’ve stated the reasons for this in the past, and I’ll repeat myself again here:

We package the other end of the extension with Nucleus. There were many reasons why we did it this way, but a few have already been mentioned. Having consistency in the hardware is very good for support and no doubt there was also a commercial component to this decision. If there was a significant number of users using Crestron and Control4 in the DIY space, then we would not have made these decisions.

I’m trying not to ask, “what does the future hold”, but if I HAVE to get a Nucleus to get C4 connectivity, then I’d like to know that sooner than later.

For now, you have to get a Nucleus to use to our C4 module. The Roon API is open, however, and you can write whatever you’d like for C4.

Brian also suggested that my ROCK might not qualify because it was an over-specced MOCK. His comment was probably in jest, but does my extra ROM and SSD size disqualify me as a Roon ROCK? See profile for specs.

I’m not sure where or what Brian was talking about since you didn’t post a link… but your ROCK doesn’t qualify for the C4 integration because it isn’t a Nucleus.

I’m not sure what your “qualification” of ROCK even means. The community has deemed if your ROCK is not exactly our hardware recommendations, then it is a MOCK. The Roon Team found that clever and have been using that terminology as well. However, I’m not sure what you are looking for here. What are you thinking happens if you “qualify” as ROCK?

Editorially, some folks have written and asked about these extensions as far back as 2016. Your ethos seems to been one of inclusion of qualifying kit, not exclusion. So, to announce curtly that non-Roon branded equipment don’t qualify was a bit of a shock – to me.

Sure, but surely you accept that we can distribute our software however we want, given that we paid the cost of developing it. As for the “curtly” – is there a different way we could have announced this more sweetly?