Let 2023 be PLAYLISTs quantum leap year for Roon - like it, ask for it!

[Mrmb]

@Daniele_Piancastelli

A Message from the Roon Founders - Roon Labs

We’re paying attention to neglected aspects of the product – prioritizing performance and reliability – to ensure that Roon remains rock-solid. We’ll revisit long-requested features that we’ve avoided, like folder browsing and enhancing the way Roon handles box sets. Major improvements to our playlist functionality are in the pipeline (Hallelujah!). In the coming year, we’ll be focusing on features that center on your music library, rather than non-library streaming content.

With Harmon’s recent acquisition, maybe Playlists will get a much needed review and overhaul. As a heavy user of Playlists, there is nothing I would like to see more than perhaps a reduction in Roon’s yearly rental fee .

@Christian_DEPLANTE

Now, is it a person’s or team vision issue or a business model thing ? Could Roon think that if you have superbly working playlists, you are possibly happy with the music you have and less inclined to exploring recent ones, possibly leading to less active subscriptions of streaming ?

Arguably, at least for Apple Music - iTunes, there has never been an obvious antagonism between having playlists that are easy to manipulate and use, and streaming new music !

@Christian_DEPLANTE Good argument in an attempt to understand the Roon team’s lack of addressing some of the Playlist deficiencies itemized in this thread.

While the inaction re Playlists, may have been a business decision based on monetary rewards for user numbers, from on-line streamers; I would rather guess that the deficiency was simply someone’s lack of giving a bit of priority to the Playlist question/issue.

Also, I would assume that ARC’s development consumed much of Roon’s fairly recent resources.

For example, I posted AudioStyle’s founder, Chris Connaker’s not-so positive comments, among his positive ones re. ARC and those were summarily removed. I should add that nothing was in poor taste or compromised community standards. (However, with the recent events surrounding the U.S. government’s undue influence and censorship insistence over social media providers and they in turn terming anything they didn’t agree with, as being “hateful”; hateful can be a classification applied to anything not liked and as such, summarily quashed and removed! So much for the 1st. amendment!!). But I digress…

From the removal of the cons provided by someone with Chris Connaker’s industry influence, I surmised that ARC was someone’s “baby” and nothing against it would be tolerated! So much for a free expression of thoughts and ideas. This knee-jerk reaction also suggested that a significant amount of in-house love and labor was directed at the programming and the introduction of ARC. I like the idea of ARC. But I value my LAN security more than convenience. And I don’t understand how to 100% button-down outside access to my LAN, so I have declined to use ARC.

For improvements to be made, new users to be acquired and long time users maintained, comments pro and con from a user’s perspective should be allowed, if not encourage and preferred.

Since the acquisition, the Harmon gang has been encouraging user feedback. Well an analysis and prioritization of Feature Request’s (such as this one) and the Feedback Category should pretty much suffice.

What I’m sure is difficult, is the prioritization of requests and modifications. For example which requests:

• Have been made the most?
• Will result in keeping and attracting new users?
• Can be done with the least labor and which requests will require the most labor?

As primarily a critical listener and audiophile user, my prime directive for Roon is sound quality!

My being disabled, the software being Rock Solid, is a close 2nd., (which has always been my biggest PLUS for Roon) – i.e., Roon just works! Playlist modifications fall somewhere thereafter.