Roon 2.0 and internet connectivity [it's just like 1.8 now]

[Suedkiez (Just a fellow user like you)]

@Mike_LC

Think I recall reading a post when this came to light, probably from Danny, that stated Roon had been maintaining a separate “something” (parallel system) that allowed Roon to continue working with local library when the internet was unavailable. And maintaining that separate “something” was hindering them from moving forward with planned upgrades.

This one, there are others that mention some other aspects:

Roon 2.0 and internet connectivity [it's just like 1.8 now]

There are many reasons… Some are not immediately obvious. This is one of those many reasons: we used to have two search algorithms. One ran locally and one ran remotely. The local one was quite poor because it lacked the infrastructure to keep a good search engine operational. But because of offline support, we needed to keep both functional. The online one keeps getting better but the one that lives in the Core hasn’t been improving at the same pace. Search is a major pain point for many of o…

[evand]

Dog slow makes no sense, it doesn’t even do a startup scan. I’m running a lib of close to 700k and its response on a lowly i3 7100-T is at least as good as Roon on a 4750-G. Your OS & database on SSD? Also, I’m using Pi4 into DAC exactly as I was with Roon. Just replaced Ropieee with RopieeeXL because it includes Squeezelite. Streaming to my DAC and various Chromecast Audio devices has worked out the box with no glitches. It has universal search too.

[evand]

@Suedkiez

Nope, it’s the request with the highest vote count ever, in the shortest time

Doesn’t mean it’s a priority. Blind Freddie would’ve known it’s an unpopular move, they did it anyway because they’ve never cared about anything that they didn’t personally prioritise. Box sets are a great example of that, and there are many others.

[Suedkiez (Just a fellow user like you)]

@evand

Doesn’t mean it’s a priority

Indeed it doesn’t. But I was replying to you saying this about the number of votes being low:

Nope, it’s low because it’s not something the team at Roon care about

However, the count isn’t low, in context of all other requests. The priority is low, though. Or zero right now.

[Saturn94]

Any updates to what happens with Lifetime subscriptions should Roon fold?

Back when Roon was getting started, the question was asked about what happens with “Lifers” should Roon close up shop. This is what @danny said in response; Danny Dulai, Roon Labs COO Oct '25, 2015 "Obviously I can’t tell what will happen in the future, but it would leave a very poor taste in my mouth if our lifetimers were not taken care of… for life. In the unlikely event that we could not maintain those services, we would release one last build that would kill those dependencies, so you …

[xxx (Banned - toxicity)]

Of course, some sort of guarantee is the legitimate expectation of only those lifers who have yet to break even on their subscription.

[anon77144803]

Yes on a nuc i3 with m2 ssd. Sorry but compared to Roon it’s just slow and sluggish also the layout just isn’t for me.

[tripleCrotchet (Tony)]

@Suedkiez

the count isn’t low, in context of all other requests.

However, the count is extremely low in terms of the subscriber base. About 0.1%?

[Suedkiez (Just a fellow user like you)]

@tripleCrotchet

However, the count is extremely low in terms of the subscriber base. About 0.1%?

Yes, and this does not matter at all. All this tells us is that many Roon users are not on the forum, many existing forum accounts are not active, and even less are participating in voting at all.

If the absolute number mattered, the only conclusion you could draw is that no requests should ever be implemented and Roon is perfect, if even the one with the highest number of votes reaches only 0.1%. Clearly this makes no sense at all.

Clearly, the best measure we have is the relation of votes versus other requests, and it means something if one particular request racked up the by far highest number of votes among all requests, and in a very short amount of time as well.

[tripleCrotchet (Tony)]

@Suedkiez

And if the absolute number mattered, the only conclusion you could draw is that no requests should ever be implemented

But this is exactly the situation. There are many long-running requests going back 5 years or more. I don’t think it’s a mystery why that is.

[Suedkiez (Just a fellow user like you)]

@tripleCrotchet

But this is exactly the situation. There are many long-running requests going back 5 years or more. I don’t think it’s a mystery why that is.

That’s maybe valid criticism of Roon development pace. (Although the previously most frequent one was implemented, ARC)

However, Roon not developing fast enough for some tastes* says nothing about the merit of a request, or how much it is desired by users - which I thought your statement was about

(* While some users say “too many updates and changes”, to be fair)

[tripleCrotchet (Tony)]

Regular forum posters have always been a tiny minority of the subscriber base. It’s probably the case that roon pays some kind of attention to forum opinion but its very unrepresentative at the end of the day. It doesn’t make any sense that roon will pay any more attention to a feature request with 300 votes (0.1%) versus one with 30 votes (0.01%). Its all tiny numbers.

[Suedkiez (Just a fellow user like you)]

I think you are talking about something completely different than I was in the context that was given, and I have no idea what you are arguing for or against. (The post I originally replied to in this context was saying that the number of votes on this request was supposedly low because Roon does not care about it, hence my reply that the number is not low in the context of all votes given)

But anyway, yes it’s small absolute numbers, and obviously it’s not the only metric. Nevertheless the size relation between different requests is valid information, and the best we as forum users have. Roon may have additional info from market research. And of course in the end it’s their choice what they want to invest time in, and in which direction they want Roon go to. It’s “feature suggestions” for a reason.

[Daiyama]

I know this statement, but the dependencies back then were of a complete different magnitude as today.
I’m am quite sure this statement still holds, but I am only quite sure, so a confirmation would be much appreciated.

[Suedkiez (Just a fellow user like you)]

@Daiyama

I know this statement, but the dependencies back then

The clarification from Danny in the linked thread was on Sep 28, after the release of 2.0 and the internet requirement

[Saturn94]

Yes, exactly why I asked for updated clarification given the apparent direction of 2.0.

(I’m assuming you’ve now read further down the thread where Danny reaffirmed their original position)

[tripleCrotchet (Tony)]

@Suedkiez

I have no idea what you are arguing for or against.

You seem to believe that it matters that the votes are large compared to other votes. I am pointing out that no it doesn’t matter at all.

[Suedkiez (Just a fellow user like you)]

I said what I meant if you read the thread and my posts.

[killdozer (Brutalise me with music)]

@evand

Search is a terrible excuse for requiring internet access

Terrible search is an even more terrible excuse

Roon Search Overhauled [2021-12]

Hey all, I wanted to fill you all in on what’s been happening with search, and we have done in this release to make things better, and a little bit of what we have planned for the future. Before I get started, one piece of background: we feel strongly that it’s best for the product to present a single, clear answer to a search query that blends both library and streaming content without putting them into separate “silos” as some other products do. This allows Roon to give a single set of answer…

[Bill_Janssen (Wigwam wool socks now on asymmetrical isolation feet!)]

@evand

Search is a terrible excuse for requiring internet access.

I believe @danny only said it was an example of something that could be improved by always having access to the WAN. Not an excuse.

@xxx

I suspect that there are ulterior motives, design oriented or otherwise, behind insisting on internet access.

Indeed. Perhaps the new Wikipedia integration is part of that. Can Discogs integration be far behind?