There is nothing brilliant in that, one doesn’t need to be a genius to figure out that the more customers you have the bigger the profit.
They put the barriers in the first place, nobody forced them to do that. In the beginning was RAAT all over the place. Now, not so much.
All of these makes me wonder: Is ROON in troubles? 
Thanks Anders, great comments. Very well stated.
Disagree. Android has most customers, not the most profit. Chromecast is aimed at mass market, even when they get that it won’t make most profit. Porsche is super-profitable, GM went bankrupt.
It’s a complicated balancing act.
Why is UPnP any different than chromecast , airplay, linn, devialet of KEF wireless support?
Most profit compared with what? If Android has 10 customers then the profit is from 10 customers. If has 1000 customers then the profit is from 1000 customers (and I believe it’s a bigger profit). If it has 10.000 customers then it has profit from 10.000 customers (and I still believe that’s an even bigger profit). I also believe that the bigger the mass market for Chromecast is, the bigger the profit (compared with a smaller mass market). And, to keep it somehow on topic (sorry @Kenneth_Price), is the same for ROON, the more users they have the better. I can’t see anything complicated here, but what can I say, I’m a simple mind. 
There is whatever, a balance between how uncompromising one can be in order to maintain a comfortable mass of paying users and survive, and I believe that here is where ROON can improve.
If you really want to get all technical about the difference, just search this forum (and/or other resources). Why the ROON team doesn’t go in the UPnP direction, well, in my opinion is because their point of view about this it’s just that: a point of view. One can only hope that the wisdom comes with age and at one (not so far) moment in the feature they’ll have a field of view (and then we’ll have a lot more devices and streaming services to chose from in the ROON ecosystem)…
I run my own very small business. I receive all the profits. If I expand and get more customers, I need more people to pay, more equipment more overheads. Things snowball and it’s a very delicate balance.
I choose to keep it simple and small, I have watched people expand, work harder for longer and make less money. I have watched others expand and grow and become more profitable. Choices choices, but it’s not simple…
Because there is no standard it’s too varied no one manufacturer or application play by the same rules in their implementation. Airplay and the rest are fixed entities you now.exactly what your getting and things work. Upnp can’t lay claim to this. I have two devices that just won’t work properly with other upnp controllers than the app for them which is rubbish, some don’t support certain codecs list goes on.
Great and thoughtful post as ever Anders, but at the same time I can kind of see the OPs point…
Catering for google devices potentially adds new users and keeps existing users happy, by offering cheap, simple(-r) endpoints. I’ve got one gathering dust that I’ll now try and repurpose with Roon - basically an almost free new zone. Nice, but not a must have for me. For a household with loads of them, it may be the best present ever. But is the endpoint really the barrier to entry into Roon? And are chromecast users likely to be jumping to pay for a Roon setup? I’m not so sure. The real cost IMO is the Roon software itself, which may also need a purpose bought computer to run to be really useful (always on type scenario). Then there’s setting all that up and learning how it works and how to get all your music in. Not wishing to stereotype, but I really don’t think Roons aimed at a household with a chromecast audio or two. But regardless, for the streaming generation especially, it’s what to do when you want to interact with friends etc about the music you listen to - most of whom I’ll guess don’t use Tidal - where things become trickier. And of course if you stream and/or listen on the move you can’t use Roon so have to have another service too. This is definitely an area that needs to evolve to open up to new users - much more than chromecast I think.
Today as an example I was at work, chatting to a friend about music, while listening to his Spotify - which I have to say I haven’t used much but was really impressed with. He played me a few tracks, we talked about things we liked. I mentioned I used Roon (blank expression as always), but of course I couldn’t play him anything. I couldn’t even show him the album I was talking about. So then I’m describing how good Roon is, but can’t even open it to view an album cover let alone play it. The thing is, it’s me that’s the oddball with Roon, and in that scenario it’s much less convenient.
So as welcome as chromecast devices is (to me), it seems more than countered by a pretty inconvenient streaming/mobile setup in the grand scheme of Roon, where you’re essentially forced into the Tidal ecosystem, or to have to also subscribe additionally to Spotify or iTunes etc and use multiple systems depending whether you’re at home or not.
So I can perhaps see why each time a new piece of hardware supported gets added, or specifics like MQA say, questions pop up about why this is more important than other ‘more pressing’ aspects of the Roon ecosystem like additional streaming options.
Of course implementing other streaming services or making Roon truly mobile are big projects and may well be happening in tandem in the background, but since they’re not spoken about much it gives the impression they’re lower priority than things like adding cheap endpoints. A slightly confusing situation?
As for Roon ‘standards’ I’m also slightly sympathetic with the OP because I actually do think the standards aren’t uniform. Internet Radio is a prime example and ive discussed it before so won’t go into it again, but suffice to say, once allowances have been made in certain areas to accept a ‘poorer user experience’, it’s hard to argue why we couldn’t have a lesser implementation of something like Qobuz as a starting point, and let it evolve. Why does it have to be this perfect implementation or designed in the same way as Tidals?
Ultimately what we all want is everything, and I guess this is all just a natural evolution of a product which will hopefully stay great and just keep getting more feature rich, piece by piece. But I can certainly see why some of the development priority choices don’t seem obvious…
Good points, all.
I certainly agree about the importance of mobile/remote access, and the Roon guys have stated they agree. And I don’t think they are lazy and stupid.
As for the market value of Chromecast, it’s hard to say. Certainly I’m not the target market, so personal experience doesn’t help. All I can say is that I understand the view. Prioritization is the Roon team, involves both market analysis and engineering cost, and sometimes partnerships.
34 or so posts later and you’re still right about that…
I’d only use a Chromecast for ‘around the house’ type audio, not critical listening. So as with my Sonos Play:1, ultimate sound quality isn’t a concern.
Second part being compromised SQ?
I ignored that because I am aware of no such limitation.
There are many aspects that make RAAT good.
But I haven’t heard them say SQ.
The idea was the lack of willingness from the ROON side to make a compromise when it comes to integration with other streaming services (vs. a different attitude for RAAT or no RAAT).
While Chromecast was not on any of my priority lists for Roon enhancements, I welcome its availability. I have some Chromecast devices that I use for some situations - where SQ is not the highest priority - and now that I can access these directly through Roon just makes life that little bit more easy and relaxed.
Roon is building quite a complex ecosystem - and the continued improvements and updates show Roon’s ongoing commitment to development.
I suspect adding Chromecast was one of those relatively easy wins with potential big payoffs in satisfying existing customers and winning potential new customers. This may have been at the expense of resolving some of the knottier issues - however this sort of trade off between some short term tactical gains against long term strategic directions that all organisations face in the real world.
I also welcome chromecast. One overlooked niche is business travel. It in effect turns any HDMI device in a hotel room into a roon endpoint (usually a widescreen TV). In this scenario, for me anyway SQ is not a priority, but a light, cheap, convenient solution that I can also use for casting English language TV in parts of the world where that may not be available is.
Having said that I have been playing with it all day on a 3 year old Samsung TV and the SQ within it’s limitations is excellent. I don’t feel particularly short changed. Great job by roon. My only gripe are the visuals. The waveform doesn’t really work for high dynamic classical and the artist art feature rubs your face in roon’s general weaknesses in this area.
Can Chromecast speakers be grouped with Roon Ready endpoints?
Nope.
They are a walled garden, group only among themselves.
Like Apple, Meridian, Kef…
I don’t have a Chromecast, but am happy hearing that it’s supported now. I’d like to see Roon working on more platforms and devices in the future, regardless of whether someone considers them high end or not.
At the top of my wishlist with Roon would be Spotify integration. I know it’s probably not going to happen, but that’d make Roon absolutely perfect for me. Not only having access to Spotify’s music but also the playlists available there and the ones you can make.
Same boat here Chris. Im a one man band, have been all my working life. Tough times good times, but no real overheads. Watched my father go bankrupt back in the 90’s tring to hold together a staff of perhaps 10 people with premises, cars, etc. Had he rationalised early, he would have avoided it.