Why is ARC a separate app?

I just keep wondering this. I know it’s designed for on the go versus normal Roon for in-house, but that is not really an answer.

What were the reasons for making it a separate app?

Just out of curiosity (from a software developer)…


They did discuss this in the beta forum a bit. They could have gone either way but I think it was easier to get this out the door sooner with a new app than fitting it into the current one and they felt this was more important as it’s the most requested feature… Things may change as it develop and nothings been ruled out.

Tbh I think ARC is way more stable than the normal remote and seems to be more responsive to network fluctuations for playback. I say this is a more stable base to add on to than the current remote.


I think there might be a clue in the Roon ARC FAQ…

Question from the FAQ: “Does ARC control Roon Zones?”

Answer: “Not yet. For now, ARC supports playback through your phone, tablet, or DAP using built-in outputs, USB, Bluetooth, and AirPlay depending on what your device supports. Allowing control of Roon zones is something we have planned for the future.”

I don’t see the point in adding the ability to control Roon zones to the ARC app unless Roon is, at least at time of writing the FAQ, actively considering evolving the ARC app to the point where it can also act as a controller for one’s home setup when listening at home.

Well, I suppose the zone control feature might be fun to play pranks on other members of one’s family when you’re out and they are still at home listening to music by messing with the home setup (might it even include a single click Rickrolling feature?) but beyond that, and maybe I’m missing something, it really does seem to be a planned-for-the-future feature aimed at evolving the ARC app to do more of what the Roon Remote app can do.


Lol. That would be awesome.

That is the question I have been asking myself since the very day ARC was announced. Why would you create separate app for adding remote playback functionality? This was also never explained by Roon. To me it is a bad decision adding unneeded complexity. Wrong move in my book unless they encountered some serious issues transforming existing Roon app. e.g. ARC is awful with CarPay. Tried once and back to Spofity.

1 Like

Because they didn’t want to break the current core functionality. Adding online access required a lot of reworking. Roon did comment on it in some thread on here and it may well become part of one app in the future that has not been ruled out but for now it’s two.

Since we speak of ARC here I just wanted to ask if there is only me that experience difference between Roon app and Roon radio of chosen artist and Roon ARC and Roon ARC radio of chosen artists. My problem lays in Roon Arc radio not playing similar music but different artist of radio artist. It’s just play Boy Harsher tracks and nothing else. Or I’m using it wrong?

Actually it was explained during early testing like @Simon_Arnold3 mentioned on September 22 a bit up in this thread.

  • Faster to get out the door without endangering remote stability
  • Has completely different network requirements and hence completely different network stack
  • Could have gone either way and each way has pros and cons, but on balance they chose the separate apps. Nothing is ruled out for the future

You should open a separate topic in Roon Software Discussion or Support to have more visibility for your question

1 Like

It’s better to have a separate application for mobile listening than to integrate with remote. Roon remote app provides too much information that could potentially get confusing when on the go.

I think that’s a valid concern for some use cases and probably also easier to address in a separate app. However, there are many ways to use ARC and it’s not an issue for all. I for, one, would hope for more functionality (like credit editing) because I don’t use it “on the go” but when on a train where I have time. It’s certainly a complex problem for Roon to balance

Valid questions and concerns, however I have no issue having Spotify and Tidal way of implementing it. Tidal Connect and Spotify Connect at home and seamless transfer to headphones and CarPlay on the go. One app.
Anyone remember you could not use iPhone volume to change volume on original Roon app. This is a given now. Intuitiveness is the way to go for Roon and the sooner they merge the two apps the better. This is my opinion, of course :slight_smile:

Yeah but that’s easy for the Tidal and Spotify apps by not giving you any more functionality at home, they are the same except for using Connect at home or in-app streaming on the go. The Roon remote at home gives you all these edit and focus options that require Core interaction and raise some complexity for mobile use. It’s a very different problem for Roon.

Even if it’s packaged in one app, the UI and feature requirements differ between at home and on the go. And if the UI significantly changes when you leave the home, e.g., by disabling many functions, then the difference to having two apps to begin with is not that big. There is even potential for confusion in such a unified app when the available UI depends on the current connection status.

This is the way Roon chose to do it. Their decision making process is not something most companies need to share with customers, especially those who say, “You did it wrong. I know because I’m an expert.”

1 Like