Was it a good idea to make new Uniti products legacy compatible?

I agree SJB, excepting multi-room both ways across legacy and new... that is a "must have" family function for the brand. Apart from that, if firmware development is coming to an end on legacy platform, it makes sense to have separated the control app functionality into old and new apps, and implemented some new features in legacy app to keep look and feel fresh as time and resources allow.

Naim have done an amazing job of adding features that weren't in anyone's purchase decision thinking, so I see the temptation and pattern. But I agree a cleaner break, with only "must have" operations added to both apps, could have kept both old and new camps happy. 

Regards alan

The multiroom is very likely the biggest challenge, so if that’s being done the whole lot might as well be done. My view it is that it would be a very bad idea to have two apps. In my view Naim are taking exactly the right approach. 

I agree with HH. I may eventually upgrade one of my two UnitiQute2's to an Atom *. Namely (Naimly?), my bedroom TV / Audio system.

It would be inconvenient to have to switch back and forth between two separate Naim apps for a mixed legacy / new Uniti system.

* Alas, I can't contemplate upgrading my other UnitiQute2, as it operates both as my desktop all-in-one, and also as my main system streamer, via SPDIF to my nDAC because....

... there's no SPDIF outputs on the new Uniti line!

I understand your point HH... and agree the technical challenge of multiroom is likely among the most complex, working across two platforms, and I agree it's a must-have. But the challenge of merging a client-side app with the server-side app is not trivial and that's certainly where gaps in the early functionality are causing pain. In the end, a unified app has lots going for it; in the meantime, legacy folks are feeling left behind and have only the invitation to the beta team to get the firmware fixes ... it's a complex issue, including resource deployment, and no clear answer to how people would have reacted to the "new line, new app" approach since that wasn't the path chosen. But bug fixes and missing feature (light dimming, album cover art, full access to setup menu options, etc) could have been addressed perhaps more quickly? The legacy code could have been left pre-iOS 11, or with limited split-view capability on iPad Pro... there are many more aspects to understanding the consequences, than may spring to mind immediately, that's all I was saying. From Manu's comment on how two connections are required for Roon integration (vs only one allowed in the legacy app), we gain greater insight into just how much learning, basic architecting, and branched coding is going on these days! And who knows how much regression testing costs as the code base forks? I wasn't part of the team that made, and now lives, with the choice, obviously. But it is yet another hard thing they're dealing with in the background. Anyway, enjoy your day. 

Regards alan

Naim is apparently using multiple 3th party streaming solutions. At least StreamUnlimited and BridgeCo, and their SDK's obviously. 

Don't know what board the Muso and Atom/Nova etc are using, but it's hard to integrate different generations in one app, let alone different modules from multiple vendors. 

And not just integrate, also including new features, support for new versions etc. 

Developing and maintaining another entirely separate app would cost even more than reusing the investment in the existing app.

Much of the functionality of both the old and the new streaming systems is built on the DLNA interfaces anyway, and these will remain unaltered, so there is significant overlap that you'd just be re-developing.

Exept that Naim is not developing that part of the app, they just use the SDK of the manufacturer. See for example here http://www.streamunlimited.com...audio/streamsdk.html

So the Naim's investment lies in the UI and the possible integration of multiple streaming solutions the one app. 

The 3th party supplier makes sure they are up with the competition, and will bring new integration and services. As for example Tidal support. http://www.streamunlimited.com...ifies-StreamSDK.html

So with huge chunks of the funtionalities in both streamers and app, maintaining multiple more or less standard apps for multiple streaming solutions could be cheaper and easier, as you do not have to put efforts and costs in integration them in one app. And maintaining them. 

Not really user friendly, so to go for one app is understandable. Also from commercial standpoint for Naim too off course. 

The fundamental function and structure of the application remain the same for both series of streamers, the main differences will be in some of the underlying interfaces, and that's really easy to deal with - just write one or more multi-classed interface objects.  Integration of the interfaces is actually quite simple code for Java (and most other OO languages).

What you really don't want is the overhead of maintaining four separate applications.

Beginning to wonder is software development is really Naim’s game?

So if all their products were ‘Roon Ready’ multi-room playback would be solved immediately.

Plus you could mix’n’match with other equipment such as Sonus.

Naim could focus on what they have been good at, making good sounding equipment for systems, not single-box solutions.

There is a high-end Roon-Ready opportunity out there, with many at the DIY end, Bluesound, but only dCS with their new Bridge product, placing a stake there!

Thoughts? Simon

simes_pep posted:

Beginning to wonder is software development is really Naim’s game?

So if all their products were ‘Roon Ready’ multi-room playback would be solved immediately.

Plus you could mix’n’match with other equipment such as Sonus.

Naim could focus on what they have been good at, making good sounding equipment for systems, not single-box solutions.

There is a high-end Roon-Ready opportunity out there, with many at the DIY end, Bluesound, but only dCS with their new Bridge product, placing a stake there!

Thoughts? Simon

I think your analysis is missing the point that Naim is trying to make the new products compatible with the existing product lines (the musos and the black box streamers). The new products are to be Roon Ready but the existing products won't be, and Naim want multi-room to work across their whole range anyway.

I am sure you are right about the high end opportunity. However it is very expensive to commercialise anything complex and addressing niches is not going to make any company rich unless they can get volume (or charge high end prices).

best

David