Why does Ableton keep adding new features that no one wants?

[Stromkraft]

as musicians, we should simply trust instruments makers. They are the one who generally think forward for us, right?

Not really, I think it should be a two-way conversation between the players and the makers, rather than one of : users shouting into a listening-hole and waiting 4 years to see if their descriptions were understood.

Isn't that what happens at least sometimes in the beta suggestion discussions though? What I find lacking is the same issue getting reported repeatedly by different individuals and sometimes discussed each time as if it was unique.

I think maybe for certain problem spots an orchestrated group discussion would benefit both users and the Ableton development teams. What do you think?

Also, what if they understood you and still thought they knew better? Maybe because other users said they needed something you didn't? Users — programmers or not —  shouldn't do design, they (we) should state the problems they want solved as clearly as possible. Nothing wrong with an example, but it shouldn't be presented as a design prescription attempt.

[Tarekith]

"I think maybe for certain problem spots an orchestrated group discussion would benefit both users and the Ableton development teams. What do you think?"

There's already something like that in place, both on the beta forum and in other ways I can't discuss publicly. A lot of ideas get bounced around between the developers and regular users of all different skill levels, to be sure that it not only fits the developers vision of the software, but that it works for how other people use the software too. Not saying there's not room to improve this perhaps (I really don't know), but just letting you know that a lot of what makes it into Live takes into consideration things discussed here, the beta program, and other avenues as well.

[Angstrom]

Also, what if they understood you and still thought they knew better? Maybe because other users said they needed something you didn't? Users — programmers or not —  shouldn't do design, they (we) should state the problems they want solved as clearly as possible. Nothing wrong with an example, but it shouldn't be presented as a design prescription attempt.

Yes, that's true. User's shouldn't design, but I've had experiences where use-cases / user stories were dismissed as not being representative of a broader userbase. That's a point of view issue. So I think it cuts both ways. Specifiers should be aware that they may have a blindspot to a valid use-case / Story (or whatever religion you follow) and users shouldn't try to design their own completed ivory tower.

And another true thing would be ... the company thinking : "We'd actually love to do something to address that issue raised but in fact there's a secret thing scheduled for Version i++ and so I can't even say anything about the proposed solution because it may change between then and now and frankly I'm too pressed for time for an obfuscated discussion"

It's why I think the non-committal acknowledgement is king. EG:
"We see what you mean, and understand your frustration, and we hope to do something about that in future but it won't be soon. Would you be OK if we asked you more questions in future?"

it reassures the user they were heard, broadly understood, and that their usage concern is valid

There's already something like that in place

very true, and I'm sure the mysterious things are better and better each year. But unfortunately my reasons stated in this thread are why I stepped back from whatever it is you are talking about.
To concentrate on my forum-based novel writing.
It seems. ?_?

[Tarekith]

To concentrate on my forum-based novel writing.
It seems. ?_?

I found your late night Sunday posts a particularly good form of mystery myself

[login]

I am very fortunate but Abes have implemented some of the suggestions I made at the centercode site, most of them related to Push, but I feel they listened.

[Angstrom]

To concentrate on my forum-based novel writing.
It seems. ?_?

I found your late night Sunday posts a particularly good form of mystery myself

I am aware that I'm slightly odd

[studiojohnny]

Again, to do this all Ableton needs to do is listen to their users. It's not hard. Every time Live is updated I read the new feature list and just facepalm. The company seems completely tone deaf. Like why - whyyyyy - are they redesigning Simpler, which already worked totally fine, when other way more important fixes are needed?

I can assure you that Ableton is seriously listening to its user base!
When Live 1 was presented back in early 2000', nobody really understood why they had designed this strange Session View... I think that, as musicians, we should simply trust instruments makers. They are the one who generally think forward for us, right?

Do you have direct contact with the people responsible for choosing what to upgrade next? Can you shed some light on how they make their decisions and how they are consulting with users on desired features?

For the longest time, users told Apple, "We want a bigger iPhone." Apple said, "No, you can only have one size," so a lot of users switched to Android phones to get larger "phablet" sized phones. Only after Apple lost market share did they listen to their users.

For the longest time, users told Henry Ford they wanted cars in colors besides black. Henry Ford said, "You can have a car in any color you want, as long as it's black." Ford lost market share when other car makers gave the consumers what they wanted.

We are here trying to communicate with you now: we want basic DAW functionality. I appreciate the cleverness of all these other features but y'all are polishing the brass on the Titanic. Fix the giant hole from the iceburg first, then tell us about the polished brass. The alternative is jumping ship to BitWig or whatever. I'd really rather not do that. I want to want to stay. I am on team Ableton.

I guess I just wish someone from Ableton would acknowledge that they have heard us about our "pain points" and tell us that they care to alleviate our pain, even if just letting us know it's coming in a future release. It's getting old being disappointed year after year with updates that benefit only a small portion of users while ignoring pain points that affect a great number of users.

[sana48]

Personally I am amazed by Ableton Live, each update is a bonus for me.

That was fun..


Carry on.

[Stromkraft]

For the longest time, users told Apple, "We want a bigger iPhone." Apple said, "No, you can only have one size," so a lot of users switched to Android phones to get larger "phablet" sized phones. Only after Apple lost market share did they listen to their users.

Yes, Apple has always been about market share. Except they're not. You clearly don't understand how Apple operates. When they "lost market share" they kept making profits other phone companies can only dream about. You get there to a large extent by making stuff that customers didn't knew they wanted.

I'm not sure Ableton wants to be such a company as Apple or that they need to be, but they should stick to their vision as well as letting it evolve in contact with their users and in daily usage. That's clearly different than your proposition of "listening to the users" and build what they say they want. That's the way of a stagnating company. Death. Over. Out.

[Stromkraft]

Personally I am amazed by Ableton Live, each update is a bonus for me.

Agreed, but before 9.2 it wasn't as fun I think. Game changer.

[S4racen]

Personally I am amazed by Ableton Live, each update is a bonus for me.

Agreed, but before 9.2 it wasn't as fun I think. Game changer.

This

Cheers
D

[studiojohnny]

For the longest time, users told Apple, "We want a bigger iPhone." Apple said, "No, you can only have one size," so a lot of users switched to Android phones to get larger "phablet" sized phones. Only after Apple lost market share did they listen to their users.

Yes, Apple has always been about market share. Except they're not. You clearly don't understand how Apple operates. When they "lost market share" they kept making profits other phone companies can only dream about. You get there to a large extent by making stuff that customers didn't knew they wanted.

I'm not sure Ableton wants to be such a company as Apple or that they need to be, but they should stick to their vision as well as letting it evolve in contact with their users and in daily usage. That's clearly different than your proposition of "listening to the users" and build what they say they want. That's the way of a stagnating company. Death. Over. Out.

Please re-read what I said. I did not make any claims about the way Apple operates. I just recounted the facts as they happened. Calm down. Also, you're focusing on the wrong part of the message. My point was simply that when brands (even category-creating brands like Ford, Apple and Ableton) get cocky and resist user feedback, their customers will jump ship.

[studiojohnny]

I just put my money where my mouth is and bought BitWig. Shame. I wish Ableton would just get with the program.



¯\_(?)_/¯

Whatever.

[lovelight]

Im sure Ableton are doing their best, to fulfill alot of wishes, to make the best DAW etc etc, why shouldent they ?

[nicholsonc55]

Yes, they will prepare soon a mindblowing, incendiary, earthshaking, update patch with hundreds of tweaks for..................................................... Push.