Ableton Forum

Why does Ableton keep adding stupid, obscure features (enough with stupid Push already) while neglecting to add really basic features that other DAWs added years ago?

Like, if they were building a car, they'd be adding custom rims and keyless entry but forgetting that - hello - the car is missing a wheel and a door. Maybe add the basics first.

Next time Ableton has a team meeting and sits down to discuss what to upgrade next, could someone *please* prioritize the list with important features (e.g. vocal comping, MIDI lanes, etc.) at the top and stupid features at the bottom?

Obviously people have different priorities in Live, and what some consider essential others will never use. Given the popularity of Push, I'd say quite a few people don't find it stupid either. You're welcome to share your views and frustrations here on the forums, but try and at least the discussion civil please.

Studiojohnny has a fair point though .... Ableton really seems to be pushing 'Push' (ha ha ... sorry ... couldn't stop myself).

Push is a nice bit of hardware but completely useless for how I use Live and I'd also like to see some new features in the next version of Live that caters for us mere mortals.... nothing against those who do use it .... the music I compose just doesn't require it.

Why is improving Push and its integration into Live such a priority? Imagine how much revenue Ableton makes from existing users for upgrades to new, improved versions vs. that from new customers buying Push and new Live licenses. Ableton knows those numbers and has allocated development resources accordingly to remain strong and viable.

ChangoM wrote:Why is improving Push and its integration into Live such a priority?

As if Push users wouldn't appreciate multiple track editing, proper comping/takes, improved MIDI handling, partial/selectable freeze, better step editing, improved mapping possibilities (lose the 128 parameter limit already) and improved third party preset handling just to name a few.

The heavy focus on Simpler/Push 2 functionality aside, there's very little that indicates that supporting the Push and Push 2 means you need to alienate users not using either. Without Live the Pushes are simple MIDI controllers in need of great software in order to do something useful.

It's Ableton that makes Push less usable by not making it a full on controller of the Arrangement clips for instance. It's Ableton that tries to shy away from the fact the groove function is a set of extremely usable tools, that should be available from any MIDI controller including the Pushes, but aren't.

Live is the killer feature and needs to be improved without skimping on the details. The great thing with Live has always been you can work in different ways yet the interface has remain not convoluted. There's no need for Ableton to deviate from that vision I think.

i think ableton is doing a fantastic job
people have made music with less features in ableton than we enjoy today
as for new features i and im sure many others want them keep them coming ableton team
as for the push 2 it simply is the best hardware controller for ableton and a joy to use
sure there are always more things people will want to be added be it push or the ableton program itself
but like i said it doesn't stop you making music no matter what kind of music you are trying to make
well done to ableton for giving us the best daw keep up the great work
roll on 9.7

ash1 wrote: sure there are always more things people will want to be added be it push or the ableton program itself
but like i said it doesn't stop you making music no matter what kind of music you are trying to make

Actually, sometimes it does. When something that reasonably should work doesn't then you can feel quite stuck until you find a solution or workaround. There's less of this now in Live 9 than 3 years ago, but it happens.

I do agree that the ideas for your music that you have or get are what counts if you can execute somehow and I also feel that one shouldn't feel too tied to the tools for execution. Some things do need to work though.

ChangoM wrote:Why is improving Push and its integration into Live such a priority?

Because Live was never envisioned as a normal DAW, even from the beginning. The earliest versions said "Live Sequencing Instrument" on the box.

But people see track lanes and faders and automation and assume it's supposed to be working just like Pro Tools, Logic, Cubase, etc. and that Ableton just hasn't quite figured out how to make it into a "real" DAW.

Nah. They made what they wanted to make, and for them Push is the current step in Live's evolution. I don't personally use it, but for some reason that doesn't keep me from seeing and understanding why they're doing what they're doing. It's not a mystery.

i agree some things do need worked on
and not everybody works exactly the same as people with push 2
but having said that the possibilities are endless with ableton as it sits now
im sure more features will come along that will satisfy the masses
the features added to the current beta are pretty sweet and just makes things more enjoyable
for me anyway with the push 2 ableton combination

From version 8 to version 9 they have had a pretty major overhaul. I think the feature set of 9 is kind of the 'what to expect in Ableton Live at this moment' standard.

Any features that have been added since 9's launch are a nice bonus. The Simpler update and Link are two that I can think of. Not sure what else. Was dual screen available on launch, or added after launch?

I'm not saying they should not spend time adding features that would benefit everyone's creative workflow. But the program already is a set of criteria. Any improvements are either up to them or if a new version is released it is up to you to determine if the added features retain the value worthy of paying for the upgrade.

I think it would be nice if they gave us a clue on what features are possibly in the works for the future. Maybe have a survey so they can prioritize. Unless priority is more based on which possibility is more able to be accomplished and finished at any given moment.

If an overwhelming number of people wanted support for a specific format (vst3 for instance) or alternatively an editing/workflow feature based on a survey, maybe they could focus on making that one major feature available. But if it's kind of even priorities, across the board, then it might be better for them to just see which thing their programmers manage to get a breakthrough in that best suits the design of the software.

As for Push updates. I think you see a lot of improvements because it is still a relatively new concept and easily customized. They are working out the kinks and getting a feel over time for the 'expected' functionality based on user input. So I can see why it would be evolving constantly and seem to get a lot of updates. They want this product of theirs to work really well and give people a positive experience.

Although it’s rumored that NI may sell the Maschine software without having to buy the hardware someday (unless they do already?), reading these threads makes me think it might be a good requirement. While Maschine is seriously lacking in the DAW department, nobody is screaming “Stop improving the hardware integration!!”.

A lot of debates on here seem to be either “Push doesn’t do it for me, so I don’t care about it” or “Push is the best hardware EVER and software shortcomings are mostly forgiven”. Ironically on the former some of the software integration issues are probably why Push doesn’t do it for some people and yet they probably want Ableton to spend less time focusing on improving it and make all non Push related issues the highest priority.

I'm probably one of the people for whom Push doesn't quite fit. But I can see the logic in them developing it, a real world interface is always going to be a good idea. Also the majority of their customers like to slice loops into beats and make electronic music that way. It's quick and easy. That's where the market is. I can understand that.

It might work OKayish with some of the more electronic things I do, but I actually like patching in a virtual GUI environment and for me the optimum UI for that is big and detailed. Unless they put knobs and patchbays all over Push I just cant see how it would address that need. As much as I appreciate their API developments ... most of my work requires at least two big assed screens.

I don't think OP is correct that they are developing things which "nobody wants". I think a lot of people want a big machine which slices loops into beats and allows them to browse a bunch of presets. I think they've sold a ton of these things and that will very likely influence the direction of the company.

I'd be happy if their focus on Push led to developments I could use, such as:

• The browser gets tagging and better organisation features, because all my presets are titled things like "ang op string layer fat distorted aftertouch 3".
• The audio previews become available for user presets and not just factory content
• The MIDI implementation gets things like polyaftertouch, or oven OSC support

other than that I doubt I'll see benefits from the Push centric development.

In fact it's a problem when Push-centric updates negatively impact how I work with the application. EG: the Simpler update actually slowed down how I make sample racks, and I'm told "nah, this is how we roll now, slicing for lyfe!". That's an indicator that the app is heading in a bad direction for me.

There are several things in L9 which have been problematic and I suspect they are mostly in the App to cater to Push.

I understand that I am not the target market for this application or the hardware though. That's fine.

It may also be that some of the features that some other DAWs have, but Live does not, will be added in Live10.
Not added as free new features for Live9.

stringtapper wrote:

ChangoM wrote:Why is improving Push and its integration into Live such a priority?

Because Live was never envisioned as a normal DAW, even from the beginning. The earliest versions said "Live Sequencing Instrument" on the box.

But people see track lanes and faders and automation and assume it's supposed to be working just like Pro Tools, Logic, Cubase, etc. and that Ableton just hasn't quite figured out how to make it into a "real" DAW.

This.--^ I've always thought of Live as an instrument that has DAW-like capabilities, not a general purpose DAW that happens to have a rich set of plugins.

Every time one of these "Why doesn't Live have feature X that every other DAW on the planet has?" I always think to myself "Because Live isn't a general purpose DAW, stop trying to make it one." I understand people have different workflows and different needs, but if the tool you're using doesn't fit your workflow, why not find something else that fits your way better?

--
Moose

tone61 wrote:It may also be that some of the features that some other DAWs have, but Live does not, will be added in Live10.
Not added as free new features for Live9.

I was almost going to say this, but then I would be making things up. It is up to Ableton to decide what features to implement and when.

Maybe 9.8, maybe version 11. I won't jump to any conclusions, and will appreciate it for what it is with anticipation for whatever convenience or feature they decide to add at their own leisure.