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

[Stromkraft]

You cannot deny that Live is directly competing with other "traditional" DAW's for writing and producing music, and a large part of it's userbase uses it as such. I don't think it should be used as an excuse that Live omits certain features that would be beneficial to this function, just because it was "envisioned" as something else.

Of course it can. It's chiefly the vision of the people at Ableton that determines what Live will become. I don't believe in command economy so what is in other DAWs is quite uninteresting as long as making music in Live works. We can all vote with our wallets and feet as well as engaging in a communication with Ableton and other users. But "this feature is in DAW Blah" is only relevant if that feature actually fits right into the Live DAW tool without compromising its main ease of use features.

[stringtapper]

I don't think it should be used as an excuse that Live omits certain features that would be beneficial to this function, just because it was "envisioned" as something else.

The point is that the development of Push integration is evidence that Live is still very much being envisioned in that same original way, rather than as a traditional DAW.

[Stromkraft]

I don't think it should be used as an excuse that Live omits certain features that would be beneficial to this function, just because it was "envisioned" as something else.

The point is that the development of Push integration is evidence that Live is still very much being envisioned in that same original way, rather than as a traditional DAW.

Do you feel with your experience this means the open ended way of working with Live must by necessity be compromised with adding features that potentially would make sense both for Push users and users without?

To me it looks like there is a good chance both these groups — if at all different in needs — can be satisfied with the same software as long as they accept this vision of what Live is and what it can become. I've only been on the platform since v8 so it's harder for me to see the path than for those that have been using Live longer. But Live 8 and 9 has in many ways made more sense to me than Logic 8 that I used before and still think is great. I very seldom feel like I work in a DAW when using Live. I work with my music.

That said, like many others I have features I can't be without, or don't want to, in the long run. But I am making music despite some of current limitations. That alone makes it work out for me.

[tone61]

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.

Of course it is Ableton's decision, but they probably want to choose some important new features to Live's next release so that more people would buy it.
IMO Live9 is already so good that I wonder what kind of big improvements will they still add.
Push was the big new thing of Live9, but what's next?

[Angstrom]

Live9 is already so good that I wonder what kind of big improvements will they still add.

I can think of a bunch of huge features that they could add but almost certainly will not.
For example: I've mentioned to them before about the AfterEffects method of nested compositions. In AE you can have mulitple timelines (like multiple arrangments), and they can go inside a "clip". It sounds complex, but in reality it's very intuitive and incredibly flexible. It's something which would be amazing in Live, but they will never do it.

It would potentially solve the "can I have multiple regions in a clip" issue
It would potentially solve the "having multiple songs in one set" issue
It would potentially solve the "how do I comp" issue
and many more.

You may think it would be a resource hog, but what happens in AE is a "pre-compose" - effectively freezing the encapsulated arrangement inside the clip as an audio render. So in fact it's lighter on resources! You might think it's too complex to use, but AE users have been managing with it since about 2005.


Well, they won't do that. They hate the idea of groups in groups, never mind parallel nested arrangements!

it's a good example of "features nobody but me wants"

[H20nly]

it's a good example of "features nobody but me wants"

i guess they'd hate it that i'd like to see what you described too.

[Stromkraft]

They hate the idea of groups in groups, never mind parallel nested arrangements!

it's a good example of "features nobody but me wants" ;-)

Me too would likely like this feature if implemented right. I do think ideas like this can be implemented if someone — at Ableton certainly — can envision how to reap the same benefits without unnecessary crud and complexity. AE is a video effects editor and the last thing Live needs is more visual aids I think. We have enough but those functions there are can be made better.

All this pointing to features in other programs are missing the mark I think. If I want those other features I can go use that other DAW instead. Hopefully people at Ableton can extract the core idea from thought and refelctions like this and envision an idea for even greater functionality and an implementation that fits right in inside Live.

[fraq]

Ableton Clive FTW

Definite lol from me.

Me too.

[Mystic38]

As an owner of a more "traditional" DAW (Sonar), who purchased live about 5-6wks ago, I pretty much lol'd at the why not this, or that or something else feature..

This type of thread is rampant in every DAW users forum, and in some cases they have merit, but less so here..

Live is great for what it is intended to be...and thats why i shelled out for Push 2 and Live. It has its niche and sure this needs to improve and get better, but NOT at the expense of real time performance, complexity, or workflow.

So, before you wish for a bunch of things from "traditional" DAWs, try to remember that there is a tool for every job, and while you can use a hammer to drive a screw, making that 2 lb hammer a 14 lb hammer still won't make it a screwdriver. So, if you need a screwdriver, just go get one.

[Angstrom]

This is why my big wish is actually just the browser.

The one in M4L is actually pretty good! The browser in Live is ... not so good.

This opinion and many more are all available on my hit album

[ash1]

its a never ending wish list even if all the updates people are asking for were put into ableton
someone else would say why dont they put in this or that
so i dont think ableton will ever satisfy everyone
if you look back at the early days of ableton people were still putting out good tunes and doing great stuff
with early versions
i think people spend to much time wanting new features
and forget its about making music
there are many daws out there if ableton does not do it for you then maybe try another daw
for me the push 2 is genius i think ableton deserve great credit for the updates and the work they are doing developing ableton
and push 2

keep the updates coming we love the new features roll on 9.7

[Stromkraft]

This opinion and many more are all available on my hit album

That's one of my fav albums of opinion!

[Tarekith]

My favorite quote from Ableton's Loop event last year was from Carla Scarletti (Kyma) who said that if developers implemented everything everyone wanted, they'd all be making the exact same app.

[Angstrom]

My favorite quote from Ableton's Loop event last year was from Carla Scarletti (Kyma) who said that if developers implemented everything everyone wanted, they'd all be making the exact same app.

I don't think user suggestions are a good indicator of what to specifically develop because of the apocryphal "Faster Horse" problem.

BUT - it's worth paying attention to what all the users say because you can derive some clues from the noise of the rabble. People may ask for a faster horse, but what they really want is to get places more speedily, more efficiently, with less horseshit. So what's the best thing we can spec which is cost-effective and delivers on those needs.

Likewise - when a user asks for "groups in groups" , or "a better browser" - what are they really asking for?

If developers say things such as "we made this Horse and it shits differently" and the users say "wait, that's not right, here are a bunch of reasons its not a good solution" and the developer takes it as a personal insult rather than as additional input - then there is a real problem. Carla proposes a problem which will never exist "making everything". But making the wrong thing is an actual functional issue.
At that point you haven't even made a faster horse, you have made a donkey, and it's bad if you think it's OK because some people like donkeys.

[Idonotlikebroccoli]

I guess it's because most people really like these features, most people don't visit these forums, and it's important to have things that differentiate you from the rest. It seems like Live is primarily geared towards beatmakers and performers, not people who do composing - thus, we get slicing and Push features. Live is mostly perfect for me as it is though, so I don't mind.

With that said, I think that most of the most popular requests ( https://ableton.centercode.com/project/ ... 4faf86c4d1 ) are things that would benefit all Live users, both composers, performers, beatmakers and novices/dabblers.