Ableton Forum

I've been thinking about this for some time, and, I have a suggestion.

Why is it that Ableton insist on releasing things that seem like they aren't what "we" want?

Obviously it's about money. And it does make perfect sense to me (as a full-time software engineer). You need to get new customers, as old customers are more likely to pay "small" upgrade fees to stay with a particular platform that they are familiar with, even if it might not contain all the features they'd REALLY like.

Ultimately Ableton is a company with employees, that need to be paid. And implementing wish-list features is not the way to keep these people employed.
The best way to make money is to garner new customers, or make people pay to update with new features etc. Maintenance fees generally aren't high enough to keep a company going.

So, what about features like (amongst others) polyphonic aftertouch (i.e. a full MIDI implementation), an open instrument API, sample accurate MIDI timing, SMPTE Timecode, etc. etc. - the more technical things that aren't glamorous enough to coerce the new user, but something that professional users would welcome with open arms? Would we EVER see them with a typical business model? Unlikely.

It seems that the only sensible option is to pay Ableton to implement these features directly. What other way can you convince someone that they are important?

Does anyone else think that the following idea has any merit.

1.) Collect a list of features that people really want.
2.) Collate this list into an actual development list, using real software engineers to do so. i.e. do the ACTUAL research. Collect use-case-diagrams, software requirements specifications, i.e. do it "properly".
3.) Collect an estimate of this cost from Ableton directly.
4.) Set up a kickstarter project to raise the funds to make this happen.

Am I a crazy dreamer or is there some merit in this approach?

Interested on your thoughts.

regards,

e

[quote="etheory"
Obviously it's about money.
e[/quote]

not sure about that at all...by the roughest calculation i would guess theyve made 500 million, that oughta be quite a good start

they already know exactly what is wanted, this forum is occasionally sometimes closely monitored

timing is the thing too....fund improvements now, so that we can then also pay for an update in Q1 2013?
hmm, somethin aint right there...anyone preordering will be covering development til 9 comes

simmerdown wrote:not sure about that at all...by the roughest calculation i would guess theyve made 500 million, that oughta be quite a good start

they already know exactly what is wanted, this forum is occasionally sometimes closely monitored

I've talked to then directly and got a response along the lines of "if there are enough other user requests, we would consider it".

So either they monitor but don't take the forum seriously, or, people really are not directly contacting them for such "wanted" updates.

If what you are saying was actually true, you wouldn't be saying it, as those features would have already been implemented with your mystical $500million in amazing budget.

I have no idea where you could get such a figure from, but I find it exceptionally hard to believe such a claim without some sort of actual proof.

that was conservative, they claim 1.78 million users...each somewhere between 500 and 800$...get out the calculator

simmerdown wrote:that was conservative, they claim 1.78 million users...each somewhere between 500 and 800$...get out the calculator

Again, this isn't simple. At all. In all likelihood a lot of people are using cracked versions (for which I have no tolerance for at all) or a cheaper demo version.

So no, getting out a calculator is not particularly useful.

And factor in running costs for a company that's been around as long as them and there is suddenly nowhere near as much money for development as you are implying.

The fact is, these features are not, and likely, won't be implemented.
Do you have a different suggestion that you know would work?

Treating a software development company as a resource to use directly seems pretty sure-fire. You tell them what you want and you PAY them to do it DIRECTLY.

Anything else is like the lottery. You may or may not get what you want. But you are not directly engaging a service to work for you. You are at the whim instead of their decisions about what they THINK people want, which may or may not be correct.

they are not advertising their crack customers, that would be kinda odd don'tcha think?, lol

hopefully someone from abe HQ will chime in here, lets you know if this is an interesting offer, kickstarts have to be started by the party that wants to be funded, i believe

simmerdown wrote:they are not advertising their crack customers, that would be kinda odd don'tcha think?, lol

hopefully someone from abe HQ will chime in here, lets you know if this is an interesting offer, kickstarts have to be started by the party that wants to be funded, i believe

I've also written to them directly to see if there is any extra information I can garner that would be of use in the future in terms of getting updates faster.

thanks.

"we" who? some of the things people want cancel out things that others want.

i customize software (among other things) for a living and people say "oh can't you just _____" all the time. if it were only so simple.

let me give you an example:

someone wants me to add a check box that when checked adds a value somewhere. seems easy enough right?
well what happens when the check box is unchecked? the value has to be cleared. they forget that step constantly.
so that's two things they are essentially needing... even if they don't realize it from the GUI side.

i know this example is weak if you're just disgruntled about not having something you want, but i intended it to be that simple... a check box is simple, but how simple is warping audio? and adding an effect? and routing it to several tracks? and _____? and _____?

if software companies were even capable of giving every user what they want... what would they need upgrades for? surely everybody knew what they wanted by version 3 or 4 right? wrong... because a lot of the requests are for changes to things that were added later... hell, those things might not have even been customer requests but features that the vendor came up with. the more you give people, the more they want.

in Live, if you make one change to something it has to reflect that change on what is basically two mini-GUIs - arrange and session. so one change has to have an on/off in two views. that's 4 commands/lines of code minimum.

but wait there's more... that strip that runs along the bottom... where you add the effects and warp the tracks... that has to refelect the change too! see how it can just pile up?

testing and adjusting that one itty bitty change could take all day. imagine how long it takes for you to make a track... how much longer would it take to make the thing that allows you all the options to make that track?

i'm sure someone more disgruntled than you are will chime in and attempt to negate or write off everything i just said, but being reasonable sometimes requires a little more empathy that the eccentric/eclectic have to spare.

H20nly wrote:"we" who? some of the things people want cancel out things that others want.

i customize software (among other things) for a living and people say "oh can't you just _____" all the time. if it were only so simple.

let me give you an example:

someone wants me to add a check box that when checked adds a value somewhere. seems easy enough right?
well what happens when the check box is unchecked? the value has to be cleared. they forget that step constantly.
so that's two things they are essentially needing... even if they don't realize it from the GUI side.

i know this example is weak if you're just disgruntled about not having something you want, but i intended it to be that simple... a check box is simple, but how simple is warping audio? and adding an effect? and routing it to several tracks? and _____? and _____?

if software companies were even capable of giving every user what they want... what would they need upgrades for? surely everybody knew what they wanted by version 3 or 4 right? wrong... because a lot of the requests are for changes to things that were added later... hell, those things might not have even been customer requests but features that the vendor came up with. the more you give people, the more they want.

in Live, if you make one change to something it has to reflect that change on what is basically two mini-GUIs - arrange and session. so one change has to have an on/off in two views. that's 4 commands/lines of code minimum.

but wait there's more... that strip that runs along the bottom... where you add the effects and warp the tracks... that has to refelect the change too! see how it can just pile up?

testing and adjusting that one itty bitty change could take all day. imagine how long it takes for you to make a track... how much longer would it take to make the thing that allows you all the options to make that track?

i'm sure someone more disgruntled than you are will chime in and attempt to negate or write off everything i just said, but being reasonable sometimes requires a little more empathy that the eccentric/eclectic have to spare.

I agree with you 100%
Everything you've written I think is one of the key reasons why you see pages and pages and pages of +1's on this forum for a suggestion without a single scrap of useful explanation from a software development perspective.

Hence me suggesting that a proper exploratory phase occur.
This includes projected costs of implementation that also include all the points you make.
I am completely aware that nothing is simple to implement. I don't assume it is.
And yes, the explanation of the addition of a checkbox is actually something I also come across daily.
But as you also know, some things really ARE simple to add, and still get lost in translation.

I think we just need a way of actually elaborating what people want, but again, how can you clarify this across all people?
Admittedly, this is just trying to solve the ongoing issues of software development that are always there. But with the right amount of work done up front, it should be possible.

wow. i was expecting a much different response. i almost hit cancel instead of submit.

starting a thread is not the way. the problem is that it's unorganized... there are serious requests that are achievable, there are unreasonable requests that are not (at least at the time), there are jokes and jabs and people venting about how other DAWs have it and so on... the whole thing is a mess lacking organization which just creates a big knot.

i think that a thread of that nature should be stared, but moderated. it would be a cool thing for Ableton David to start for example... not some user. it would be even better if on just this one thread... or sub forum etc. if the posts were approved first. that way it's strictly business as it pertains to requests. plus then we don't end up with people posting an idea to have an upload to Beatport option 3 times.

for example:

Feature Requests:

Dual Monitor. - blam that's it... no Pro-tools implemented this at version x and Ableton need to or i'm gonna leave type crap. fluff, it's not helpful to a developer.

H20nly wrote: wow. i was expecting a much different response. i almost hit cancel instead of submit.

starting a thread is not the way. the problem is that it's unorganized... there are serious requests that are achievable, there are unreasonable requests that are not (at least at the time), there are jokes and jabs and people venting about how other DAWs have it and so on... the whole thing is a mess lacking organization which just creates a big knot.

i think that a thread of that nature should be stared, but moderated. it would be a cool thing for Ableton David to start for example... not some user. it would be even better if on just this one thread... or sub forum etc. if the posts were approved first. that way it's strictly business as it pertains to requests. plus then we don't end up with people posting an idea to have an upload to Beatport option 3 times.

for example:

Feature Requests:

Dual Monitor. - blam that's it... no Pro-tools implemented this at version x and Ableton need to or i'm gonna leave type crap. fluff, it's not helpful to a developer.

Actually I almost entirely agree. But saying Dual monitor support is nowhere NEAR enough.
How? How is dual monitor support implemented? The how is as important as the what.

i.e. the Live interface is 100% done, very clearly, and cleverly, for a single monitor. I work with graphic designers every day when I code, and it's clear that it was inherently designed for 1 monitor. So HOW do you deal with 2 or more? That's the real issue imo. The thread would HAVE to deal with that detail. Potentially with mock-up images. Then it would be useful.

H20nly wrote: i think that a thread of that nature should be stared, but moderated. it would be a cool thing for Ableton David to start for example... not some user.

I don't think a public forum is not a good place to canvas opinion, firstly because people's opinion of a 'problem' and its relative importance or merit is changed by the echo chamber effect. No matter how well moderated some ideas seem to be more appealing than they would actually be useful , and a perfect example is >>>

H20nly wrote: for example:
Feature Requests:
Dual Monitor. - blam that's it... no Pro-tools implemented this at version x and Ableton need to or i'm gonna leave type crap. fluff, it's not helpful to a developer.

Now,the reality of a user feature request as it is interpreted by a specification team is : What problem is the user actually having and wanting us to solve?
When a user says "I would like dual monitor support", why is that?
Is the problem they are having actually "I would like to see Session and arrangement at the same time" and possibly "I would like to see the mixer in arrangement" . Those might be actual problems that the user has, to which they think the solution is dual monitor support.
But that user has not considered "I would like to see the mixer on one screen, the session on another and another screen with three different midi edit windows" , or "my one giant screen with both session and arrangment on it"

A developer has to take "implement Dual monitor support" and parse out the actual meaning for a range of users : "more flexible views". Something for the One Big Screen guy, and something for the studio guy and something that suits the DJ on a macbook Air and an iPad.

Now, a good actual solution like that of "more flexible views" takes a lot longer than a dead end solution of Dual Screen. So when someone asks "Why you no have dual screen!?!?!"
the developer can only say . "Weeeeelllll, it's complicated"

^ yep. agreed.

one of the problems is that we're being reasonable about it right now... Ableton/Software company aren't always afforded that luxury.

the dual monitor example still holds perfect to expound upon. i saw in another thread about it that one person said that they spend too much time toggling the Tab key to get from Session to Arrange. so they are counting that half second to second and a half of time as their reasoning... but how long does it take to move your mouse pointer [precisely] from one monitor to the other... probably about the same amount of time.

often people get an idea in their head that they think will make something better, but it's an assumption rooted in the fact that they are somewhat dissatisfied with what they have or perceive themselves to be missing....

the grass is always...

(...easier to get in Colorado)