I think my Juno-106 is still a useful product...BorisYeltsin wrote:For as long as the customers find the product useful.stiiiiiiive wrote:According to you, without even speaking of choices and compromises, how long should a company maintain their products?
Yeah.. Probably because it doesn't require any driver update. Think about thatbreun wrote:I think my Juno-106 is still a useful product...BorisYeltsin wrote:For as long as the customers find the product useful.stiiiiiiive wrote:According to you, without even speaking of choices and compromises, how long should a company maintain their products?
I'm glad to hear Roland made something that works for you, even after 30 years.
It depends on the life cycle of the product. Cellphones: OS released -> OS dumped. No bug corrections whatsoever. Well, this was before the smartphones. I have a 2009 phone, I don't expect any update from its manufacturer.BorisYeltsin wrote:For as long as the customers find the product useful.stiiiiiiive wrote:According to you, without even speaking of choices and compromises, how long should a company maintain their products?
It's like a car: The car manufacturer can't just stop making spear parts. Doing that would make the car useless within a short and specific time-frame.
It is sad (well...) but it's like that.
About capitalism etc, I don't think I want to enter this debate here
MoogMusic has produced a bunch of LP OS updates, some of which contains corrections for the arpegiattor. So, come on, it's like Moog sells you a LP and then says "fReak @ff you dumB c0nsum3r!!". If you read the history on this forum, you'll see they have not been slacking about that.BorisYeltsin wrote:Anyway, the actual discussion here is about a possible faulty arpeggiator on a Moog synth. Something that Moog haven't addressed and fixed, if it is in fact a real problem, (something it seems to be with several users reporting about the same problem). A fault like that is something that really should fixed and not excused in any way.
And about excusing or not, I'm deciding for myself, huh?
No, you are right. Again, this is about compromises. Software is like that: there are always bugs. Even when you think there are no bugs anymore (I have experience in this field). Plus, there are always a part of LP users to who the remaining bugs will cause problems. But another par of them will make music anyway.BorisYeltsin wrote:It's not like addressing and fixing a faulty arp would put Moog into bankruptcy and crippling the company in a way so that it cannot focus on any other new product...
Deciding to keep the means (technical or skill related) for maintaining a piece of software costs money. As a company, you have to evaluate the ratio between how many will be bored with the remaining bugs and this cost: compromises!!
When you say "as long as the users find the product useful", you also consider the cases where , 15 years from now, a "consumer" will say "hey, buuug!!" and Moog would get back into some softawre that no one knows anymore?? This is not that easy in an industrial context.
Don't get me wrong: I wish Moog would maintain my LP's OS. But I'm more realis... pessimistic that you are, maybe
Last edited by stiiiiiiive on Thu Jun 29, 2017 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The arpeggiator is an important feature on the Little Phatty, especially to distinguish it from the Sub Phatty, I don't understand why Moog doesn't fix this very annoying bug... When you're playing on stage and suddenly a note disappears, this is very strange and destabilizing believe me, it sounds like a false note or a shifted rhythm for the listeners. And finally how can Moog just leave this unachieved function on one of their instruments for the posterity ?
Well, you are certainly free to your opinion, but when i buy a product, i don't buy it to function for 98% or 90% of the time. Were it advertised as having an arpeggiator that "might work as intended", sure. But this is a bug that needs being addressed. The arpeggiator is a rather vital function for me, since i'm not a keys man.stiiiiiiive wrote:In a certain extent, I prefer having Little Phattys 98% functional in the nature and new models than Moog keeping perfecting the LP's OS and not developing anuthing new. Plus they have to do so for staying in the race.
Maybe you already know that; what do you think?...
If they can't get one product to work correctly, why would i want the company to start working on another? I would just need to feel compelled to buy their newer stuff, when they left me hanging with their older products? Sorry but i don't understand, nor agree with that reasoning at all. From a post from Amos on the forum, it seemed like he really had to squeeze in the work in a very small time frame. I don't know what your idea of product support is, but to me that seems to be less than the bare minimum. I've been self-employed for 9 years in a small company (3 people), when there was a minor problem with any of the products or services we delivered, we always put in the work until the problem was resolved, immediately. Even if it took days of labor for only one client. I'm not even talking about labor that could help thousands (i have no idea how many Little Phatty's have been sold worldwide, but i'm guessing more than 999) of customers. Frankly to me that isn't really doing any wonders for brand loyalty. If you want to ensure future sales, dealing with stuff like this is a good place to start.
Of course, if going back to previous firmware is possible, i could also do that, and i'd basically have no argument if the arpeggiator works correctly again. But i would be hugely disappointed if the bug weren't addressed in a newer firmware, since the last firmware did in fact improve the OS in other places, for which i'm grateful, but they are lost on me if the arpeggiator continues to have this bug.
Other than that, i love my LP.