Greetings fellow Moogers.
Long time casual reader here - first post. I like topics like this, so I'll chime in.
Coming from a marketing background, I think that because Arturia is now developing analog hardware and trying to stomp with the big dogs like Moog, the latter can no longer allow Arturia to enjoy the benefits involved with borrowing brand equity from the Moog name. Arturia also would not stand to gain as much as before by continuing to co-brand its products with Moog: one of its biggest competitors in their new analog hardware market. Continuing to
emulate Moog's classic synths would not at all strengthen Arturia's own efforts to create their own proprietary legendary instruments; in fact, it might actually undermine their new work. I would even venture to guess that Arturia will develop a VCO-driven analog polysynth before Moog does!
(haha! c'mon Moog... even if it's with DCOs, which are great too, pleeeeeeeez make a Polymoog 2 or Memorymoog 2 or something like that... pleeeeeeez!)
All kidding aside, I kind of mean that, though. It would not surprise me at all.
Also, the question was raised regarding why Moog would lend its name to Arturia's products in the first place. Considering how (in some contributors' opinions and not my own, as I have never used an Arturia product) their Moog-branded soft synth emulations could not come close to the hardware, I infer that such a situation is precisely what Moog wanted, in fact.
Think about it... as Moog attempts to claim more market share, it needs to reach new customers and develop a new market altogether (i.e. protecting its flanks, thus strengthening the brand). While Arturia was busy creating software Moog emulations, it would make guys like some of you say "nah, it's not the same as the original hardware." Bingo. Moog wins, because while Arturia's products cannot be
that bad (these guys must be doing something right if they have been in business this long and they are actually expanding), they inadvertently create demand for the actual Moog-sounding hardware which only Moog provides, since they are doing their best to make an Arturia softsynth that sounds great and replicates Moog's own epic greatness. To Moog's marketing team, what must be a significant enough proportion of users would think, "I don't like as much/kinda-sorta like/don't like the Arturia sound at all compared with the genuine article... gimme the Moog instead." Sure, Arturia also emulates brands other than Moog. However, Sequential Circuits is gone... Oberheim is back but is not operating at the scale Moog runs and Arturia hopes to be... Arp is gone... and I don't know of other analogs they emulate (analog Rolands...?), but think about the others and whether or not they are still making a competitor for Arturia analogs.
But Moog was not the only winner in this relationship. Arturia gained some credibility. They have been studying the analog sound for a long time, so while the so-called "mini"brute is their first foray into analog hardware, they have cred. They enjoy brand recognition in their market and make what appear to be good products based on research of analog hardware. Sure, not the kind of cred Moog, DSI, Buchla, Doepfer, or Oberheim have, but it makes sense for them to develop hardware. Good for them, too.
So, as the Minibrute appears to sound quite different from any Moog synth, the "mini" prefix must have been chosen deliberately to capitalize on the reference to the legendary "mini"moog (was that an ambush????). Besides, the minibrute is "mini" how? Where's the "big" brute anyway? As for Moog, they benefited from the relationship because as I stated above, they tapped another market: the softsynth heads. These are all relatively small companies, so it makes sense that they would pursue partnerships like these that, as time goes by and markets change, will inevitably change in nature as well.
Both brands worked intelligently, assuming my hypothesis is correct about their motives for partnering and co-branding certain products.
Or, I am totally wrong.
