I asked s/one to change the designation on 1.6.12 to final, don't know why it never happened - we don't recompile builds once they pass beta, we just re-designate. After all, why recompile something that is known to work (and run the risk, however small, of breaking it in the process).
It's not about hiding - it's about not talking about stuff that /you/ can't use (because it's not ready for release yet) and that /we/ can't tell you when you can have it (because until software is damn near finished, any number of things can derail it). Really, what's the point of that, other than to "keep faith"? (I'm not a big fan of faith in general, but that's another story). I don't think anyone would call companies like NI, Cakewalk or Apple scared - they don't talk either, it's just better that way when there's a lot riding on it.
Sales have been doing quite OK, and FWIW we didn't release any updates to BFD either yet this year (just the "Eco" lo-cost version - and that's mostly a different development team to either DCAM or GURU). We used to subscribe to the whole "release little and often" mind set, but we don't any more - for several reasons:-
- more complex software is (much) more expensive to QA to the standard that's required for our user base
- most people don't really care about a drip-drip of little-and-often updates, they just want stuff to work
- we get loads of bitching that Guru 1.6 works different to 1.5 and 1.0, and that the manual doesn't reflect it, yet rewriting the manual every time would just kill it
- releasing little-and-often - or even one major release per year - doesn't give developers the time to step back, look long and hard at the design, and build something fit for the future. Every annual-release music software eventually, after 4 or 5 versions, hits a crisis whereby it gets bloated to the point where they have to start again. We don't have to play that game (no outside shareholders/investors), so we ain't about to start.
Like it or not, we're held to different standards vis. consistency, documentation, QA etc. than the average garage/bedroom operation (I should know, that's exactly what FXpansion used to be), and that slows the release cycle down. Just because we don't discuss it in public, doesn't mean we aren't working hard on it. Again, why would we spend time on the forum talking about a product that you can't use yet?