Angus_FX wrote: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).
Well I don't know why either, but it does look lazy from an outsiders point of view not knowing that it was supposed to be designated a final release or that no one noticed in like a year?
I've done some programming in my time, and while not on the same level as a professional - I can't see a recompile breaking if nothing was changed since the last compilation other than something being designated final rather than beta.
Again, I don't know the ins & outs, but it seems odd to delay the release of a year+ beta process because you're afraid of breaking something that you yourself have qualified as 'stable' on a public forum..
I say re-compile it simply to show some kind of active development to anyone (however few) interested in a) purchasing software that's actively developed b) curious what can be expected in the future after buying it.
Angus_FX wrote: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.
I'd honestly rather be excited about possible features than wonder if the developers have even bothered with anything at all - be it feature requests, ideas, layout, etc. Keeping us in the dark does nothing for your credibility, and generates zero interest or excitement for your products.
It's understanding that you don't want to announce something then have it not work out, but I feel fxp & GURU should be taking that risk if they intend to stay relevant.
I'm not a fan of faith either, but at the same time when I buy into a software it's nice to know that someone is doing something behind the scenes. With NI, Apple, Cakewalk - it's at least a given that they're working on new stuff all the time. They may not pre-announce stuff, but with how often updates & whatnot are released it gives people some reassurance that something's happening or at least that it's being actively developed/improved upon and not just collecting dust in a corner (no news, updates, or anything might lead one to believe this).
Angus_FX wrote: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.
I'm sure you can't say anything but this, as it'd be detrimental to your reputation if sales were anything but okay. I don't think anyone expects someone in your position to say their doing poorly in an open discussion.
But take into consideration what the uninformed paid customers see:
- GURU v1.5.12 Release V. 1.5.12 Release Date: 27.11.2007
- GURU 1.6.x (Public beta) V. 1.6.12 Release Date: 1.4-.2009
- No news, information about anything being worked on feature wise or other
- No mention of any GURU 2.0 happening when users have been wondering for years about their feature requests being heard or listened to
- GURU offer in CM Mag for 50% off a product that's last official stable release was in 2007
To me, that gives the appearance of being one step away from abandonware.
If sales were okay, why would you bother risking half your income on such a huge discount?
Like.. you could charge full price and have okay sales, or you could split that profit potential in half just to quickly sell a few units and make some money. This is eerily reminiscent of a bargain bin clearance and like you're trying to milk any possible sales you've got left by offering a massive discount. I mean.. that's just how I (the uninformed public/customer) see it.. I could be way off.
You may not have released an update to BFD this year, but I'd hazard a guess a great deal more time was spent on development of BFD/BFD2 in the past year along with the supported content than was even considered to be spent on GURU.
Okay.. so from 2007-2010 hasn't been long enough for the developers to sit back and take a long look at the design before they're able to piece togther what needs to be done for the future? I don't think 1.6.12 was a big enough update to justify 2 years of development, and see 1.6 more as a bugfix release of 1.5 than anything else.. So you guys have had 3, almost 4 years to think about things.. and as far as John Q. Public is aware (due to no news/info being posted at all) there's no release, update or even bugfix scehduled after 3-4 years of time.
That's the other thing.. the manual. Is it really that hard to put something together over the past 3-4 years since GURU 1.5 came out? Surely that's enough time to accomplish just about anything, let alone write words into a pdf describing how to use your product.
Angus_FX wrote: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?
I realize you're held to different standards, and standards are good, nay great to have. However it's unfortunate that at the expensive of these standards the users are left out in the cold wondering what's up and you're not able to generate any excitement for your products as a result.
Again, I'll say that talking about a product (or feature) that's being worked on only builds excitement, and get's people actively discussing your products. What is NAMM all about? Is it not more or less the same thing.. to generate buzz/potential sales from exciting new products? But clearly that's a horrible idea.. You're better off throwing away half your profits by offering a huge discount on software that's already selling 'okay'.
I do appreciate you taking the time to respond to this topic.. I will say this.. it doesn't make me feel any better about FXP that it took 16 days to respond to this topic when it's been the most actively viewed in the last month other than the previous 'OUTDATED GURU' thread.