Proposal - User Community Funding for New Features

Rob Sherratt · Post by **Rob Sherratt** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:44 am

Hi Sharp,

Thanks for youir post. Annotated replies below.

Sharp wrote:If your really serious about all this then the first thing you need to do is actually contact KORG and ask them straight out would they be interested. Gathering numbers of people interested at this stage is like putting the cart before the horse. I highly doubt KORG are interested, and until you have an official response from them, I personally see this thread as nothing other than a waste of your time. It makes no difference to me, but I just don't want to see you putting in a lot of work here for absolutely nothing when KORG Italy might not be interested.

I did this before posting the poll on the forum. Andrea B. in Korg Italy (who is responsible for requirements and the korgpa web site) replied to me and said it was an interesting idea and he would consider it seriously and reply to me in detail soon. We will see what happens, but if in the meantime there is insufficient user interest then Andrea B. will not take this seriously.

Sharp wrote:I'm only speaking my mind here because I really and truly don't want to see you putting in a lot of effort here for nothing at all..

Nor do I, but it's a bit chicken and egg. Both sides of the bridge need to be built, the Korg end and the user end. It will not work unless there is a meeting in the middle. I was initially very disappointed at the responses from users on the forum and was about to drop the whole thing. But one or two members have persuaded me to keep going. Nevertheless I decided there must be at least 50 "yes" votes to convince me there is sufficient user forum interest for me to continue with this.

pearl1977 · Post by **pearl1977** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 1:26 am

Hi Rob

Thanks for ur efforts in making this great keyboard even better!

I am all for it, count me in as long as it includes the pa1x.

David

Rob Sherratt · Post by **Rob Sherratt** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:54 am

pearl1977 wrote:I am all for it, count me in as long as it includes the pa1x.

Hi David,

Thank you for your message. Even though I have a Pa1x as well as my recent Pa2x, I do know that the Pa1x expansion capability has reached the end of the road due to there being almost no speare spece in the internal flash EPROM for more code. I think it would be realistic for Pa1x owners to expect no more new functionality.

worth · Post by **worth** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:56 am

I think thats a shame. Many of us did not upgrade to the PA800 or PA2X as it didnt seem like that much of an upgrade for some myself included. I dont know what the PA2X sales figures are like but if the new forum is unable to cater for PA1X/pro owners then you may well struggle to get the support you need particularly with the recent/current bugs with the newer instruments. But of course i wish you the very best with this initiative even though i cannot participate this time around.

Rob Sherratt · Post by **Rob Sherratt** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 2:32 pm

worth wrote:I think thats a shame. Many of us did not upgrade to the PA800 or PA2X as it didnt seem like that much of an upgrade for some myself included. I dont know what the PA2X sales figures are like but if the new forum is unable to cater for PA1X/pro owners then you may well struggle to get the support you need particularly with the recent/current bugs with the newer instruments. But of course i wish you the very best with this initiative even though i cannot participate this time around.

Hi Worth,

However hard I work at it I just cannot make the Flash Rom in my Pa1x grow any bigger. Korg have said (on this forum) that there is no free space in the flash Rom on the Pa1x to add "guitar mode". So what is the point coming up with a list of requirements for new functionality for the Pa1x only to discover it's like trying to sqeeze a quart into a pint pot.

However, if the group goes ahead, the PC-based .DLL API file from Korg would cater for Pa1x format files as well as Pa800, Pa500 and Pa2x.

Arash · Post by **Arash** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:38 pm

Rob: I commit only in US Dollars as the devaluation of Dollars continues, I might end up paying $10.000.

On a serious note, I think this is a great idea and I support it with no reservation as I trust your expertise and judgments. However, without having the intention of being philosophical, putting things in prospective, there are some considerations.

1. Despite my own bad experience with Pa800, we must put our emotions aside and to be more realistic as this is not “korg bashing” survey. Our support should not be based on the mentality of “what is in it for me”.

2. The fundamental of Capitalism dictates that the companies to be innovative and to have a technically superior product and yet affordable in order to survive. Therefore, knowing that Pa series are internationally used in different countries with their own native rhythm/styles/sounds, Korg must be sensitive to the needs of its international users and to be more user friendly. Now being a hobbyist as I am, I have a difficult time to be fair and objective as whether the .DLL-API for example should have come as a default capability or as a third party add on similar to your proposal.

3. Please just don’t give up as the progress is made only through persistence.

4. This may not be very popular but, how about some of these developed software such as (.DLL-API) to be sold with an affordable price tag so everyone including the non-members to support it.

Best Regards,
Arash

Rob Sherratt · Post by **Rob Sherratt** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:19 pm

Arash wrote:how about some of these developed software such as (.DLL-API) to be sold with an affordable price tag so everyone including the non-members to support it.

Hi Arash,

Thank you for your message. On this last point, I think this would defeat one of the main objectives which both MickB and I share, which is to encourage development and modification of open source public domain software utilities for the Pa series keyboards. So this is not an approach he or I would want to be involved with. If you start to charge for end products then people treat you like a business and Worth and I are already at the thick end of that re Arranger Secrets and we don't want to go down that twisty path again.

pearl1977 · Post by **pearl1977** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:50 pm

Hi Rob

As far as the pa1x reaching its limit- i beg to differ. If u erase all the extra languages and remove the pa1x demo files will give plenty of room for some more code like guitar mode etc...

David

Rob Sherratt · Post by **Rob Sherratt** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:00 am

pearl1977 wrote:Hi Rob

As far as the pa1x reaching its limit- i beg to differ. If u erase all the extra languages and remove the pa1x demo files will give plenty of room for some more code like guitar mode etc...

David

Hi David,

Please can you provide some evidence to justify your assertion?

a) How much SSD space would be saved by deleting all the extra languages (and whose languages do you advise should be deleted in the new release?, would those users agree to this?)

b) How much SSD space would be saved by deleting all the demo files?

c) How much extra space is needed for Guitar mode? (Image size of Pa2x OS1.1 & Pa2x MR1.1 minus image size of Pa1x OS3.1 & Pa1x MR3.0)

Is (a) + (b) > (c) ? I suspect not, but go ahead - do the sums and prove me wrong!

modbod · Post by **modbod** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:04 am

Rob

I'm happy to commit to Eur100 for the first year at least, to be reviewed based on results during that year.

Regards, Michael

macboy · Post by **macboy** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:02 am

As a reaction to the question of Music Service: maybe it is a new time to restart this discussion ?

People were just mixing up bug fixes (bad programming) with group requirements (e.g. a 01/W sax added).

I saw that someone wanted his 01/W sax. It is just an example (beside the fact that it maybe already is in the board).

But it is for these kind of proposals that a requirements group can be useful.

I am not saying everyone should pay EUR 100,- that was just a proposal of Rob. Starting a requirements group prior to that should not be a problem.

It could start as a STICKY here with all the requirements of the group bundeled together. After some people declaring their willingness, Rob could second check if Korg was interested.

For me the problem is that I have almost no requirements. I am perfectly happy with mine PA800 thanks to Nedim.

Lee · Post by **Lee** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:55 pm

Rob...The M3 group has had considerable success in this kind of requirements gathering and it looks like Korg responded with a lot of what was requested.

That said, We need to know how they did it, copy the process...and of course you have already worked on getting Korg Italy to agree to listen.

Korg Japan is in the end the boss. So do we need to go to them instead of Korg Italy? Or maybe get Both to agree? Who (Japan or Italy) would provide funding the updates?

I think we all know that just beacause one or more of us ask for some change or new function...just beause we ask we may not get it!

But, If Korg is TRUELY INTERESTED in gettng these requests in order to have this very talented, very supportive group HELP THEM to keep to stay ahead of the competition AND to make all us very happy as to stay with them...Great!

If they are not TRUELY interested and just want to do what they please (like Yamaha) then we should forget it!

Also, if this is for future products ( PA3) then I personally, while I would provide some input, will not have al that much interest as I am not buying another arranger for a long time.

Lee

dimitris · Post by **dimitris** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 2:11 pm

Rob, count me in.

Regards,
Dimitris

Rob Sherratt · Post by **Rob Sherratt** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:47 pm

Thank you all for your interest in starting a requirements group. Let's now discuss how this would work.

I think we should offer to become a requirements steering group for Korg, for which we each pay Korg $100 pa for the privilege. In return for this we should ask Korg to correspond with the group about the feasibility and cost benefit of implementing the top three requirements each year. The group would be democratically run. Every contributing member has 3 votes for the top requirement(s), then we place requirements in ascending order based on total votes, and we publish the list for all on the forum to see. Any paying member can transfer their votes at any time.

The money we pay will go to Korg as partial payment towards the development of requirements agreed by the group.

Any other thoughts/ suggestions? After a few weeks I will write to Korg with a specific proposal which will be published on this thread.

Best regards,
Rob

macboy · Post by **macboy** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:15 am

Well Rob one problem: are you sure this "little" amount would change anything?

Maybe Korg is willing to listen to this requirements forum even without the requested payment.

For example: if making some stuff possible what we ask costs in totall EUR 15.000 then what the hell would our EUR 2000 change? For Korg it maybe is a small amount.

Maybe Korg has more "fun" knowing that we finally have made an agreement on WHAT we want to be changed and they are willing for free?

My proposition would be to first ask Korg ? Or are you sure that during your first visit Korg already said that they would think of it only if we would raise funds ?

Korg Forums

Proposal - User Community Funding for New Features

Would you like to join the requirements group on a subscription basis of 100 Euros per year?