kenackr wrote:fdspec, I disagree completely with your comment that the list of updates HAS no validity or that Dan has recited it too often. I think the whiners don't know or don't remember what has been provided as updates.
Ken, I think you’ve got my argument wrong. Of course the list is valid. It’s an impressive list and at least I haven’t forgotten. I could recite most of it’s content by heart (by the way, that’s why I don’t follow the line „I paid so much and now you owe us something“ as you may have noticed). But I think it doesn’t help in the argument because – to use also an allegory – a chain always break at it’s weakest link. It doesn’t help to put additional strong links into the chain, it still breaks at it’s weakest link. You have to do something about the weak link.
kenackr wrote:Everyone should get off the "it has to do everything perfect" wagon and get realistic. There will never be an all inclusive instrument that does everything perfectly. What the Oasys does do, it does very very well and delivers the best sound on the market. End of story.
It’s not about bringing the Oasys into perfection. In that case we would talk about other features than the ones discussed in this post. It’s about doing something about the spots where it is quite imperfect. And yes, the Oasys comes nearer to perfection in many respects compared to the other mediocre instruments that flush the market. I think that’s why it is so hard for some people to accept the weak spots of the Oasys. The Oasys is their only chance to get an instrument which at least goes into the direction of the instrument they dream of. That’s why this discussion is held and why some people are so persistent.
kenackr wrote:Either be happy that you have the currently best synth on the market or sell it and move on to nag and whine to someone else. Continued whining on this forum or any other will never produce any positive results for you.
Get over it! Enough! Finito.
If you are happy with it, that’s ok for you. In that case it may be better to not read the posts of this thread anymore because they only could annoy you. But don’t complain if people try to achieve something, even now as the end of the Oasys was announced. After it was clear that all the polite begging, complaining and demanding had no effect I thought it was time for a different approach. That’s why I made my first post. Apparently there is a gap between what part of the Oasys users want and what Korg is being able to deliver. But it is my experience that there is no problem which can’t be solved somehow. The suitable solution is sometimes hard to find, but it exists. I don’t know if the pre-paid update is feasible for Korg but it is one possible solution.
I experience at the moment that the „economic situation argument“ comes easily about the lips of everyone. Everybody should understand it and nobody can prove it. I even find myself using it. In favour of Korg I assume that this argument is valid but I think there is something that must go in connection with it. If it is valid you can’t go with your old rules anymore. You must be prepared to do new and unusual things which you never thought you would do in the past. That’s why I think Korg should rethink how they interact with their customers and be open to creative problem solving suggestions.
I have another suggestion to make. If it is not feasible for Korg to allocate their developers on the Oasys anymore even if they get paid you should think about using somebody from the outside. I bet there are enough people here in the forum which are able to work on a sequencer update and do it for free. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t talk about releasing parts of the source code into the public domain. It is clear that Korg can’t allow that. I am talking about choosing one external developer. Make an NDA with him or whatever you need to protect your intellectual property. Than let him do the work and you can calm your customers for free (well nearly, you only have do give some support). I am no professional programmer. I can write software which does what I want it to do but I’m not as skilled and efficient as a professional programmer. Thus I’m maybe not the best person to do the job but if nobody else more skilled volunteers I would do it and I would do it for free.
In the case of EXf’s if you have done it cleverly you have created some interface to support a modular approach. Releasing the specs of this interface can’t do any harm. Let others finish what you are apparently not able to accomplish anymore.
-Frank-
