Korg Forums

IMPORTANT SIDE-QUESTION: Is DAN PHILLIPS a pipe-smoker ?

I like it

danatkorg wrote:

RC-IA wrote:what i'm saying is that this forum is best way to let us know to korg that it would be great to have synful (personaly i don't need it, but i'm always for good development) on oasys, dan , jerry and others are here almost everydays

Yup - we're here and listening.

- Dan

dear Dan....!!!!

only listening to it, or....? truly going to make it working for Oasys.......!!!!! that would be wonder_Oasys_almost_Ram-full

There will be nothing happening in this direction - unfortunately!

Rainer wrote:There will be nothing happening in this direction - unfortunately!

Is this true?.....I truly hope that this is not the case. Would anyone from Korg be willing to comment on this?

Seems mad that the OASYS is "OPEN" and yet so "CLOSED".
No thrid party development byond Sample Libraries at all.

I wonder what's stopping KORG from adding a VSTi HOST.

Regards.
James.

Could it be that the risk of OASYS getting more instable is getting higher if others develop tools that are much closer to the "core" of the machine then samples are?

peter

Sharp wrote:Seems mad that the OASYS is "OPEN" and yet so "CLOSED".
No thrid party development byond Sample Libraries at all.

I wonder what's stopping KORG from adding a VSTi HOST.

Regards.
James.

Adding a VSTi (or AU) host in the Oasys would be nice of course, for example imagine Arturias soft synths in there!!

But that would also mean that the advantage that the Oasys has compared to computers and soft synths would be lost: back to system freezes and crashes, updates this and that, drivers here and there and so on.

Sure, the O has freezed a couple of times on me, but it's rare, especially after 1.3.1.

I understand the lure of opening up the Oasys, but a part of me is glad that it's only open to Korg.

peter m. mahr wrote:Could it be that the risk of OASYS getting more instable is getting higher if others develop tools that are much closer to the "core" of the machine then samples are?

peter

You read my mind!!

curvebender wrote:

peter m. mahr wrote:Could it be that the risk of OASYS getting more instable is getting higher if others develop tools that are much closer to the "core" of the machine then samples are?

peter

You read my mind!!

Would it though if it's only a VSTi running off KORG's HOST.
It's not like it will be a core feature intergrated deeply into all systems.

Wishful thinking anyway I guess.

Regards.
Sharp.

Sharp wrote:....I wonder what's stopping KORG from adding a VSTi HOST.

Now, that would definitely scare the s**t out of the rest of the manufacturers, especially Muse Receptor and Open Labs. Indeed, that would be truly awesome!

EJ2 wrote:

Sharp wrote:....I wonder what's stopping KORG from adding a VSTi HOST.

Now, that would definitely scare the s**t out of the rest of the manufacturers, especially Muse Receptor and Open Labs. Indeed, that would be truly awesome!

Ohh s**t...that would be cool....that would smoke the big ones.

Sharp -

The answer is economics of course. With 3000+ OASYS in existence, and say a developed plugin cost of $200, with a take up of 2000 - that's $400,000 in total - nothing - simply not worth doing.


I'm sorry to be negative on this point (and on the prospect of future development even by Korg for OASYS), but I suggest that Korg would had to have sold closer to 10,000 units, or perhaps well over 5000 units at the very least, before long term Korg development and 3rd party development could be economically sustained. As Jerry has suggested, there may be more OASYS development - but at this stage I’d suggest that’s definitely on the back of the M3, not independent OASYS development.

But as I have also suggested on this forum but where nobody seems to agree with me - Open Architecture does not equal endless updates or 3rd party development. Just because they call it open architecture does nothing to reduce the software effort to develop add-ons or their cost effectiveness. There are no true 'Open Standards' on board OASYS that apply industry wide so I suspect very little easy portability from other existing plugins could be readily accomplished. Any 3rd party plugins would be a serious software port – and arguably far greater than the differences between AU and VST, for example.

So it was never a runner for 3rd party development to occur. I would strongly suspect that Korg tried very hard behind the scenes to get others to develop for them but that there was no take up on it. The margins in music technology economics are simply not there and any expectation on this front are frankly unrealistic.

I have also suggested this forum - again without agreement - that Open Architecture has surely already vindicated itself many times over – what perhaps it provided was a Korg-internal openness to development that gave OASYS its existing feature set - which is after all still in general 3-4 four times more capable than Motif XS and Fantom G even though its several years older - a remarkable achievement. To me, Open Architecture means enabling the current capabilities of OASYS, and certainly does not provide for easier release or cheaper 3rd party plugins - they'd still have to do the work - and a user base of 3000+ will never justify such efforts. The most we can expect is porting of sample sets to OASYS format given the relatively minimal work required on that front.

Kevin.

Kevin,

You may well be correct about the economics, but there are some anomalies worth considering.

It's been pointed out many times on this forum that Korg did not do the Oasys JUST to make money. Reading that and considering past remarks by Dan when others call the "O" sales abysmal, leads me to think that there are other factors involved. For instance, company honor and pride to be the ones to create such an incredible instrument in the workstation arena which they pioneered.

Also consider what Karo has done, they seem content to sell to the existing user base.

And Sharp produces new and improved sounds for the "O" as well as Eric with Karmafied combis, etc.

I grant you that these third parties might not be household names and there certainly were no new synth engines produced by them.

Then of course, there is the wonderful Karma and Stephen Kay who, while very close to Korg, is an independant 3rd party too.

My conclusions are that Korg may not want to be a "Me-Too" competitor for reasons other than money, I think they want to be seen as THE leader with things that are more or less unique in the market.

Specifically, I believe they understand the market structure they operate in as an oligoply, in which differentiation is the key to their continued success.

Of course, none of us will ever know for certain so it's all speculation.

Ken

Hi Kevin.

I understand what your saying, but i can't see how it would cost 400K when the OASYS is based on Linux.

For arguments sake, I could boot the OASYS off a Linux CD and run a VSTi host right now for free. So what's the development cost of allowing the OASYS to boot as normal and allow the launch of a selected and freely available VSTi ?.

Surly nowhere near 400K. It's probably a only a few weeks work. A very rough calculation would be 3 Programmers at 1K a week for 1 month = 12K.

Surly that's easily doable ?. I wonder if enough of us committed to the idea of paying in advanced, could we get KORG to do the work.

Regards.
Sharp.