Are The Big Three of keyboards Like The Auto Big Three?

[InsideLookinOut]

Obviously on a much smaller scale of course.

1.They Usually make something with features we don't use.

2.Only minor improvements made in the next "flagship".

3.Early adopters are always beta testers.

4. ...

[Delicious Lamprey Problem]

How about no?

[The Audacity Works]

1. They Usually make something with features we don't use.

Who's "we"? If Yamaha were to omit one of the Motif XS's most obtuse and never-used features, someone would start a major thread complaining about how the whole thing's suddenly worthless.

2. Only minor improvements made in the next "flagship".

What's minor? For most new workstations, improvements over the previous model number in the hundreds. One just has to look closer.

3. Early adopters are always beta testers.

Yeah, maybe.

[Delicious Lamprey Problem]

Early adopters are always beta testers for any product.

[mildbill]

 

Obviously on a much smaller scale of course. 1.They Usually make something with features we don't use. 2.Only minor improvements made in the next "flagship". 3.Early adopters are always beta testers. 4. ...

 

 

 

 

1. Probably. I think the average buyer doesn't use all the built-in features, but better to have it and not need it than vice-versa.

 

2. Yes. Usually more of the same - bigger, better, faster.

 

3. I think that's more true with the smaller companies, but applies to the big 3 as well.

 

4. Bigger advertising budgets.

 

5. Sometimes an offering from outside of the big 3 meets your needs better.

[ChipCurtis]

I find it amusing and not a bit ironic to see this thread title after reading the Big 3 Auto thread. For those of you too young to remember when keyboard players had names on the back of their synths like Moog, Oberheim, Sequential, back in the late 70s/early 80s.... and only some 5 or 6 years later all you saw was Yamaha, Roland, Korg.... well, you just got a little taste of the future for where we're headed with cars.

[mildbill]

I find it amusing and not a bit ironic to see this thread title after reading the Big 3 Auto thread. For those of you too young to remember when keyboard players had names on the back of their synths like Moog, Oberheim, Sequential, back in the late 70s/early 80s.... and only some 5 or 6 years later all you saw was Yamaha, Roland, Korg.... well, you just got a little taste of the future for where we're headed with cars.

 

 

Ironic - yes.

 

Amusing - no.

 

[asynchro_nous]

And Hyundai/Kurzweil is the crossover concept here.....

[Mike Conway]

For those of you too young to remember when keyboard players had names on the back of their synths like Moog, Oberheim, Sequential, back in the late 70s/early 80s....

 

Now, those are who the government should have bailed out, dammit!

[soundwave106]

I find it amusing and not a bit ironic to see this thread title after reading the Big 3 Auto thread. For those of you too young to remember when keyboard players had names on the back of their synths like Moog, Oberheim, Sequential, back in the late 70s/early 80s.... and only some 5 or 6 years later all you saw was Yamaha, Roland, Korg.... well, you just got a little taste of the future for where we're headed with cars.

 

Yeah, sure, there was the era of Yamaha, Roland, and Korg (don't forget Alesis and Kurzweil though). But what followed was a bunch of techno-raised Europeans fighting back with knobby synths. Clavia, Access, Novation, and Waldorf, for instance. Moog also came back (first as Big Briar, then they got their name back), actually quite strongly (seems like quite a few bands I see have Little Phattys). The computer era has further muddied the waters up a bit with a zillion VSTs and quite a few USB controllers (eg M-Audio).

 

So, in the future, cars will be plasticy and cheap and powered by USB?

[Delicious Lamprey Problem]

I think I responded in the negative at the beginning of this thread 'cause, well, keyboards are keyboards, yet cars = oil = war =

 

Negative connotation. No thanx!

[Meatball Fulton]

 

For those of you too young to remember when keyboard players had names on the back of their synths like Moog, Oberheim, Sequential, back in the late 70s/early 80s.... and only some 5 or 6 years later all you saw was Yamaha, Roland, Korg.... well, you just got a little taste of the future for where we're headed with cars.

 

 

We're way past that with cars. GM, Ford and Chrysler all consolidated a number of formerly independent brands (and deep-sixed a few like Edsel and DeSoto).

 

Meanwhile American/Nash/Rambler, Studebaker, Checker, Packard, Willys and many others have totally vanished.

[AfroRouge]

The more interesting question is whether they're like them as companies - do they have ugly pension obligations, loads of debt and poor sales prospects because of competition from more fleet-footed rivals?

[skuller]

i'm pretty sure the term "big three" is heading right to the top of my {censored} list of terms.

 

peeves me to think it / read it / see it / say it. all under my control, i know, but gahh that term is terrible.

[jason_stanfield]

 

3.Early adopters are always beta testers.

 

To an extent, that's not a bad thing.

 

No product is going to come out of the factory 100% perfect for users, so some feedback is necessary from those who use the gear regularly in order to fix bugs or improve features. In some instances, manufacturers are aware of what they want to upgrade, and rely on user feedback to determine the priority of those upgrades. There may be something they want to change, but no one says anything about it, so they focus on other things instead.

 

That said, it would be irresponsible for manufacturers to rely on post-sale feedback as a means of market research.

 

And it's important to bear in mind that some manufacturers are practically immune to suggestions from users. Those that have a sales focus will listen, but others have a vision of what they want the product to be, and if it's not quite what you'd want, their attitude is "well, it's not the product for you."

 

You can't please all people all the time, but you can please most of them most of the time, and build in room for improvement. When dealing with finicky musicians, this is the best any developer can really hope for.

[Jez]

I think I responded in the negative at the beginning of this thread 'cause, well, keyboards are keyboards, yet cars = oil = war = Negative connotation. No thanx!

 

You can make fuel from plants {censored} oil! In this day and age, nobody NEEDS it.

[Metrosonus]

more tampons. great.....

 

 

 

 

[Pilotwings]

Absolutely not! They are Japanese as apposed to American... :poke:

[zoink]

I think what the Big Three have done with workstations in recent years is nothing short of amazing. It just happens that these advances have come in the era of DAWs and VSTs, and with this, people tend to expect a lot from a workstation. The capability and sheer flexibility of software have made workstations seem a bit more limiting and "fixed" than they would otherwise appear.

 

There is innovation going on in workstation technology, but it's going in the direction of components that are now comparatively cheaper to produce than they were ten years ago -- larger LCD screens, larger wave ROM, more RAM, advanced sequencers driven by faster processors, etc.

[Dejavoodoo]

Hm... the Ford Motif X8 LS ... with a Hemi?

[ChristianRock]

Of the 3, Roland is the one I worry about. Their products aren't exactly exciting these days. They're not terrible - but not exciting either.

[Outkaster]

People should not bitch. At least you don

[Tomkeen]

People should not bitch. At least you don

[zoink]

Taking the Big Three automaker analogy a little further, software has sort of become the equivalent of the Japanese automaker. Most people have a computer already, so the cost of buying decent DAW software and VSTs is cheaper and functionally more flexible than a hardware workstation. Software may not be as portable and self-contained as a workstation, but it sure is nice being able to use a mouse to drag, drop, draw, stretch, copy, paste, and have many parameters on one screen at a time. I own a number of workstations myself and use them for sequencing and songwriting now and then, but I find that software is simply better for putting together complex pieces in the studio, especially when it comes to arranging and mixing. Even my old 24 track ADAT system -- though I love the sound quality of blackface ADATs -- sits and gathers dust for that very reason.