Presonus : "So we are targeting 3-4 "major" feature releases every year..."

[Starbright]

Yes, it is quiet upsetting. If they do not extend this licence for next update, I will spend my money somewhere else. If Cubase will add something like splitter or some kind containers for fx and instruments, that would be like studio one but way better, with modulation and stuff.

Waves has actually something like this for free with studio verse (but without modulation):
https://www.waves.com/studioverse?_gl=1 ... io-effects
Since I'm switching to a mac mini or air next month, I'm actually trying to convert my favourite chains in there so all I have to do is to download them again.

[tapper mike]

I don't work for presonus or any other software firm anymore.

That being said I did work for a company that was fixated on bringing value to upgrades. And lots of great updates with new features in between.

Setting a date and claiming a New feature is really really a bad idea. Sometimes that really great idea has way to many bugs to fix. So saying your bringing wiz-bang in the next version is very damning towards credibility. Our credo on upgrades was based on was it ready for market rather than giving a target date and then either having the product sufficiently completed by X date or having to retract the specified date as the software may have been made inoperable due to a bug.

When the fruit is ripe it falls from the tree.

[thievedletter]

I don't work for presonus or any other software firm anymore.

That being said I did work for a company that was fixated on bringing value to upgrades. And lots of great updates with new features in between.

Setting a date and claiming a New feature is really really a bad idea. Sometimes that really great idea has way to many bugs to fix. So saying your bringing wiz-bang in the next version is very damning towards credibility. Our credo on upgrades was based on was it ready for market rather than giving a target date and then either having the product sufficiently completed by X date or having to retract the specified date as the software may have been made inoperable due to a bug.

When the fruit is ripe it falls from the tree.

This is exactly what surprised me about all this. My expectation was that they already had a roadmap to release basically finished ideas. Promising something that doesn't exist, wasn't really what I thought was happening. Fool me once... I guess.

[koalaboy]

This is exactly what surprised me about all this. My expectation was that they already had a roadmap to release basically finished ideas. Promising something that doesn't exist, wasn't really what I thought was happening. Fool me once... I guess.

Generally, 'good' software companies won't announce dates more than a month or two out. They'll maybe suggest when they're aiming for roughly, but no actual dates or promises.

Occasionally things go awry, but the S1 situation suggests (in my experience) that the 'Product Owners' were either not listening to the engineers (happens a lot) or everyone was just in denial.

If a company wants payment promising 2-3 major features in the next 12 months, they really need that roadmp locked in and very likely. Where I work, we won't usually promise specifics more than a month away, when they're are pretty much 'done'. Things can still go wrong, but then the customers are kept in the loop all the time.

[Crossinger]

Occasionally things go awry, but the S1 situation suggests (in my experience) that the 'Product Owners' were either not listening to the engineers (happens a lot) or everyone was just in denial.

I have another hypothesis: if we leave the feature issue aside, the plan sounded very much like a kind of “rolling release,” which would also fit with the announcement of a name change.

But at some point, the plan completely derailed, and we ended up with the usual release cycles, which are no different from v6.

[koalaboy]

Occasionally things go awry, but the S1 situation suggests (in my experience) that the 'Product Owners' were either not listening to the engineers (happens a lot) or everyone was just in denial.

I have another hypothesis: if we leave the feature issue aside, the plan sounded very much like a kind of “rolling release,” which would also fit with the announcement of a name change.

But at some point, the plan completely derailed, and we ended up with the usual release cycles, which are no different from v6.

It was very much the fallout from a 'pivot'. Hopefully they can stabilise and get back on track before everyone jumps ship. There's plenty of good competition these days.

The alternative is that they just 'sell out' even more, and it becomes another 'Cakewalk'.

[tapper mike]

In every development team there is an idea man who isn't tied to logic or reason and is great at coming up with ideas. I used to be that guy and many of my ideas were pure lunacy that the company would through good money after bad pursing. It's new ideas that keep a software company rolling. Not always fixing bugs.

Then there is that guy who is a lead developer. He's usually a guy with a chip on his shoulder. Thinks he has the solutions to everyone else's problems but can't fix his own bugs. He's the trailblazer who puts those ideas into semi working models. And he works in a way that won't break the code when he does something that no one else does. Then then there are the clean up guys. Once a bug can be recreated they can usually massage the code into place where it isn't setting fire to the operating system let alone the software title.

Then comes the alpha stage. I'd try out our products not ready for beta or pre-release and crash the software hard taking notes about what I did to make it happen. Send it off to the rest of the developers to fix which sometimes would cause more not less errors to occur. Slowly we'd put together a product worthy of testing for private pre releases.

Not all my ideas were bad. Many were great but we couldn't find the right market for them. A few were good and expanded our lineup as well as paid the bills. I see some companies that have bypassed characters like me in product development and it shows. I really wanted Cubase VST Live to be my vst host but it's ui is needlessly complicated.

[ffx]

Dunno if that analysis is right. If the experienced devs also would have the ideas, I think the products would be much better very often, less buggy, and also free of nonsense features.

[andypryce]

I really wanted Cubase VST Live to be my vst host but it's ui is needlessly complicated.

Steinberg needs new GUI and UX experts who think simpler with a smarter approach.
Take Cubase. Great program but there is no distinction, separation or depth in sections, bad icons and fonts.

[Crossinger]

Steinberg needs new GUI and UI experts who think simpler with a smarter approach.

Indeed. There were two things that put me off Cubase:

1. The cluttered user interface.
2. The poor management of configuration files, which are scattered throughout the entire system.

In this respect, S1 is significantly more polished.

[andypryce]

2. The poor management of configuration files, which are scattered throughout the entire system.

In this respect, S1 is significantly more polished.

Yes. that too. Hard to follow what is where in the system folders. Wish it was like Studio One or Live where you put config files and everything user related wherever you want.
Even user templates and custom presets are buried in the system folders.
Three different application to download, manage and activate everything etc.
I guess every year new paid update push from the management restricts development time for things like this.

[koalaboy]

Dunno if that analysis is right. If the experienced devs also would have the ideas, I think the products would be much better very often, less bugfree, and also free of nonsense features.

That would suppose that experienced devs are necessarily listened to, or prioritised.

In my experience, that often isn't the case, and devs just end up having to fix the fallout that product managers bring in.

[jonljacobi]

Anyone who has programmed or been involved with it knows to at least double the time you think it will take, then add another 50% to be sure. Four major feature updates a year is fantasy.

[starflakeprj]

Anyone who has programmed or been involved with it knows to at least double the time you think it will take, then add another 50% to be sure. Four major feature updates a year is fantasy.

In the case of Studio One, none of the 3(?) updates they have released in the first year is, by my measure, considered to be a major feature update. Potentially the 3 altogether might be considered as ONE major update. So you might be correct.

[Crossinger]

Something must have gone terribly wrong behind the scenes.

If we consider the releases as results of sprints (or even PI's - product increments), the output of the development team is remarkably low by today's standards.