Yeah, open source is the way to go.
Look at what's happening in the Arduino and Monome and such
communities...

Hence my earlier proposal for a "simple" generic module... just a few
non-labeled knobs and in/outs, on a generic panel. A Doepfer A/D/A
interface, so to speak, with open source software to control it.


_Guy

On 04 Nov 2008, at 13:18, partlydrone wrote:

> that's really interesting stuff dieter.
>
> one thing i've wondered about it sharing the developer costs in the
> community, a lot of people are asking about digital modules, and i
> wonder whether the general purpose digital module that has been in the
> pipeline for a while could be released openly with just a few
> functions, and enough information for people to write their own
> programs for it if they feel nerdy enough. not necessarily write whole
> filters and things, as that's a bit unrealistic, but especially for
> controller things it would be perfect, and simple, and a public
> library would build up fairly fast i think.
>
> --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com , <yahoo@...> wrote:
> >
> > > I can see why Dieter would be hesitant in developing such a
> > > module if the A-112 sales are not that great :(
> > >
> > > Christophe
> >
> > No - the A-112 sales are fine. Though I see myself in the first
> place as a
> > module designer I'm also a business man and have to keep the company
> running
> > (each staff member has to pay his expenses every month :-).
> >
> > During the last few years I made the experience that the sales of
> more
> > complex (and consequently more expensive) modules are a bit poor.
> A good
> > example is the morphing filter A-107 and on the other hand the new
> A-106-6
> > XP filter. The A-107 has a lot of features and it took more than two
> years
> > to design the module (together with a lot of very helpful
> discussions in
> > this group). The final design had all the features the customers
> were asking
> > for but obviously the price was too high to make the A-107 a
> commercial
> > winner (after all the sales did not cover our development costs so
> far). On
> > the other hand there is the new A-106-6 XP filter. It has much less
> features
> > than the A-107 but offers nearly the same filter functions as the
> A-107 (but
> > without the morphing feature). So far more A-106-6 were ordered than
> A-107's
> > during it's entire livespane since summer 2003. And the A-106-6 is
> available
> > since fall 2008 !
> >
> > That's what I have to keep in mind if modules with too many
> features are
> > suggested. We made the experience that the sales of too complex
> modules are
> > not satisfying from the commercial point of view (don't get me
> wrong: I in
> > person like the A-107 much more than the A-106-6). So I'm a bit
> cautious if
> > modules with too many features that will increase the price are
> suggested.
> > There will be always some experts who want to have such modules
> badly. But
> > for us it's a flop if we sell e.g. only 25 modules per year as we
> have to
> > keep in mind the development costs which are much higher for more
> complex
> > modules. If then the sales are worse compared to a less complex
> module (and
> > hence with lower development costs) you will understand by concerns.
> >
> > These are some basic notes that are not related only to the
> suggested
> > complex sampler module. But they may explain why I'm a bit
> cautious with
> > suggestions of too complex (and hence too expensive) modules.
> >
> > Best wishes
> > Dieter Doepfer
> >
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]