Arturia kickstarter to complete firmware

[PES]

A post on GZ about a Decksaver kickstarter for the MxB gave me an idea:

What if Arturia launched a kickstarter to finish the firmware (fix the bugs) and perhaps add some additional features as requested by the users?

The fee could be small, depending on how many Matrixbrutes have been sold, and if enough people are interested in speeding up the process of making the next firmware it would benefit everyone in the end (the firmware would be free for all after a quarantine time, say a few months).

Of course, you can say we’re screwed if we need to pay extra for what should be included in the price we’ve already paid. But we are already screwed having to wait for so long (and longer) to get things working as intended.

I know if I could pay $50 to have the finished firmware available in two months I would pay that rather than wait for 6 more months, 8, 12, two years, will this ever happen at all?

Controversial, yes, but perhaps worth it in the end?

[VAU]

We had the same discussion before with different instruments, the Tempest and others.

What will ARTURIA say? Do they welcome this? What if you collect money but ARTURIA still says: "not now"  ?

but in general, for me it would be ok to pay some extra cash if i get a proper OS and some extra features.
Maybe not, if the company easily could afford it themselves though ...

50 $ seems a bid steep, if we assume, more than 1000 are sold and at least 500 people join the kickstart.

[SomeCallMeFamous]

Pay for something we already payed for ??
Come on guys.......

[DrJustice]

I don't think something like this should happen for a number of reasons:

- The firmware is unfinished/buggy, and it's Arturias responsibility to deliver a fully working synth

- Extra features in new firmware for these kinds of products are pretty much standard, and Arturia would do well to provide some for customer goodwill

- What about those who would choose not to pay; should they not be able to get bug fixes at least?

- To make it work technically (as in locking out non payers), you'd need an intermediate firmware update which introduces authentication/encryption for further updates. This would be a terrible thing, to put it mildly

- The notion that a monosynth firmware update is something very huge and complex doesn't fly with me (I'm a lifelong software and embedded systems developer)

- I doubt the potentially small sum gathered would make any real difference to Arturias capability for delivering updates, or that it would significantly change the schedule and content of it

- I choose to believe that Arturia is above charging for firmware updates
.

[joeman]

I don't think something like this should happen for a number of reasons:

- The firmware is unfinished/buggy, and it's Arturias responsibility to deliver a fully working synth

- Extra features in new firmware for these kinds of products are pretty much standard, and Arturia would do well to provide some for customer goodwill

- What about those who would choose not to pay; should they not be able to get bug fixes at least?

- To make it work technically (as in locking out non payers), you'd need an intermediate firmware update which introduces authentication/encryption for further updates. This would be a terrible thing, to put it mildly

- The notion that a monosynth firmware update is something very huge and complex doesn't fly with me (I'm a lifelong software and embedded systems developer)

- I doubt the potentially small sum gathered would make any real difference to Arturias capability for delivering updates, or that it would significantly change the schedule and content of it

- I choose to believe that Arturia is above charging for firmware updates
.

+1 :-)

[aWc]

It's up to Arturia to come up with a (free) firmware update. They will do it!

[PES]

- The notion that a monosynth firmware update is something very huge and complex doesn't fly with me (I'm a lifelong software and embedded systems developer)

This is what puzzles me, especially as Arturia started out as (and continues to be) a software company. Me, I have absolutely no grasp of programming, but initially thought small bug fixes would be easy (as long as they don't interfere with lots of other things etc).

Example: I've reported two bugs, both concerning the Split mode. A) they don't send on two different MIDI channels, so you can't use an external synth layered into one part. B) legato portamento on lower part is affected by notes played on high part.

Those two problems may in fact be one and the same.

The way I thought about it, is that they'd just need to alter a few lines in the code, release an incremental update, and there's one problem less - Split mode would suddenly work as expected. One day well spent.

I don't get why they need to accumulate a lot of bugs and let them persist for years just to be able to release a big firmware update with confetti and grandeur. That's what new features are for, not old bugs.

To take another (French, coincidentially) maker, Twisted Electrons, as an example: bug fixes and new features like a day after I contacted him. And not just once. One-man operation, moves like lightning.

So it must be the organisation of Arturia that is the problem. I'm sure if the programmers who've made the MxB got the chance, bugs would disappear every now and then. A monthly squash, and it would all be fine long before a year had passed.

Instead we must sit here and wait for the confetti and the speeches.


(and just to be clear: the MxB in its current state is still the best synth I've played. I guess that's part of the worry too, that they don't need to do anything and it will still be eternally useful - a future classic for sure. I don't need a MIDI'ed layer and legato glide in Split mode, and it's still the greatest mode of any synth ever. But it doesn't function like it should, and they know it and aknowledge it, and the months (years!) just pass. The best mode ever could (should) be better!)

[Locksley]

These kind of suggestions come up from time to time for more or less established companies; unless there is a compelling reason for why a monetary input from a third party is absolutely necessary I could support this.
If it where a freelancer doing a Kickstarter years from now to update the Firmware and offer more software because Arturia went belly up, for sure I would support it 99%

As is, Arturia has sold a product and should support it, otherwise there is really little incentive to trust or support Arturia. That being said, MatrixBrute is an amazing piece of kit so I don't feel shorthanded at the least - but there is probably allot more this baby can do that is currently not possible, and fix the bugs that has been reported.

Cheers!

[DrJustice]

- The notion that a monosynth firmware update is something very huge and complex doesn't fly with me (I'm a lifelong software and embedded systems developer)

This is what puzzles me, especially as Arturia started out as (and continues to be) a software company. Me, I have absolutely no grasp of programming, but initially thought small bug fixes would be easy (as long as they don't interfere with lots of other things etc).

Little bugs and niggles in a relatively simple piece of software, like an analogue monosynth OS, should be quick and simple to fix. At most a few hours per bug, then add a little testing to that. Many bugs of this world are just a headslapper and a code line or two away from being fixed.

New features are different of course. Not because they're necessarily difficult or time consuming to implement (we're talking small enhancements to a synth here), but because they need evaluation, planning, design and documentation that bug fixes usually do without.

So it must be the organisation of Arturia that is the problem. I'm sure if the programmers who've made the MxB got the chance, bugs would disappear every now and then. A monthly squash, and it would all be fine long before a year had passed.

I can't imagine there being any kind of technical or financial hurdles that hold the bug fixing back. I'm also of the opinion that bug fixes should be released often, until the software has no more known bugs. As I know them, engineers take pride in making stuff that works, and fixing that which doesn't, so given the opportunity I'm sure they'd want to make the MxB the very best they can.

(and just to be clear: the MxB in its current state is still the best synth I've played. I guess that's part of the worry too, that they don't need to do anything and it will still be eternally useful - a future classic for sure. I don't need a MIDI'ed layer and legato glide in Split mode, and it's still the greatest mode of any synth ever. But it doesn't function like it should, and they know it and aknowledge it, and the months (years!) just pass. The best mode ever could (should) be better!)

I concur. It's a super synth, and a brave and ambitious undertaking - already a classic in my book. It just needs a little TLC to reach its full potential. Luckily, it looks as we're about to see the MxB getting the attention it deserves. It will be a bit late, but from what I gather it shouldn't be too little. I'm still rooting for team MatrixBrute!