From bw@ashbysolutions.com Wed Jan 09 07:16:12 2013
Subject:[OT - sorta] Misc. Musings

Hi All,

A couple of themes tend to come up often on the list. Here is my
$0.02USD ...

________
PORTABILITY

/"They should release a VST version of the Ventilator."

"The Crumar Mojo should be available as an upgrade to the Hamichord (or
KeyB). After all, they're both based on the same software."

"The new Nord C2/Electro 4 organ and Leslie should be available to NE3
(and NE2) owners."
/
This is a really cool idea in a perfect world, but I like the following
mantra: "NOTHING is ever as easy as it seems." Firstly, the task of
adapting software to a completely different platform is difficult at
best, impossible sometimes. If a designer takes on the task, there must
be enough payoff to make the effort worthwhile. The object is
capitalism isn't to make cool stuff -- it's to make *money*. Will
completing the work result in new sales to justify the conversion?

Secondly, porting a product to another customer base or platform
requires different expenses and skill sets. Let's look at the Vent vs.
VST example. Creating the Vent took: 1) DSP programming skills, 2)
electrical and mechanical design skills, and 3) an out lay of thousands,
if not millions, of Euros in production tooling and commitments to
vendors. A VST, on the other hand, requires much less cash outlay, and
no electrical/mechanical skills; but a firm knowledge of both Windows
and Mac OS. It also requires more support after the fact, because
customer's laptops are filled with other software that might conflict
with the VST, and differing audio hardware. The end result is quite
different business models.

And finally, while the moving of similar designs (Mojo and Nord
examples) may seem easy, hardware designs change often, so new products
don't always start from the same point as their predecessors. This
makes the porting effort more difficult, and again, the need to justify
the work in additional sales returns. This is especially true for the
NE2/NE3 model, because these owners are specifically NOT going to buy
more product -- they're just going to download a free update. Software
programmers still expect to be paid for their time.

________
THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS RIGHT

This old adage has been badly twisted over the years, IMHO. It used to
refer to waiters and shoe salesman, and essentially said, "Don't argue
with customers, even if you think they're wrong." It doesn't directly
apply to the what-if discussions on this list and elsewhere. The
restaurant patron and shoe buyer are *already* customers; anyone who
suggests new designs or features on this list (myself included) is only
a *potential* customer.

I've designed products for 30+ years, and there are two pitfalls that
good companies avoid: 1) treating every feature request as equally
important to the end design; and 2) continuing to tweak and prune to the
last minute (or beyond). Both approaches can kill a great idea.
Feature requests must be balanced against the likelihood that the
average customer will need it; and there reaches a point where a
designer must decide that a product is good enough to stop focusing on
creating, and move to manufacturing, selling, and supporting the
product. This is going to ultimately disappoint some people, but it's a
reality of business.

Plus, let's be honest: the customer isn't *always* right. He/she has
mis-perceptions and makes mistakes, like everyone else. If I walk into
a BMW dealership and tell them I want the latest 7 Series sedan, but I
expect to only pay $10K for one -- well, I'm the customer, aren't I right?

________
LOWER COSTS

/"The Ventilator is nice, but it costs too much for what it is."

"I'd love a dual manual version of the CX-3 (or the KeyB Solo), but why
does it cost twice as much? It's only an added keyboard and some wood."

"Have you looked at the cost of a full XK System? Ouch!"/

The first goal of business is to make money, period. Done right, the
customer also benefits, but Neo Instruments, Korg, Hammond-Suzuki, etc.
aren't philanthropies -- they are businesses. The best businesses make
the most profit from the least outlay. Intel is a perfect example:
they take a very common element in the ground (silicon), almost
worthless in its raw state, and turn less than an ounce of it into a
product worth hundreds of dollars -- a CPU. Since the raw materials are
so cheap, should a CPU cost fifty cents? It doesn't because the effort
to turn silicon into a CPU is significant, and because there is a high
demand for the capabilities that a CPU provides. And because most of us
can't build one on a Saturday afternoon in the garage.

A clonewheel organ follows the same rules: It's not just wood and
plastic and wires and electronic parts -- it's far greater than the sum
of those items. And the effort of turning those raw materials into a
finished product isn't trivial. If the product is a niche item, with a
small list of potential customers, the cost per unit has to justify the
effort of creating it. That's why MP3 players can cost $50 (huge
volumes), while test equipment with arguably less capability costs 100x
as much. It applies to single- vs. dual-manual organs, too.

When musicians tell me that a product 'costs too much' and point only to
the value of the raw materials, or to the effort to twist some existing
design into a new one, I like to use this analogy: You've been a
musician for many years, probably played some songs about to death.
But, you've gotten better and better at playing them, to the point where
you can almost do it in your sleep. The next time you play "Cold Shot"
or "Mustang Sally" or "Take the A Train," should you offer the customer
a discount for doing so? After all, it takes you much less effort to
play it now than it did years ago; why shouldn't the customer benefit
from those lower costs?

--
Regards,

-BW

Bruce Wahler
Ashby Solutions.com^(TM)
bw@ashbysolutions.com
http://music.ashbysolutions.com
877.55.ASHBY (877.552.7429)

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