I don't like to critique but I thought the following was a little funny (also see my note on Behringer below):
"We are very aware of the very strong passion that synth fans have for the JUPITER-8, and some continue to wait for us to introduce a true analog version. This is something we do not plan to do. Our founder Mr. Kakehashi always said, 'Never chase a ghost', and I really understand his meaning. 'Chasing the ghost' of the original JUPITER-8 or TR-808 does not make sense as we will never catch them, and this effort would not align with our vision for the future. Roland has developed many legendary products throughout our history that came from our drive to always design the future by applying the latest technology and our unique know-how from each era. This is our DNA which will never change."
Preceded by:
"Different from the base Virtual Analog of ZEN-Core, the ABM-powered 'Model Bank' synths in the JUPITER-X and Xm reproduce the total character of specific vintage synths including the JUPITER-8, JUNO-106, JX-8P, and SH-101, all with incredible precision. For these synths, we did deep behavioral analysis of elements such as the filter’s curve, range, and response speed, which are different for each model, of course. We even recreate characteristics including oscillator drift driven by temperature changes- we actually put a physical temperature sensor inside the JUPITER-X and Xm to help with this!"
The above is quoted from The Roland Jupiter-X & XM Story posted on Roland's site. There's more to the post, of course, so do check it out, but what I thought was a little funny was the 'Never chase a ghost' quote. They are clearly doing just that, only in the digital realm, not analog. But... they have ventured in analog with the JD-Xa and JD-Xi. Do I think Roland should clone the Jupiter-8 and their vintage analog? No. For one reason: Behringer. Behringer would just put them under with cheaper models, so if I were Roland, I wouldn't bother. I'm guessing the digital clones are more cost effective as well. I'd stay focused on new products just like they are doing now. Seriously, Behringer has made it so no company will ever bother cloning their previous products. I heard that Behringer's goal is to not only offer clones of vintage synths, but to become the largest synth manufacturer for both vintage and new designs. Simply put, the only way to compete will be to create gear that users want and Behringer does not offer for less.
"Simply put, the only way to compete will be to create gear that users want and Behringer does not offer, for less." ~Matrixsynth
ReplyDeleteStrong disagreement with your statement here and conclusion. While it is always important to create gear that users want, it is by no means a given that they all want what Behringer is now offering, or will offer in the future. And this goes beyond those who have a 'political' beef with Behringer. People are already giving a pass to several of Behringer's offerings, and this is to be expected ongoing too. B will sell a great many synths, but that does not mean others cannot *also* begin or continue to sell a great many synths. Even those which Behringer has targeted or released already.
No, the way to compete with Behringer is to emphasize the *difference* between what they are offering and what you produce. And one must certainly *not* attempt to compete on price! That is a race to the bottom you *will* lose.
The idea that a company could produce a successful competitive product is already shown by the Superlative 101 clone. It costs more. A lot more. But people still want it because it has features and form factor different from B's 101-ish offering.
Don't make the mistake of believing that what you read online in synth groups truly catches the pulse of the industry. Expect that the people for whom price is the ultimate arbiter are also those most likely to speak up in those places online.
Creating successful products is about more than price, and while Behringer is certainly an elephant in the room, there is still *ample* room in the market for competing products.
I think you just agreed with my point: : "the way to compete with Behringer is to emphasize the *difference* between what they are offering and what you produce." That's exactly what I was saying.
DeleteThe removal of the comma before your last two words in the original comment -now edited- does change its meaning somewhat. ;)
ReplyDeleteIndeed. :) I was initially going to write , for less no less, but that would have been redundant. ;)
Delete