The case for published roadmaps?

[bibenu]

@mitya33

missing features that most would agree should be there from the start.

sharp intake of breath

Dangerous territory Brings to mind the complaints that DT2 had no right to call itself a sampler in 2024 because it’s missing feature X.

EDIT: Although, actually, the features lost from the DT1 probably do qualify for that category.

[Holon]

Publishing roadmaps is fantastic for credibility. That can be considered a commodity if everything is viewed through an economical lens and it often is weighed against the company’s reputation, another commodity. Accountability breeds a host of good organizational traits that aren’t as easy to put into numbers but each company will view this differently to some extent. I’m all for more detailed roadmaps for HW, especially for firmware upgrades regarding bugs and planned features. I think there would have been a much smoother reaction to the tonverk launch with more of this kind of info.

[alechko]

@mitya33

But surely the general direction of a device - like, years down the line - is known. Elektron know whether the TV will get a granular machine, and time stretch, and independent effects sends for sub-tracks.

image the disappointment if it’s in a roadmap and then it’s not happening, like for example imagine elektron putting second lfo on rytm roadmap cause everyone wants it and then saying sorry, we actually don’t have the physical capacity to deliver this. people would be waiting and assuming it’s coming for years only to be disappointed.

there’s a lot of enterprise software that comes with the famous “forward-looking statement” for a reason, not everything is going to be delivered and you should treat the product for what it is and not what it’s supposed to be in your opinion.

it either suits your needs or it doesn’t.

also, imo, having a roadmap for an instrument is a bit counterintuitive, that means you look forward to features instead of digging into the instrument and overcome whatever boundary it sets.

[sjl2025]

@rg01a

it sounds like a b2b saas company?

And sadly it seems like every big company is all on board with making everything that can be maintained digitally this way, and small companies are forced to adapt to this model.

[lowph]

@mitya33

I think the opinions against a roadmap make sense BUT for the fact that we’re being given unready devices.

I haven’t been given any unready devices, but I think I know what you mean. When the Digitakt II came out without any OB support and the first users reported a ton of bugs, I simply didn’t buy it. Same with the Tonverk or the Roland TR-1000, and many others. In fact, I haven’t bought any music gear right at the release, now that I think about it.

There are some great advantages to being a late adopter. Not to mention, it’s probably good to skip that release day hype, because chances are, getting latest shiny new toy is probably not going to improve my musical output.

The last time I bought something right after it was released was a MacBook pro, back in 2016. I happened to need a new computer, so I got the latest MacBook. I only really paid attention to specs like CPU, memory, and number of USB ports… Then I had to live with that horrendous Touchbar and a really bad keyboard with failing keys. I’m generally not interested in being one is the first people to get the latest thing. There’s a practical advantage to waiting a bit to find out if the product is unfinished, because there are plenty of people out there that will line up to buy it on release day and then flood the internet with their complaints about it :))

[notehorn]

Interesting convo!

Although public roadmaps are common in the B2C world (much less so in B2B, where they are replaced with overpromising sales people ) I wouldn’t say they are the norm.

I suspect that one of the major differences is that in the SaaS world the software is the product, and your customers are paying for it via a subscription. In this case you are committing to long term support and it acts as an important retention mechanism for users that need something they don’t currently have. It’s a carrot on a stick.

With hardware, although it uses software the product is the one-off-purchase device that may or may not receive updates for a myriad of reasons. The customer must buy based on what it can do today, and there is no expectation that it will receive ongoing improvements, nor is there the same incentive for the company to provide them.

If a product is released in a more ‘beta’ state, then it is quite common for the company to openly communicate what improvements are coming and approximately when. The reason for this is so that it doesn’t stall sales and increase support requests. But if the product is functional and sells well then you can do more harm than good (to yourself) by making committments about future delivery.

It’s a different sales model, contract (formal or informal) and level of committment.