Jah, apart from it talking about an MPC not created by Numark, I feel your post just underlines my opinion more perfectly than I'd managed myself
The MPC4000 is the classic example of an additive evolution based on user feature requests. I remember the forums at the time, 'we want a proper sampler', 'we want a bigger screen' etc. So seemingly without question, these features were added to the MPC blueprint. The result, as you say, was an overly complicated, buggy MPC, which I would also point out was very large, heavy and incredibly costly.
Some people may call that innovation - what do you think? I don't personally - I applaud them for listening and adding the features and I'm sure all the current MPC4000 users are very happy with their purchase. But IMO, an innovative company would first listen to their customers 'wants', but then rather than acting like a 'dumb pipe', would then have worked on a more innovative way of making those wants a reality.
For example, rather than effectively bolt on a Z series sampler, they should have realised that many MPC users would find that far too complicated, so should have instead considered more creative ways to incorporate more advanced sampling features into the MPC OS that were more in-line with the MPC user's way of thinking. A good example of this way of thinking is the way apple approached iOS. Of course, that requires far more brain power and an innovative mindset.
Equally from a hardware POV, they should have looked at how they could have avoided a hefty size & weight increase, e.g. by utilising more modern tech, rethinking the way certain tasks are accomplished etc. I hate to use the smartphone example again, but they seem to add and improve more and more features while at the very least keeping prices static and weight/size ever decreasing. They're even managing to get bigger screens in while reducing the overal size of the phone.
So while some people could say the MPC4000 failed because it was too complicated, or too pricey, some may simply suggest that Akai took the lazy route and paid the price. It's a clunky way to go about things.
And yes, I understand that innovation costs money, but that's a business expense that would be recovered thanks to the huge sales of a truly innovative product
As for the Tempest, I'm not someone who said it was innovative, and TBH I don't know enough about it to comment, so someone else can chime in about that.
JAH wrote:
This applies to all companies and not just isolated to Akai. What innovations are Roger Linn bringing to the table today? Can anyone say with a straight face that the Tempest is innovative? To me it is simply a Dave Smith synth with a Roger Linn sequencer. Basically adding some pepper to the drum machine market but not using any salt (no sampling)...resulting in a product a little spicy but bland.
When the MPC 4000 was released...it could be argued that it was an innovative, technically advanced MPC far beyond any MPC ever-built. The sampler was equally or more powerful than any standalone sampler at the time. It had computer integration never seen before in a sampling drum machine. It even let you choose the sampler editor you wanted to use.
...but nobody wanted it (too complicated and buggy). Today we look back and say it was ahead of its time. Some may say the MV-8800 was innovative. It was like an MPC DAW. But if it was selling like hot-cakes...Roland wouldn't have discontinued it in my opinion.
While I am fascinated with new technology and innovation....I want a product to first deliver what I expect. No company has yet to exceed my expectations for what a sampling workstation should be. These new MPCs may never be looked at as innovative. But if they add they functions that users want...is that a bad thing? That is a good thing in my opinion.
