Anyone else feel left behind with the large LCD?

welcome to MPC-Forums!!!! collect your tinfoil hat and nametag from the table to the left. begin familiarizing yourself with inside community jargon such as "zeitgeist" and "sheeple"

Or choose the table from the right for validity.

See, I sent a bug report yesterday because the pattern track doesn't work right with MTC, and got a reply dismissing it, as they often do, "Yep, it doesn't work that way, and we're not going to fix it". I received that reply when I reported the random amounts of delay in the audio track recordings, so you'd have to trim their start, but never know by how much. Probably other times too. So it's not anything new.

But today we were talking about some other bugs and features, and it got me thinking about how nice it'd be if for every kind of recording you could press the [UNDO] button to have it automatically revert back to the state prior, and yet continue recording from where you started. There's so many great little ways to improve the workflow, but they require lots of little refinements to the code.

Just now I went to YouTube and the newest video is from JJ, about a new feature for 128XL. Now I want to be clear because I think I must've worded it wrong last time, where people thought I actually felt bad, like emotional over it. It's not that. I'm not upset there's a new feature or anything, it's still interesting to me. It's just, proof where the focus is.

This is new. It was uploaded 13 hours ago. It required time and attention to record that. But even more time and attention to build the layers of code that'd allow that idea to work, and even more time to think about what to build next, etc. There's a whole operation going on, even if it's just 1 person, especially if it's just 1 person. There's a lot of work, and the construction team is hammering away on 128XL.

128XL could become OS3, for all machines and screens. But that's not the point. I'm just not exactly sure why there's even an OS3. This isn't Microsoft Windows, it's firmware for an outdated hardware sampler and sequencer. But even with Windows, they don't cut out big chunks of functionality and rebuild them a little differently. What's the point? It looks a lot like reinventing wheels over there.

So I don't even feel like it's worth sending feature requests, even for the slightest refinements, because I assume OSXL is dead, and has become a sore they want to leave behind. OS128XL on the big screen is the new shiny toy that gets the attention, and there's a whole lot of work going into it to redo what was already built. Any requests for stuff about XL need to be swatted away so they can keep focus on what's more exciting to develop for.

It's a common kind of scenario for developers. They are often fueled by the challenge, where having an unsolved puzzle is what gives them energy to build. Once they've mostly solved it, then it becomes boring, and they lose energy, so any work they have to do becomes chore, and they resist. That is why people like that will often start a project, work real hard, get 90% there, then move on to another.

I wish hardware firmware developers would take it that last %, where it is polished to the point of being super smooth. Once a dedicated machine does what it's intended to, it's firm, and should then be used like a tractor. But if your tractor's knob you use every day over and over is rough, or you have to do 4 big lever movements when you should only have to do 2, then the tool isn't as efficient and refined as it should be.

This is hardware, that is more permanent and fixed in its use. It's okay to branch off with other experimental versions, but every single edition of the OS for a hardware tool should be polished, because it'll never change. That means, someone could use it for life. If someone is using something like that, you want it to be as smooth as possible, because the tiniest problems may seem tiny, but repeated over and over and over for many years makes them big.

I feel like the XL project is left behind. I don't care if the stuff I see in these new videos will be part of OS3 that I will be able to install on my MPC. Right now I'm wanting to see something finished. XL is not going to bloody your palms, but they never broke out the finer grain and sanded it down to shine. Now is when you forget about the major changes, and collect feedback from all the people actually using the tool in a frequent way.

I'm sure there are people out there who utilize it as part of some serious career or something. Those people develop a routined use, where they have to repeat something over and over. If I were JJ, I'd want to know their precise workflow, to see if there were any refinements that could smooth out their work. It's those little things that turn something good enough to a pleasure to use.

Like the [UNDO] feature described. It seems reasonable to imagine hundreds of people, recording hundreds of times, and messing up so having to redo. How do you do that? You hit [STOP], then [UNDO], then at the very least [REC]+[PLAY START] again, or more if you're recording a different way. Then if you were recording for an audio track, you have to purge unused sounds that pile up. Is it a big deal? Isolated, no, not at all. But when you're trying to record something and repeat this 20 times? Yes, it is. I would much prefer to simply reach down and hit the lit up [UNDO] button while recording than have to go do all these combo keypresses just to retry. That just adds to the frustration and makes it more difficult to nail the performance.

There's all kinds of little stuff like that, which don't require major additions to code, but small shortcuts that reuse what's already there. Stuff that smooths out the edges in the ways people use the tool every day. I'd even go so far to say that, if there's some weird little change that only 1 person wants, because they have some quirky setup that was never designed for, but that one little problem would turn their machine from good to great, I'd send them their own custom firmware.

I'd make the little change that no one else would want, and would break some other feature or whatever, and do it for that one person. They of course would be stuck with that version forever, since I wouldn't keep doing this forever, but that is what firmware is, firm. If they have it doing everything smoothly for how they use it, they will just continue to use it for years to come.

Just a quick reminder: OS2XL was released four years ago...

I'd even go so far to say that, if there's some weird little change that only 1 person wants, because they have some quirky setup that was never designed for, but that one little problem would turn their machine from good to great, I'd send them their own custom firmware.

That's an unbelivable amount of work you'd be signing yourself up for. Kudos for that, because no sane software developer would ever offer such a service at a reasonable price.

I feel like the XL project is left behind. ... Right now I'm wanting to see something finished.

Define 'finished'... If you were around when OS2XL was first released, which again was four years ago, then you know just how far it has come, and it seems to me that, rather than wanting it to be 'finished', you want it to stay open-ended and perpetually improve, which of course conflicts with the notion of finishing the OS. Point is, there's no such thing as 'finished' in this context. Four years bro... It sounds to me like you have unrealistic expectations.

but they never broke out the finer grain and sanded it down to shine.

Oh yes they certainly did... Again, they spent four 4 years doing that. Almost seems like you're asking for perfect. Which also doesn't exist in this context.

But even with Windows, they don't cut out big chunks of functionality and rebuild them a little differently.

Oh yes they most certainly do...

The other day I was reading from someone who wanted [REC]+[STOP] to play the metronome, but not [REC]+[PLAY]. In that case there could be an option that'd work for everyone, but if that weren't possible then it'd probably take like 15 minutes to give the guy a custom build with the quirky behavior he relies on.

Today someone is saying how pad locate messes up their live show when they accidentally hit a pad and want to turn it off. Maybe there's a clean way to add an option for that too, maybe not. If not, again, this is 15 minutes to disable the pad locate behavior and send him a custom build.

This kind of thing can be for pay. If someone has some special request like that, the JJ OS developer could just send it and ask for $5 via PayPal. Those changes are simple to customize, and the dev environment can probably be automated so it's easy to branch off the code for customized builds, and have it all built and sent to the website. It'd even be possible to maintain those custom builds for people willing to pay a subscription. Then they could keep some quirky behavior, while still getting other bug fixes.

The userbase is small enough where that kind of thing is feasible. I wouldn't want to have 100 different custom builds if I were managing it, but the point was just that there are people who are using this for live performance, and that is how they put food on the table. They would be willing to pay for special tweaks, and if you wear a glove everyday you want it to fit perfect, so are willing to have it custom tailored.

I'm not suggesting that happen; was just illustrating a different direction in development, where rather than constantly try to build big new things you take some time now and then to polish what you have.

Refinement and polishing can be done for all. That has not happened in 4 years. The JJ OS timeline is about experimental development, where there's big changes, and the dust never settles. Rewind a bit and a frequent theme in this forum was how someone lost some functionality they depended on because it was in the way of some new vision being built.

The JJ OS developer goes nuts, in these messes of construction, where suddenly there's some surprise new feature, released before it's complete, and then there's a bunch of bugs that are introduced, reported, and fixed, as the feature is being finished. But then when it works good enough, where it doesn't look incomplete or crashes constantly, attention moves on to something else.

That's not refinement. Those features are never refined, where the subtle quirks in usability are addressed by listening to user feedback, and making the very small changes necessary to smooth it over. Like how recently there was this whole new huge addition to XL called patterns. It was major, and probably many people are still confused about them. But is it refined today? Is it finished?

I don't think so. Last I tried they still bypassed timing correct. If you have TC on, it's for a reason, and you'd expect the notes being played from the pattern to honor the TC setting. You can run the FIX command after recording, but why? That's weird. You assign a pattern to a pad just like a note, and you can see it spitting out notes, like the arp, so why doesn't it behave like a note?

The arp doesn't either does it? I just tried, with TC on, and it also ignores that setting. You can say that's not a big deal, and maybe there's some underlying reason why it doesn't work that way, but this is why it's not polished. If it were, I wouldn't be confused about why it wouldn't be quantizing during record when TC is on. It looks like it should.

For patterns the manual says "Timing correct does not work to patterns. (A pattern is not influenced by timing correct)". The arp doesn't seem to mention it. Why doesn't it work with it though? Is it by design, because there's a logical reason why they shouldn't? Or is it because it's easier to jump in and do the first 90%, but move on before having to get into gritty details?

There's no unrealistic expectations here. JJ OS is just rough and hacky. It does weird things, that it's not intended to. But to take the time to dive into the details to refine it is just not worth it. It really should be an open source project because that's the level of quality it's at. It shares that same kind of theme where a single developer hacks away, and just does stuff without any real master plan, or design principles based on actual usability.

It's like GIMP vs. Photoshop. JJ OS is the GIMP of samplers. It's great to have, and I'm glad it's there, but let's not pretend it's polished. GIMP can do all sorts of neat things, but it's not Photoshop. It's not refined, and neither is JJ OS. GIMP is free though, and open source. JJ OS is a for-profit proprietary project, yet it operates at free standards.

Jamon wrote:JJ OS is a for-profit proprietary project, yet it operates at free standards.

JJOS 3.15 is 100% free and seems pretty refined, polished and stable to me.

As for XL, well, it is what it is and I don't feel it ever claimed to be more than an ongoing experimental lone developer project that people can choose to buy into.

Would it be better served as an open source project? Perhaps, but I think the best compromise would be for JJ to start interacting more directly with the owners of JJOS XL and the community to help define a more structured roadmap for him to work to - I do think that perhaps there should be a defined 'end' to XL, where no more features are added or taken away, and all bugs just dealt with. Once that's done, he can move onto OS3 or whatever.

People can then choose to pay to upgrade to OS3, or stick with OSXL, but accept that no more work will be done on it.

i think it will be impossible to make custom made for each person, cause some request are more legit than others, some request bug correction, some request just stupid things... they would need an office only to decide which one is to made and which one not and it's not really possible, i don't know 1 software house that can make that (Except if u order all the application and pay tons of money)

so i'm the guy who request pad locate to get off, i think it's a major thing, not cause i was askin that, but cause if u play with someone else or with some midi synced machine it will really **** the thing... and during a live not during a studio session, when u can press stop and play again without any prob

of course, as usual. my 2 cents

The bespoke JJOS idea just sounds like the last thing the project needs. If it's apparently already fragmented with JJ spending time on OS128, how would it get if he's trying to maintain 300 different versions of JJOSXL for 300 different clients, half of whom are getting all het up because this that and the other isn't the way it should be, demanding recourse because they paid $5.

I appreciate $5 is a number pulled out of a hat, but last I looked, software developers are charging $50-150/hour for their time, even more for niche specialists. Add to that the complete nightmare that is practically maintaining such a system, and well, kiss goodbye to JJOS IMO.

Jamon wrote:I don't think so. Last I tried they still bypassed timing correct. If you have TC on, it's for a reason, and you'd expect the notes being played from the pattern to honor the TC setting. You can run the FIX command after recording, but why? That's weird. You assign a pattern to a pad just like a note, and you can see it spitting out notes, like the arp, so why doesn't it behave like a note?

Because its not a note?

Jamon wrote:The arp doesn't either does it? I just tried, with TC on, and it also ignores that setting. You can say that's not a big deal, and maybe there's some underlying reason why it doesn't work that way, but this is why it's not polished. If it were, I wouldn't be confused about why it wouldn't be quantizing during record when TC is on. It looks like it should.

For patterns the manual says "Timing correct does not work to patterns. (A pattern is not influenced by timing correct)". The arp doesn't seem to mention it. Why doesn't it work with it though? Is it by design, because there's a logical reason why they shouldn't? Or is it because it's easier to jump in and do the first 90%, but move on before having to get into gritty details?

Have you ever coded before? You seem to think its easy, and that everything you can imagine you can do, and all it takes is time... Perhaps, in order to go that last 10% he would've had to sacrifice elsewhere, and so he made the more logical choice to let the user quantize after the fact if its that important to the user, because its overall better for the user and the coder that way.

Jamon wrote:There's no unrealistic expectations here.

Again, have you ever coded?

Jamon wrote:JJ OS is just rough and hacky.

Yet you use it and apparently have some attachment to it. I suppose your razor is rough and hacky too. What do you do when that happens?

Jamon wrote: It does weird things, that it's not intended to.

Says who?

Exactly, because importing 1 custom feature might/could cause other bugs. Too much of a headache.

I'm happy with the OG screen and still use XL 1.18.

im usually the one to **** about something on here, but feeln left out with JJOS sure as hell isnt one of them..


btw is OS-XL 3.20 fully support big ass screen now ?

230 posts in the bug reports and feature requests forum since it was created suggests otherwise.

lets see what jj accomplished between releases. 3.19 wasreleased on june 1st. 40 days later he released 3.20 with thefollowing changes.
--1. [Wait For Key]Count in OFF does not work.
2. [PATTERN]An effect is not reflected
.3. [Q-link]Value of VELOCITY is not recorded.

not much for 40 days work. Now, under the same time period, the bug report and feature request forum received 6 bugs and 21 requests, many of them small and very reasonable. its pretty clear he cant keep up with the demand. Although jj receives tons of praise (and cash) for continuing to develop a platform long abandoned by akai, i think another way to look at it is that the development is being seriously restrained by jj as he is blocking any possible open source efforts. There are many talented people interested in helping out but cannot as jj is sitting on the tools.

forgive me if its been discussed before, but has anyone wondered what migt happen if the forum as a whole made a request to akai for some kind of unofficial devkit for mpc1000? since they stopped developing for it many years ago, why wouldnt they do this?

The moment Akai grants access to their IP, their competitors will be combing through it. That's why companies rarely do that. And its for that same reason that JJ can't ever go open source.

And how, exactly, is JJ supposed to eat if he goes open-source?

At least pretend like you know that others have concerns to be considered...

MPC-Tutor wrote:... but I think the best compromise would be for JJ to start interacting more directly with the owners of JJOS XL and the community to help define a more structured roadmap for him to work to ...

+1

What I've wanted to see, expected to see, and am not sure why I haven't, is a JJ OS account here with those email replies we get being done in public, where the developer actually tries to interact with the users. As much as people disrespected AJA from BKE, he interacted with everyone, and when I had specific questions he gave me detailed technical info. Akai Pro should do the same, but I understand more why they don't. JJ OS is a tiny business, that I'm not sure how is funded, because the userbase doesn't seem to be growing much, yet the people working on it every day are behind a thick wall where there's no open communication.

I didn't spend much time testing the free version, but I'd guess that it is refined and stable. As I recall it was closer to the original Akai OS, which had to have a finished end point, and has had a long time for the tiny bugs to be ironed out. It was simpler, with a fixed set of limited features, so yeah I'm not surprised if it feels finished. I bet it could still use more shortcuts and things, without bloating the features, just adding to how people interact to make it as efficient as possible. Those are the tiny nuances that become essential, like how in XL you can hold the Q-link after button and press any pad to change to that track number. Or the shortcut I requested that was added where you hold [NEXT SEQ] and [DATA] to change sequence. But that last one is buggy. I haven't reported it yet, but it ends up getting in the way of workflow in actual use because of the bug in its behavior.

The customizations remark was given too much attention. It was just illustrating a point, then someone got me explaining more, but I don't seriously believe they should be doing that. I was just thinking originally as it being part of a principle, where the goal of making JJ OS a pleasure for the users is important enough that if a tiny change could have a huge benefit for an individual, then it's worth making a special effort to deliver them a better tool. If you were the JJ OS developer, and knew someone was using your firmware to do live performances, where hundreds of people are all depending on the music, which then depends on the MPC tool to function correctly, wouldn't it feel right to make sure that person had exactly what they need?

But as far as crazy ideas go, I do think there's some seriousness to switching business models to primarily charge for changes rather than just chasing new sales. Just look how people actually felt like they should get a new version of XL built for the big LCD for free because they bought XL already. People aren't very motivated to want to pay a big chunk of money for what feels very general. But a specific issue, has more motivation, and costs little enough where it feels worth it. I think they'd make more money that way, and have happier users. You just make a bug database, where it's sorted based on money pledged. Then when that issue is done, the money is transferred. So if 20 people want that [UNDO] recording shortcut mentioned earlier, and that issue is up to $18.50 pledged, then JJ OS company can decide if it's worth it. If not, it just waits, and maybe next month it's up to $35, and the programmer needs some cash, and the amount of work it'd take is less than the value of the bid, so it gets done and everyone is happy.

Yes, I code, but that doesn't matter much because I don't code JJ OS. Although, I do imagine sometimes everyone getting together and buying the development framework from them, and rights to the intellectual property, so we could make it an open source project, and then I think I'd work on it sometimes. Instead of talking about how I wish it were more polished, I could use that energy to do something about it. But there's pros and cons to everything, and it being possible to modify yourself doesn't suddenly fix the problems of organization and management, where everything needs to be done right to end up with a quality finished project.

Also, +1 to the post from innovine made while I was writing this. That's another idea, to get the basic dev kit from Akai. Then the special JJ OS customizations are still kept protected, but at least there's options for others to give it a shot.

It could be possible to catch up fast in terms of features, because there'd be multiple people working on it. I'd guess there are plenty of programmers who have the MPC1000 or MPC2500, and have an interest in developing for it, even if only a few hours a week. With an open project, as long as it's managed correctly, those small contributions could add up quick and produce something packed with features.

The other advantage with a basic framework, is it could spawn multiple sub-projects. There's no reason why the MPC needs to work as it does. Many people want it to be more live-oriented, where it is setup to do everything without stopping, and focused more on realtime manipulation. Someone could focus on that, starting with making it an advanced looping and sample manipulation tool. Whether anyone would or not is unknown.

Which is why it'd be nice to have the JJ OS code, because so much has already been solved, and it's easier for sporadic contributors to fix a bug, or add a tiny feature, than to sit down and build major additions. It also might be a very specialized process, where you need to build hardware to interface with the MPC for testing firmware builds, or at the very least it'd take time to get acquainted with how it all works and know how to build major features. That's something the JJ OS programmer has that is very valuable, where the mind is already in the zone.

I can email Akai and JJ OS to inquire about this sort of thing, but I haven't partly because it's a big request, and most likely not taken seriously if just from a random stranger. There was AkaiOS.com started years ago, that was up for a while, but I think I recently let the domain expire because it didn't build much support. But the idea at the time was that with a larger showing of support it'd be more likely to be taken as a serious proposal and hook us up with the right people who could decide.

With Akai there'd have to be lawyers involved and it's a pain so it's not like they're just going to be like, "Oh, yeah we don't care about the old MPC anymore, here's the code". Even if they wanted to, there's procedure, and the cost of releasing something like that often makes it so the company just lets it die. We'd really need a contact first, or solid plan with financial backing.

But the MPC is so outdated now, it's not ripe for lots of interest and financial support, because it's so niche and that userbase might be dwindling soon with everything moving to the PC, including Akai with the MPC Ren. I even wonder if the big LCD will turn a profit, and how JJ OS makes enough where they can spend all their time on it. Maybe I underestimate the number of MPC users.

You should make a topic and try to find a plan that'd work though. I'll help. Going through the support channel doesn't seem like it would, since whenever I emailed Akai about bugs I just got ignored, except for the first time when I got a template kind of, "We'll look into it!" sort of reply. I was hoping there was someone who spoke Japanese and knew the JJ OS people who could do that sort of thing with them. I thought one of the people here claiming to have some special communication would take a more active role in becoming community rep, but that never happened. So I haven't emailed them about it, because with my past experience of replies I figure I'd ask something about getting the source code, and get some reply saying it's $123 for OS-XL password but you download it from the site now for free. Then I have to reply again saying they misunderstood? It seems like too complex of a request to work when the people don't really speak English.

... another reply while writing. That whole idea about competitors and IP protection doesn't seem valid to me in every situation. I think many businessmen cling to that to the point they stop thinking and just assume a paranoid perspective.

What exactly could the potential damage be for Akai? They don't keep the passwords to their bank account in the source code, so what is it exactly? Their built-in effects suck, so it's not like some secret recipe where someone is going to steal the algorithms and build dedicated MPC FX racks to put them out of business. It's not a magical swing formula. What exactly is it?

It's not anything, because the MPC code is specific for that one machine, and no one is going to build that same exact machine. I wonder if the parts for it are even manufactured. But if they were, do you think some no-name company is going to clone the MPC1000, put the official Akai OS on it, and sell it for $300?

The MPC2500 was discontinued long ago, do they even build the MPC1000 anymore? The MPC5000 is the latest MPC, and even if that were cloned, the code for the MPC1000/2500 would not run on it. Maybe it could be modified to, but they're very different, so why would a no-name company without enough skills to design their own machine do creative work on the firmware to produce a copycat for half the price?

It seems to usually be more about side-effects of laws, where it's a tangled mess to try to sort it out to be able to release one thing without it affecting others. Like, they might not care about the MPC1000 anymore, but some of the code is probably in the MPC5000, and there might be some fear that a technicality in the way something is worded could potentially allow for someone to force them to then release the MPC5000 source code. Or they think because it has their name on it, that if they release it then the customers will assume they're taking responsibility, so they might receive tons of support requests for problems from the unofficial builds. Then when it goes wrong and breaks tons of machines they might have a whole lot of angry people screaming at them.

There's just all kinds of crazy scenarios people could imagine, and so it's easier to just do nothing. But JJ OS already exists, meaning, it already kind of is like all that. I'm sure that someone has bought a used MPC with JJ OS installed, had some problem, and emailed Akai customer support. But Akai is still in business. Having their secrets in the hands of another outside the company didn't lead to their death, even when there's a project actively competing with them.

I probably would've bought an MPC5000 if it weren't for JJ OS. I had a MPC500, but it was too buggy and wasn't working how I wanted, so I wanted something else. I had a choice between a new MPC5000, or new MPC2500 before the remaining stock after discontinuation were gone + JJ OS-XL. If it weren't for JJ OS, I would've got the 5000. That's a loss of money for Akai. But, I might've also not bought anything, because the MPC500 couldn't even save right, and Akai didn't fix it. Why would I pay so much money to get another broken box? So, in that sense, Akai actually made money from having their source code out there, because if it weren't, I might've not bought anything.

I don't think it'd hurt them to release a MPC1000/2500 dev kit. I think it'd help them, because right now they're going the PC route, and the gesture would redeem the brand more, which could boost future sales. As it is, I and others equate Akai Professional with "Nukai", and all the frustration their MPC500 bugs gave me. They could really use an image boost, and if they did something like that, it'd improve how I view them, and make me more likely to support them in the future.

Why is this discussion still going on? JJ has contributed a lot and asks a little in return. There are problems yes, there are inconsistencies yes, but there are a h*ll of a lot features I few years back didn't understand to care for but now do and consider them essential.

If you find a bug, report it. Response more often than not might be that "it's according to specification" but then you know it's like that and you live with it.

If you come up with a cool feature, tell it. But don't get all worked up if it's not implemented, because the fact of the matter is that JJ _knows_ the machine inside out. That knowledge is not gained in a year or two.

All this "Open Source, Schmopen Schmource" nonsense should just stop. There's no way it ever happens and even if it did, only a few individuals would ever make any sense of the ASM, SW & HW architecture of the machine or its limitations (ram, rom, microcontrollers, processor, IO, DSP stuff, algorithms... ). You probably would also need a custom "embedded system"-thingy to emulate the MPC and write your code on before compiling your code. Even printing a "Hello World" could take a year to figure out, let alone "just a minor feature change".


If JJ stopped working on JJOS tomorrow I'd be a bit let down, but still happy that 1000 & 2500 are the machines that they are thanks to the OS. And that's saying a lot.

/end rant, back to music

innovine wrote:not much for 40 days work. Now, under the same time period, the bug report and feature request forum received 6 bugs and 21 requests, many of them small and very reasonable. its pretty clear he cant keep up with the demand.

Are you completely serious? You're talking like you have some ongoing yearly support contract with the guy.

The bug report forum here was set up by JJOS users, not JJ. He's under no obligation to do anything with the bugs. Of course, we know that over the years he's been incredibly active in adding features and solving bugs. So the guy has slowed down a bit in the past month, but we covered that already, he was working on JJOS128.

I'm seeing quite a sense of entitlement filtering through the forums in recent weeks, but ultimately can you remember that the JJ 'set up' has and I assume will always be somewhat of an experimental, seat of the pants, permanent beta type of thing. There's no hard sell, I assume the marketing budget is zero, there's no promises, no guarantees, no nothing - this is not a product being sold through a professional software company.

FFS, we all know that ultimately this was a rather random set up in the first place with apparently Akai's ex-developer unleashing the modified OS under Akai's noses after some contract dispute (allegedly).

Quite frankly this is ridiculous. I don't think I've ever purchased software that has had the level of ongoing bug fixing and feature additions like JJOS, not without these updates being tied into a monthly/yearly support contract, and all this from some guy working on his own with a very small base of users.

But I found this when I was a web developer. The quicker I responded to clients, the quicker I updated their site for them or fixed a bug, the more they just expected that high level of service. So when I got pretty busy and slowed down a little (still fast compared to most of my competitors) I got whiny emails and phone calls about 'service slipping'.