There has been much discussion on the board about future directions for Scaler, and views seem to me to fall into main categories, namely increasing ‘depth’ and increasing ‘breadth’. As well as requirements for additional function, many requests also centre around what might be called ‘workflow’ i.e. easier and more efficient operation of existing function.
Some requests, like ‘Standalone scaler’ are probably relatively tractable (several other companies offer just this), but others, at the extreme end of the ‘breadth’ route, seek to move to a full blown DAW, synth and sample engine.
I am of the (personal) view that theses ideas are perfectly valid, but they are surely at the level of overall corporate strategy (“what business are we in?”) as much as simply broadening the functional spectrum.
FWIW, my perspective on these things is that the decision driver has to be “what will make money for the Scaler owners?” That may seem odd, but unless any developments have an economic return, sooner or later bankruptcy beckons. The better car Davide drives, the better Scaler will be, because it means they have the R+D monies.
These considerations are all beyond my paygrade, as they say, but think of a DAW with a range of the sort of functions which have been floated here from time to time. Then think of Ableton; bottom line is they employ 350 people, which I suspect is somewhat more than the Scaler team could field right now.
To quote Jimmy Cliff, that’s a “Hard Road to Travel”
There is, IMHO, an analog (or analogue ?? @Bernd ) in the evolution of business software over the years. Packaged products tended to evolve in a monolithic format and have a huge range of business functionality (more was better) but the reality is that complexity (in the widest sense) in software grows exponentially, with function, and that direction was unsustainable.
Distributed computing, Object Orientation and the use of standards based interchanges ushered in a new age of interoperability and with it the capability to build largely seamless arrays of functions which have the virtual coherence that the old monoliths aspired to.
My own take therefore (entirely personal and driven by my own workflow) on breadth vs depth is to opt for more depth, and find ways to make the interoperability with other ‘breadth’ functions as painless, invisible and efficient as possible rather than trying to be another Ableton. My 2 tuppence worth, as a (geriatric) Brit would say.
Please don’t burn me … it’s just my view.