Will 3rd parties ever be able to develope for Noah ?

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 6:27 am

The title says it all really.

I'd like to know from John Bowen, Wolf, Spacef, or anyone else who might have made inquiries about developing for Noah.

If anyone at CWA would like to comment, that too would be very nice.

Imagine the 'buzz' around the Noah in the DSP & synth programming community if third parties were suddenly able to develope apps for it's 11 DSPs

How fantastic would that be ?

symbiote · Post by **symbiote** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 7:47 am

Noah is a discontinued product.

symbiote · Post by **symbiote** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 7:47 am

And also, CW already released an SDK for SFP, and there was no such flock/buzz in the synth development community.

sharc · Post by **sharc** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 9:19 am

Imagine the 'buzz' around the Noah in the DSP & synth programming community if third parties were suddenly able to develope apps for it's 11 DSPs

How fantastic would that be ?

A very good point. The Noah would probably be one of the most powerful platforms out there for hardware synth developers, were they to be given an SDK. It seems the CW community is deepy divided in it's opinion of the Noah, which I suppose is understandable, given that it's costly development was largely responsible for the current state of affairs at CW.

That said, it is still an extremely attractive platform and anyone who's had the pleasure of actually using/owning the Noah would more than likely agree that it shouldn't have been ditched so easily.

On 2005-08-26 08:47, symbiote wrote:
Noah is a discontinued product.

Yes, this is true and all the more reason that CW should consider giving it a chance of survival on the back of 3rd party development.

On 2005-08-26 08:47, symbiote wrote:
And also, CW already released an SDK for SFP, and there was no such flock/buzz in the synth development community.

Again, this is sadly true but as we're talking about a hardware unit rather than PCI cards with varying amounts of DSP power and 'studio in your PC/Mac' ethics, I don't really see your point. There are plenty of developers out there who would jump at the chance to develop for a unit like the Noah (trust me on this). It seems some ppl on this forum have a problem differentiating between the various CW products. Either that or there's just too many flamers these days.

sharc · Post by **sharc** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 9:43 am

On 2005-08-26 08:47, symbiote wrote:
And also, CW already released an SDK for SFP, and there was no such flock/buzz in the synth development community.

...I'd like to add on this point that you might find many developers wouldn't want to risk spending more than 1500 euros on a PCI card so that they can spend months developing plugins ...and what for? So they have to give them away for free!!. Yes, I'm sure this would please a lot CW users, but it's hardly going to attract developers.

I find myself in the situation where I've got more than 20 dsp's in total running CW plugins. Yet I'm in this same boat - needing to spend silly money on a 14 dsp scope card, just to get my hands on a poorly documented and license restricted SDK... mmm, don't think so.

symbiote · Post by **symbiote** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 10:26 am

Oh, yeah, you're right. Opening up development for a unit that isn't even in production anymore, what a brillant idea. Accept my apologies. CW obviously has a much more documented and coherent SDK for Noah than for SFP.

sharc · Post by **sharc** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 11:02 am

On 2005-08-26 11:26, symbiote wrote:
Oh, yeah, you're right. Opening up development for a unit that isn't even in production anymore, what a brillant idea. Accept my apologies. CW obviously has a much more documented and coherent SDK for Noah than for SFP.

I think, you've missed the point. You'd probably find that most developers, showing an interest in the Noah, would also be interested in continuing it's production in some form and considering the age of the technology, at a very competitive price. Maybe CW should have thought of this.

Also, with regards your witty remark about the SDK:

Where is the Noah SDK? Did the likes of John Bowen or anyone else outside of CW ever actually have the opportunity to develop for the Noah? Again I reckon it all comes down to the sort of dodgy license agreement they would have to think up and also how it might affect the ASB sales were 3rd party developers to get in on the act.

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 11:36 am

symbiote, holly molly, did someone shit in your postbox

Oh, yeah, you're right.

Oh, yeah, your right. Because you couldn't be wrong & are looking at this in a very rational & logical manner.

Opening up development for a unit that isn't even in production anymore, what a brillant idea.

Are you blind? Can yo read? It *is* a good idea for Noah's longevity, for it's users & for developers. It would also potentially be excellent for CW & the Noah's reputation. I fail to see your the point of your negativity, though i won't slate you for sarcasm, as i too can be guilty of that.

Accept my apologies.

CW obviously has a much more documented and coherent SDK for Noah than for SFP.

Sarcasm forgiven.

The fact is, it must exist in some form. Creamware will have libraries of code for developing Noah. This is the SDK essentially.
It would take a guy in a satalite dish 18-24 months to bash those libraries into an even more advanced state, refine a developement enviroment & document thoroughly.

On the other hand, with the help of the best 3rd party Scope developers under the agreement that they could develope & *sell* apps fo Noah, one man in a satalite dish should be able to manage this inside 12 months @ 2/3 days a week.

Worthwhile ? Well that's up for debate here.

[ This Message was edited by: BushBasher on 2005-08-31 06:17 ]

symbiote · Post by **symbiote** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 11:48 am

Yeah, jeez. Going back to the Apollo Program and opening it up to interested 3rd party countries, like Russia and The Martian Council, sure would boost/leverage NASA's reputation and longevity. I mean, they managed to get to *The Moon* with it, it *must* still be good! Ask them for the SDK, it comes on punchcards.

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:01 pm

Yeah, very constructive Symbiote, do you own a Noah ? The Coart is seated & it would seem i'm to be judged. Oh, no, forgive the slip of the tongue, it seems i've already been judged

sharc · Post by **sharc** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:13 pm

On 2005-08-26 12:48, symbiote wrote:
Yeah, jeez. Going back to the Apollo Program and opening it up to interested 3rd party countries, like Russia and The Martian Council, sure would boost/leverage NASA's reputation and longevity. I mean, they managed to get to *The Moon* with it, it *must* still be good! Ask them for the SDK, it comes on punchcards.

'm sorry, but I don't get it. What does the space race have to do with musical instrument technology?

Since you mention it, do those punchcards still come with a $1,000,000,0... price tag?

[ This Message was edited by: sharc on 2005-08-26 13:14 ]

symbiote · Post by **symbiote** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:17 pm

I was just hyperbolically and colorfully pointing out that you are both a good 2-3 years late. Also, focusing any kind of energy on a discontinued product that almost killed a company isn't terribly clever. I'll let you both figure this one out thru your own life experiences.

Post by **hubird** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:23 pm

woow...

sharc · Post by **sharc** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:46 pm

All I can say is that the Noah is indeed a fine instrument. The past five years has seen a continued popularity amongst dedicated hardware dsp based instruments, I'm sure I don't have to name drop here. Point is that this is likely to continue. I don't know whether it was poor timing of release / high pricing / lack of connectivity to SFP or whatever that caused the failure and demise of the Noah. But I do know that this unit has the potential to be the most desirable hardware unit out there, and it doesn't need to cost the moon either.

Post by **hubird** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 1:01 pm

On 2005-08-26 13:46, sharc wrote:
But I do know that this unit has the potential to be the most desirable hardware unit out there,

ever??

sharc · Post by **sharc** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 1:17 pm

Bet your smart-ass it does

Key is to get more plugs available for it and make most of them free, then profit from hardware sales. As long as it has no 3rd party plugs the Noah wouldn't stand a chance against it's competitors, most of which have recognized 3rd party names within the industry to back them up and generally make the product more appealling to users / consumers. Or do other SFP users think the SFP platform would have been better off over the past few years without it's 3rd party developers. CW certainly seems to look at it this way with the Noah.

[ This Message was edited by: sharc on 2005-08-26 14:19 ]

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 4:19 pm

On 2005-08-26 14:01, hubird wrote:
On 2005-08-26 13:46, sharc wrote:
But I do know that this unit has the potential to be the most desirable hardware unit out there,
ever??

Indeed. You want shot down, well here you are oh fire-breathing overlord, simply making up your post numbers posting in a Noah forum several times in a day when you don't own a Noah.

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 3:30 am

The point really, is that the Noah is a wonderfull platform which i know many people would love to develope for. All it's missing is that developement kit.

As for Noah's longevity, well indeed, it's discontinued, but how many were sold? How many are still in the shops? It would be interesting to find out just how many people own Noah. How many of those people do you think would agree Symbiote, that it would be bad to have an SDK for it, that it would be a bad idea to develope for Noah.? I don't think *any* Noah user would be laughing at a developer who decided to go buy a Noah & start working on new applications (They can still be bought new)

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 3:34 am

On 2005-08-28 04:30, BushBasher wrote:
All it's missing is that developement kit.

mmm... It's also missing integration into SFP via some tasty Noah USB I/O devices, but that's another matter & not Noah's fault

Post by **hubird** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 4:33 am

On 2005-08-28 04:30, BushBasher wrote: I don't think *any* Noah user would be laughing at a developer who decided to go buy a Noah & start working on new applications (They can still be bought new)

That's right of course, but my guess is that Symbiote was thinking more from devellopers point of view...
cheers.