If I could suggest just one positive step for the manufacturers it would be to design the instruments with focus on the way that the customers use them.

Some examples:

Multitrack Recording

Eventually, we all out grow facilities such as Yamaha's Quick Record and want to lay down discrete tracks in conjunction with a sequencer. To do this, we need to be able to communicate/control all the important parameters including voices and DSPs seemlessly between the sequencer and the instrument.

It is very difficult to do with todays products. Sometimes the instrument does not send the necessary data and sometimes the sequencers simply remove events that the instrument manufacturer has included. The engineers would quickly realize this problem if they attempted to use the instruments as this class of customer does.

Performers

The one man band and other gigging performers want to be able to organize their Sets on a laptop and specify everything from the midi load, registrations, vocal harmony settings, lyrics, performance notes, etc. While you can control most outboard gear via the PC, the Yamaha synths lack the commands for controlling most of the instrument. If the enginners tried to set up a gig, they would realize this immediately.

I don't believe that the profit motive is a big factor with the design of these instruments. Most of the manufactuers seem focused on outperforming their competition with products which arrive on a regular time schedule. The time schedule is fixed, and the number of issues far outpaces the resources available. We may dilute their program and confuse the priorities by insisting on our own pet features (easy to do when we are not aware of the overall product strategy of the manufacturer).

The solution that I offer is to replace our requests for features with demands for application capabilities.

Regards,

Michael