Err what happend to the DSD firmware updates for ND* range?
Posted by: feeling_zen on 01 June 2015
Wasn't this supposedly in beta in early April (with good results at Naim according to one thread) with an intended release of mid May?
Does anyone have any more recent insight on this?
Interestingly, Roon's software team does not appear to be much larger than Naim's. I think they out-source to developers to bash out code and bug-fix. They seem open to collaboration, if this improves their product.
Are you reading this Naim?
I really hope that when Trevor Wilson takes over the reins, that there is a new injected focus on Naim software. He probably has a good understanding of the necessary direction this needs to take. To me, it's patently apparent that the current hardware is now shackling the software development. I am expecting seismic shifts, but how and how long, well that's more about business strategy, which we will never know about. Will it happen? To me life's too short, grab the reins and follow one's instinct, that's what I have done.
In the past 20 years I have worked in software I have never seen outsourcing coding improve quality at any of the companies I have worked for or with. It is a good way of getting to market faster when then name of the game is to be first, but generally with the knowledge that the bugs actually increase. And with each release cycle, every bug fixed causes the same number of new ones.
I would go as far to say there is a huge difference in quality between companies that take development to heart and manage it themselves and learn along the way vs. those that lose control over their code and quality by outsourcing it. I've also worked for some excellent software companies that write first rate code and they spell outsourcing E.V.I.L.
I would go as far to say there is a huge difference in quality between companies that take development to heart and manage it themselves and learn along the way vs. those that lose control over their code and quality by outsourcing it. I've also worked for some excellent software companies that write first rate code and they spell outsourcing E.V.I.L.
+1 but 35 years!
Surely though there's a big difference between 1. simply outsourcing "coding" and 2.a hifi manufacturer licensing existing replay software or even acquiring the company. #2 seems like a sensible form of partnership.
Surely though there's a big difference between 1. simply outsourcing "coding" and 2.a hifi manufacturer licensing existing replay software or even acquiring the company. #2 seems like a sensible form of partnership.
There are big differences
When outsourcing you have the option to outsource the entire development or keep the design in house and outsource development and most of test.
If you outsource the entire development, you effectively loose control of the system and code design.
If you keep the design in house, the communication from the management and design teams in house to the outsourced team has to be many time more thorough and precise then is necessary when all the teams are in-house. These problems of communication can mean that, very often the dev costs are doubled and management costs are tripled. More usually what happens is that corners are cut and the product suffers. Unfortunately these additional costs of miscommunication are hidden at the start of the project and hence cannot be included in the project budgets.
The the additional management cost of outsourcing (when done properly) can easily rise to the point where it is equal to the cost of running an in-house dev / test team.
Licensing someone else's software means you have no control of the direction of or even compatibility of future developments.
Acquiring the company gives you the cost of an in-house team and also raises the issue of maintaining motivation of the imported employees.
In software development, there's no silver bullet, no matter what is claimed in the text books on management theory or even in those written about "good management practice".
Surely though there's a big difference between 1. simply outsourcing "coding" and 2.a hifi manufacturer licensing existing replay software or even acquiring the company. #2 seems like a sensible form of partnership.
There is also a caveat in tech acquisitions too. You read about the 1% of tech acquisitions worth billions by blue chips acquiring real tech solutions.
Sadly the other 99% of acquisitions are for tech companies that are trying from day 1 to get acquired and have basically cooked up something that is over hyped and looks great long enough to pass basic scruitiny but hides unrepairable flaws in design and functionality under the hood that basically cost a fortune and never deliver the promised results. By then, the founders and cheif architects of the company you acquired are long gone with their checque and cocktail in the sun. Your are left with a rats nest of bugs and poorly documented code that no one understands - still a mile away from being able to deliver the solution that you bought the company for in the first place. Eventually, after the senior exec who's dumbass idea it was to acquire that company has retired, you can think about putting window dressing on it to hide all the crap you could never fix and selling it on to the next poor sucker.
That is the story of the other 99% of tech acquisitions.
At Naim's level and with their revenue, an acquisition of a quality IP is not in the stars.