Thanks for the reply Thibault.
I actually came back to the forum to correct what was my misinterpretation of the original complaint, which invalidates some of the points I made above. I’ve actually bought a Hapax now, this thread being something of a catalyst for further research which lead to me buying one, as my previous concerns were addressed fully.
To keep my response more concise than my first, I’d like to draw attention to the firmware update page that you folks provide, and which I’d not previously found, at this link: HapaxOS Update | Squarp instruments
In short - it’s quite a comprehensive update list. And definitely regular in releases. Infact more regular than I’d expect or have seen from most other manufacturers, to the point that I’m a) pretty darned impressed and b) took the bother to come back here to refute some of my own points.
I’ve including the link above so that other future readers of this thread can make up their own minds too, rather than going solely on the basis of a single complaint, which, with respect to the OP and in light of new information, seems unfounded in retrospect.
Anyway, bottom line is, based on how regular and comprehensive the updates are, a) I was wrong and b) the list of fixes and improvements listed at that link has made me comfortable enough to buy a Hapax.
I hope this helps others assessing purchase of a Hapax, as I’m now definitely looking forward to learning and using my own.
PS: Yep, I’d much rather wait for well tested features than have a buggy release because a few folks are being vocal about getting it sooner. Every time. Another +1.
idk man, every time i have an issue and am willing to debug it with squarp they’ll even send me like alpha software to see if the fix works. have you been working with them directly?
My main 2 hardware devices were a sampler and a Squarp Pyramid, now they are a sampler and a Squarp Hapax. The outstanding support and community around the Pyramid was a big reason for why I bought the Hapax in spite of a few features that I considered/consider “missing” as a Pyamid user. I’ve seen 1 or 3 bugs in the current firmware but they’re rare and aren’t showstoppers for me (so far). But from my experience with Squarp, I can easily say I have absolutely no doubt that bugs will be fixed, features will be polished, and capabilities will be added for years to come.
Whereas the [unnamed company] sampler I use also gets updates but I try to avoid touching them until I’m sure they are safe to install. They make it difficult to know when something is a beta and when it is a “stable” release, occasionally a “stable” release will have constant updates for months to fix show-stopping bugs, will be missing documentation for 6 months, and will have breaking changes between major or minor versions that aren’t backwards compatible with existing projects and workflows. It’s like they [unnamed company] release betas with features they didn’t think through, without running them by the users, without being finished, and then have to update/change/iterate/roll back/fix those feature over the course of a dozen beta releases. So, finally I’m getting to my point: yeah, I also vastly prefer the Squarp method of planning, thinking, designing, and implementing fixes and features internally before releasing them instead of the way some other companies do it.
Well, there’s a reason it’s called a beta since that’s the time you ARE running bugfixes and features by the users. If you do the betas in the open, you will get more feedback. If you do them closed, you will get less feedback. Maybe somewhat better S/N ratio when doing them closed though, but you have to find a diverse clique of beta testers that really do their job including using lots of different equipment, and even then you will not catch as much bugs as when it’s an open beta. This is in general, maybe some factors might flip it the other way round which most probably depends on the beta process chosen by the developer, beta release interval, developer engagement in the discussions, and of course, how active and helpful the community is.
So, I can’t see that the “unnamed company” is doing much wrong. It’s all about expectations by the user and since a beta is a beta, no less, no more, I find you maybe blame the “unnamed company” a bit too much and yourself too little.
I wish I was only discussing firmware that was labeled “beta” but I wasn’t. And sometimes they say it’s not a beta in on place but then say it is a beta elsewhere, so even know whether it is a beta or not is nearly impossible sometimes.
I guess you know more about the situation than I do. Thanks for the info.
Nah, I was just meaning to suggest what’s usually the case with betas and to me you description seems like the “unnamed company” is indeed not very professional in it’s way to conduct them. Sorry if I sounded rude, it wasn’t my intention.
Beeeh. I’m working on a live controlling Unreal Engine with the Hapax, all my live show relies on the Hapax. I have bugs. I report them. Meanwhile, I’m still able to work on my live and I’ll play it in front of a crowd in two weeks.
The bugs are not blocking. I found alternate ways to work. And if something crash during the live show, well, I have a mic to tell the crowd that I had a bug and power on the Hapax again. Sure it’s frustrating. But nothing holds me from working with the Hapax. And that wouldn’t be the first product I have that has bugs.
This topic is toxic.
The Hapax Operating System has been written with extra care, prioritizing stable and fast operations. New features and parameters will be added regularly.
FWIW, I’ve reported a number of issues and have sent a fairly extensive list of feature requests to Squarp, and they have contacted me about some of them, so I know that they’re being worked on. I do wish things were moving more quickly, though. I’d really like to see a regular cadence of small updates instead of having to wait for infrequent massive updates.
I’m always looking at other sequencers, and there aren’t a lot of them that have the features that Hapax does, and they all seem to have issues or lack the features I need, so I’m sticking with Hapax for now. But, sadly, I find myself frustrated by some weird behavior or glitch in nearly every performance.
I think it always helps to take a balanced view before criticizing people, even (perhaps especially!) on the anonymous internet. For example, did you consider that without similar community feedback on Pyramid bugs and feature requests, we may never have had the Hapax?
My post had nothing to do at all with community feedback. It is an integral part of Squarp’s updates, but when people are attacking Squarp in this thread, I don’t think that does anything to benefit anyone. Of course, I wish we could have had more updates by now, but I’m sure there is a reason for that. It will get done when it gets done. Software development is challenging. I’m sure they want to release an update as much as we want one, but sitting around complaining isn’t going to make it come any faster.
I think this situation justifies the irritation you can feel in this thread. In the beginning there were regular updates. Then it just stopped. There can be a million reasons for that, and many of them might be good.
It would all have been solved if the Squarp people actually would chime in every now and then with a short status update.
Last time Squarp said anything in this thread was two months ago.
I’m not dying. My Hapax is working just fine and I have no immediate complaints about anything apart from a wish to refine it a bit in places. But it is of their own making. Being communicative is not a bad thing.
will just add, as i’ve spent the last several days starting to learn the Deluge workflow, even Hapax 1.13 is already more polished in so many aspects compared to a similar OS that has been in existence for years. Deluge is nice and it does what I need it to do but still there is friction in doing a lot of basic functions, and lack of a lot of other MIDI features that we just take for granted on Squarp devices after Pyramid and now Hapax. i’m as eager as anyone else to see the next wave of Hapax features but also did want to let the team know how much they knocked it out of the park pretty much from day one with the design.
