But what we are primarily arguing about here is CONTENT, not capabilities. It appears to me that either type of keyboard is capable of doing a fair job at the other's forte, but the manufacturers concentrate the style (or arp) development on the primary market for each tool.

Hardly surprising, given the enormous cost of style and arp development (must be expensive, or why are third party styles so rare and expensive?), but it seems to me that some kind of software style to arp, or arp to style converter could go a long way towards eventually bridging the content gap.

I have long wished for the majors to get their workstation arp developers to work on a set of full styles for arrangers. While there is definitely SOME shortcomings in the usual arranger sound-set for modern styles, these guys are used to working with what they get (sound development usually comes before style or arp development), and I am sure they could come up with some innovative new styles for the arrangers we have.

And likewise, some of the best style developers could increase their earnings by making arps of more conventional styles for the XS users.

But only the market will prove if there is sufficient people interested to make it profitable. I believe, eventually, some form of copy protection will have to be developed for arps and styles to stop the rampant 'swapping' and trading that goes on. Then, when profits aren't being scavenged by piracy, more talented programmers will be willing to put the time and skill into developing what we want...