I have said for the longest time, probably since post #1 on the MS, back in the late Jurassic that the concept of the open arranger is a great one. But until someone makes one with the CONTENT as good sounding and as well integrated as a closed one OOTB, it's going to miss 95% of the arranger market.

You are right, James, many people don't use even 10% of what their closed arranger is capable of doing, but the fact is, THEY DON'T NEED TO. Turn it on, it sounds great, let's just make some MUSIC...

Now, 'potentially', there's nothing to stop an open arranger from being equally as friendly, equally as easy to use for the casual user (that 95% of the arranger market Dom ought to be drooling over getting his hands on), but until one of the manufacturers of this kind of product decides to go head to head with the rest of the industry in providing the CONTENT as well as the hardware, it's going to remain nothing more than a niche product.

It's pretty obvious that Dom isn't thinking along those lines, but it's a dangerous path to walk, IMO, because if someone DOES go this route, to be honest, they are going to KILL him dead, saleswise. I've long said, how well do you think a MotifXS or Oasys would have sold if it came with NO sounds, no loops, no arps, basically empty? I guarantee, probably at least 50% poorer than they do now. And these things are being sold to people that DO want to make their own content, eventually (maybe, OK, possibly ).

But honestly, James, given a choice between an open arranger that came like the MS, basically where you have to do quite some considerable work to make the whole thing (not just individual lead sounds) sound spectacular, and one that sounded that good when you hit the power button, and it STILL has all the expandability and customization of the MS, which would you choose?

Dom had better hope and pray that no-one EVER gives us that choice. Or he will be a distant memory.