Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Interview with the founder of Teenage Engineering

scandinavianmind.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 207 posts

Re: Interview with the founder of Teenage Engineering

#141

Post by ilyt »

psychomugs wrote: post #93
smoldesu wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And people fall for it. It's crazy how many people blindly buy into TE's "homestyle" marketing like they're some hibrow synth company. The OP-1 tickles every American's "Product Cortex" in their brain though, immediately associating brutalist design and Corinthian leather with quality engineering. It doesn't matter if we're not the target audience, we just want to spend money on pretty things that make us feel good.…

So... you judge character based on appearances? No other gear company has tackled the all-in-one synth-sequencer-4trackrecorder-groovebox that is the OP-1 in the decade since its release. TE not capitalizing on this would be financially naive.

Shh don't tell Uli Behringer about it /s

I think it is because "just making same thing" is frowned upon and also industry cares to not eat itself.

For example take Digitakt and Digitone. It could easily be combined into one device "it is just code" and CPUs got faster since release of those but they don't, because they know having those "blind spots" in each of their devices (that other of their devices fit) is good for sales. Got a Digitone ? Want Drum machine to it ? Well, Digitakt got same interface you already know. Even their newest device Syntakt omits a lot of FM stuff to not step on Digitone niche.

Also there is plenty all-in-ones with more capability, all the way to monsters like MASCHINE+, MPC X or Force. People buy OP-1 coz they want to work within the limits and think that will make better music, not because it can do something unique anything else can't.

Which is understandable, given myriad options it's easy to get lost in tinkering with them instead of focusing on creation.

Re: Interview with the founder of Teenage Engineering

#142

Post by ilyt »

psychomugs wrote: post #123
smoldesu wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just find it utterly fascinating how rich, clueless tech workers throw money at cool-looking companies they see on YouTube. It's so unfathomably stupid to me that I feel the need to share it on HN, but I realize in retrospect this community might not share my opinion.

It's unfathomably stupid to me that one would care so much about what others spend their money on, as if it were something actively harmful. To each their own, the only real winner here is the one selling their product.

It's not "care", it's morbid curiosity about how psyche of humans work.

Re: Interview with the founder of Teenage Engineering

#144

Post by BenGosub »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #25
neilv wrote: post #19

The photography of this is interesting. I'm not sure I'd know how to approach this assignment (I might start with rapport and portraiture in the space), but some things I noticed on different photos: * Warm vintage color cast on the '70s-looking gear wood panel. * On-camera-flash-like directional lighting, with harsh shadow (maybe to separate person from gear background, but both in focus?). * Contrast and saturation…

All of which says "stylised and arty" and is a look much used in The Wire and similar publications. I'm kind of irritated by this. TA are legendary for super-expensive toy-like products that must have insanely high margins. So somehow the "I was never into money (but now I collect antique synthesizers with four or five figure price tags)" line doesn't ring entirely true.

You definitely got a point. I would say that they deserve the money because people love their products and are happy to pay the premium.

I also think that as much as it is a cliche "never being into money" it's an important aspect of success, because you can either be driven by profit at one end of the spectrum and a genuine passion for a great product on the other.

If you do succeed and become wealthy, then it doesn't matter if a synth is $500 or $50'000, you can have it.

Re: Interview with the founder of Teenage Engineering

#145

Post by [deleted] »

spamizbad wrote: post #109
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of which says "stylised and arty" and is a look much used in The Wire and similar publications. I'm kind of irritated by this. TA are legendary for super-expensive toy-like products that must have insanely high margins. So somehow the "I was never into money (but now I collect antique synthesizers with four or five figure price tags)" line doesn't ring entirely true.

Unfortunately, All low volume boutique electronic musical instruments have “insanely high margins”. The less boutique normal stuff made by Yamaha and Roland is likely priced at 4x the BOM - and they are able to get better deals from distributors than TE can. You can’t sustain a business any other way. Consumer electronics are cheap because they can sell millions worldwide. Stuff like the OP1 sells in the 10s of thous…

[deleted]

Re: Interview with the founder of Teenage Engineering

#146

Post by ilyt »

whatshisface wrote: post #106
psychomugs wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So... you judge character based on appearances? No other gear company has tackled the all-in-one synth-sequencer-4trackrecorder-groovebox that is the OP-1 in the decade since its release. TE not capitalizing on this would be financially naive.

I am pretty sure real professionals use carefully configured personal computers with keyboards plugged in.

Smaller devices are still used as notepad for ideas.

Re: Interview with the founder of Teenage Engineering

#147

Post by psychomugs »

smoldesu wrote: post #138
psychomugs wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both of the cameras I listed are more expensive than many perfectly capable interchangeable-lens cameras (Ricoh GR ~$1000, Fuji X100 ~$1300 [currently prone to scalping for even more]), but still rightfully warrant the demand because of their usability.

Which is fine. If professionals collect them for novelty, nothing is lost. If a beginner were to spend all their money on a novelty camera instead of an interchangeable lens model, then it does become a bit of a waste. Almost like they bought into the hype because of the end-product or social sex-appeal, a phenomenon that ties neatly into TE's marketing.

They aren't novelties any more than using a prime non-zoom lens on an antique film camera is a novelty. That would be tantamount to claiming that playing on a large unwieldy needs-to-be-tuned acoustic piano is a novelty compared to a digital keybed with plugins.

"The enemy of art is the absence of limitations."

Re: Interview with the founder of Teenage Engineering

#148

Post by ilyt »

kzrdude wrote: post #56
smoldesu wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And people fall for it. It's crazy how many people blindly buy into TE's "homestyle" marketing like they're some hibrow synth company. The OP-1 tickles every American's "Product Cortex" in their brain though, immediately associating brutalist design and Corinthian leather with quality engineering. It doesn't matter if we're not the target audience, we just want to spend money on pretty things that make us feel good.…

The OP-1 is an instrument though, it seems like a pretty amazing instrument for creativity for those that can use it. And most instruments are more expensive than it..

OP-1 owner eh ?

Sure it's cheap if you compare it to Stradivarius, but if you use instruments in same type ("a CPU feeding ADC/DAC with some knobs and buttons") it is one of most expensive one in category.

OP-1 field (the only version they sell) is 2000 EUR. That's top end of synth world and you usually get more knobs and keys with that. That's the price of Korg/Roland/Yamaha workstation-level keyboards.

Do NOT try to compare it on price with anything, it will always look like a bad joke. Subjective, might be worth to you etc.

Re: Interview with the founder of Teenage Engineering

#149

Post by kzrdude »

smoldesu wrote: post #111
kzrdude wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The OP-1 is an instrument though, it seems like a pretty amazing instrument for creativity for those that can use it. And most instruments are more expensive than it..

I've tried a lot of grooveboxes in my time, and the OP-1 is one of the only instruments I've ever seen that has worse value-per-dollar than the DSI Tempest. Very few instruments are expensive and useless enough to justify this; the OP-1 is solidly among them though. All I'll say is that you should reserve your judgement until you've tried some competing products. The Playmobil laptop looks like a great way to do your…

Which one would you recommend? For an easy to use low end starting point.

Re: Interview with the founder of Teenage Engineering

#150

Post by ilyt »

xdfgh1112 wrote: post #94
wyager wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By what criteria is there "nothing like" it? Of course you can define "like" in a way to make this true, but I'm curious what you think are the salient differentiators.

Portable all in one groovebox with a keyboard. Even ignoring the keyboard, the creativity and fun of the OP-1s tape and synthesis modes, things like the gyro and FM radio, are fairly unique. There is a reason it is so successful.

> Portable all in one groovebox with a keyboard.

MASCHINE+, MPC X, Force, dozen other 440 style grooveboxes. Arguably Dirtywave M8

I mean it is neat device and I'm kinda surprised nobody cloned the minimalistic format (I guess Volcas are kind of that, although more "one thing" rather than versatility, but the asking price is truly ridiculous

Post reply on HN