Like others, I never got my Dwarf. I can’t say I’m not frustrated and disappointed.
I’m not technical nor do I have relevant experience to help save or run a business. I have no money to further invest.
I don’t know how I could possibly help.
But if I can, I will.
All I can say is that I’m proud to tell people I own a Duo and I’m sorry that the company is not succeeding.
I hope it can be salvaged and hope, it seems without hope, that my Dwarf will one day arrive.
I wish you all the best.
I totally agree that the Dwarf is the perfect ratio of tinker:results.
Just bought a Bluetooth dongle so I can use my 12.9” iPad as an interface, and the Dwarf is now the only thing I take on gigs for my instrument (harp). It’s led to a lot of creative fun and it’s a workhorse. Beer-proof too!
As to the future, personally I’d say the time with your family is so valuable. Young people are under immense pressure and the way the world is going at the moment, we need to do everything we can to bring joy and humanity to those we love.
I have not read all the comments, so apologies if my input has already been mentioned.
I am not a business analyst not do I know these economic spaces.
I was wondering about how things work in the mechanical keyboard space. There is a heavy opensource community there and there are companies as well, acting as hardware resellers offering various services, like assembly for example. There are a lot of DIY kits and hobbyist operating assembly, and companies shipping full hardware either compatible with FOSS or their own software: it seems that the software is treated as opensource, and hardware as a platform for these softwares. I don’t know about the size of this market or if it even relevant compared to the music-makers market, but maybe there is something to look at there. Their hardware is obviously not in the same league of complexity as what you are doing, but maybe there can be some inspiration.
Other than that, please take care of yourself.
First and foremost: personal concerns should always come first. People work for a living, we don’t live to work!
As for community vs full business, I think you should go full business here, but keep the community close. Software and communities go hand in hand, but hardware is another thing, so mixing the to won’t make it any easier.
What I mean by ‘keeping the community close’ is either provide direct ways to let the community create their own plugins and the likes (with an SDK/API), or handle it ‘the Rocksmith way’ by not officially supporting 3rd-party plugins, but don’t make their life hard.
I really hope MOD can continue in some capacity!
What bothers me about “full business” route is a Pebble example.
If somebody did not hear about it - that was a cool smartwatch, gained tons of support on kickstarter, over 2 million units sold, easy application development, weeks of battery life. Somehow they still miscalculated something on their financial side and got bankrupt regardless of the success.
Pebble was acquired by Fitbit. What did it mean for the end users and Pebble community?
Nothing good. Services were shut down, no more new devices produced, 2 million existing devices left with no support, with only Rebble project to the rescue as some kind of community effort as far as I understand.
Technology and intellectual property behind Pebble was buried somewhere inside Fitbit and there are no visible signs that it even was used anywhere since. No Fitbit Pebble 3.0 arrived, these guys produced only boring fitness bracelets, without any development geeky customization freedom that Pebble had.
And that was 2 MILLLION DEVICES and loyal customers, and big boys still decided to throw them away.
Should I really expect that if MOD will choose similar path - it will be any different? Meh. Sure, big boys have more money to produce hardware units, but it will be most probably led by the same conservative vision that treats hardware units as something that is produced once any never gets any updates since gets to the shop shelves. (BOSS/Roland - I am looking at you).
I would not expect big boys to care for existing MOD boxes, their owners, supporting cloud services or whatever.
I would expect instead that some of the MOD tech would be just used somewhere deep inside of some boring limited box that is no different from all other boxes on the market, killing all the good that makes MOD special.
First of all, sorry to hear that the reboot didn’t work out! I had chimed in with a bit of invest to get MOD Audio booted, and are still upholding this offer if there is any request for that from @gianfranco and @friedsilence.
As also suggested @Dave1138 above I suggest to look at Monome for a possible way that might work for you as well.
The software is all open and there is a huge community over on the Lines forum.
The main hardware pieces are Grid and Norns (there are more, but some are discontinued or very specialized or modules for a Modular Synth). Norns is Linux-based audio computer with audio, midi, and network interfaces in a nice package and could be a good a model that might work for a continuation of MOD as well.
The devices are rather high valued ($900 USD) and only produced in small batches. This is currently also not without issues as outlined by the team.
Additional, there is (or rather was, now discontinued) a low-cost solution based on a custom Raspberry Pi shield, maybe a bit similar to the PiSound. It is functionality almost equivalent to the big Norns device, but far away from the finish and usability in a live rig. The software is the same for both. There are also additional 3rd party variants of that (e.g. Fates), mostly based on a RPi as well.
Monome is a small-scale operations, basically 2-4 people working on hardware and software with the community chiming in for the main software.
I’m not sure if the Monome core team can make a living just from the hardware sales or if this is just a side operation, so using this model depends a lot on the requirements and expectations of the MOD Audio team. But there are surely some lessons to be learned from that.
Based on the previous comments in this thread and others I would suggest to not go the full business model, at least not in the sense of taking the whole thing private and close down on the SW as well.
The code is out anyway and the community will keep that alive for the current MOD owners and maybe even strengthen and update the 3rd party Pi-based variants (PiSound, …) to overcome the lack of devices.
Instead I would suggest to concentrate on a software-only/mainly approach and embrace 3rd party solutions. The trick of course is to monetize this approach, not to trick people in making you rich (which strangely people tend to assume…), but to get (at least) enough out of it to make a decent living and keep the whole thing together and alive and provide enough drive and dedicated effort to not just maintain the MOD portal, but also to continue development.
The key to this would be the (or a) portal, download site and forum, as they act as the key to the community. As long as most people follow this and stick together with a future MOD company we can keep this all afloat.
Offering subscriptions or options for one-time payments (without threatening to “brick” the device when stopping to pay) might turn out just enough for an initially small operation. Let’s grow it from there!
Getting back into the HW business would be a way for more profitability. Similar to Monome, the really nice Norns devices are maybe only bought by a small group of people, but that’s a high-margin niche (again the caveats of current HW productions apply). And for the rest of the crowd there’s still the more affordable (I wouldn’t call it cheap) way based on RPi and other, existing devices.
Here the high flexibility of the underlying Linux ecosystem is really an advantage, as this basically runs on anything. Even offering something for widely used consoles (Steam, …) might be an option, as long as there is a way to get audio in and out.
Providing accessible and ready-to-use commercial packages could make it easy to get it up and running, but for a price. This is what would appeal to most musicians which are not also nerds/tinkerers.
Leaving the door open for the community will allow tinkering with shared effort which will help the community as a whole, while not jeopardizing sales too much as a) tinkerers and people with the right skills anyway know how to build their own thing or get around any restrictions and b) might actually (understand the) value (of) such an ecosystem!
Having said all that, the first priority should be your own and your families health and satisfaction and being able to make a living.
I will now go an buy a Dwarf from Thomann, as long as any are available… (so if my Tier 3 device ever shows up, I have one to share or use two :-))
I’m still up for a contribution/invest into getting a company booted up, so hopping for some path forward here.
All the best, whatever path you choose!
I feel like @ssj71, @dreamer and @ignis32, closing the software sources seams like MOD could die, instead of being in the eternity of the FOSS, rebooted by the community.
Options 1 and 3 could be one thing, no ? In any case, it seams to me that family time is really important, take care of yourself too !
The 3 different entities suggested by @dreamer seams quite interesting !
I’m no businessman but there are few examples that seams to have found an equilibrium :
All these have a community of developers and some business to pay the bills and salaries, I hope something similar is possible for MOD, the software part at least.
The hardware part may continue selling Dwarfs (without having to design new hardware from scratch) and when/if a time comes to develop a new gear it could be financed (at least a bit) by the selling of Dwarfs, isn’t it ?
Open hardware looks like a really difficult path ! It’s a thing in guitar world : the 2 amps I use are made from fender sketches (one is a real fender, the other from a local craftsman), both circuit boards seams open (I may be wrong here !!), same for the telecaster, even the Godin 5th avenue is a modified clone of an old Gibson ES125… but these are really (old and) famous products that attract customers by this famousness !
Selling some licences to companies which want to commercialize a product using the ModOS seams to be great : a big fish like Behringer would make this MODcommunity grow big fast, no ? It’s a win deal for Berhinger since they don’t have to develop the OS and plugins…
The reason I backed the Dwarf (and did not receive unfortunately) was the nice combo of tinkerable open source software with a ready to use UI and curated plugins.
I can imagine it’s hard to be profitable from selling hardware units, so maybe focusing creating high quality plugins and board configs would be a more stable revenue source?
I would gladly pay a subscription which gives access to curated plugins and boards (both proprietary and from the community) and other material. The platform could stay fully open source and packaged for alternative hardware like pi based one as others mentioned.
The custom hardware could then be geared more towards high end with high margins…
I hear and share your concerns. Mod can be acquired and shut down entirely. Like what Apple did to Redmatica, and many years went by until bits and pieces of Redmatica’s software showed up in Logic Pro and Mainstage. They were much lesser versions of what the original 400 Euro bundle was.
And Pebble is a good catch and kill example. Fitbit was only removing competition.
The wider question here is: how can the business model of Mod devices survive? It looks by all means that it cannot in its current form, and that an alternative formv-- such as the theoretical marketplace with more paid options and distributed OS – has not been designed as of yet.
To make matters worse, “crossroads” is a nice way to word it, but MOD is now a defunct company that might be sold as a whole or for scrap. Then, MOD will need significant improvements to gain some competitiveness in the market, so more dev money is needed.
Therefore, our best ‘hope’ as of now is that someone acquires Mod:
a. As a whole – meaning the intention of keep it going and producing devices;
b. Rehires a portion of the MOD team, so as to learn about the product;
c. Designs a plan to keep the ecosystem alive and make it profitable, even if that entails “closing” ModOS development.
The opposite to that is: nobody buys MOD, the community rail behind it and pay for the IP so as to be able to release hardware updates. Many people would have committed to MOD’s reboot, so maybe an ‘acquisition plan’ can be put in place? IT’s not that simple, acquiring insolvency assets is a complicated process with tons of requirements (like creditors blocking low offers).
What are the real chances of a commercial takeover as outlined above?
If someone goes for IP, a new device with a different name is most likely what they have in mind, and no support for Duo/Dwarf ever.
Should the insolvency bring no commercial interest, how will the community be able to snatch that bit of the MOD that is a liquidation asset? I believe the community can ‘support’ MOD to some extent, but if I living product is there to fill its gap – even if much worse, how to mobilise the community to the rescue of a product they have objected before? Just because it went bankrupt?
Therefore, a commercial exit preserving MOD is our best chance of future product development. A community exit could at best potentially provide support to some extent and for some time.
This is my opinion and anyone may disagree.
(With this I am again signing off until 15 Sep at least, as I have a monstrous task ahead of me.)
First of all, thanks @gianfranco and team for all the hard work and make sure you take care of yourself and your family first and foremost.
I am in no way an expert on these matters but hope that I can add something to the narrative as I do feel MOD deserves a life and circumstances have made that pretty hard right now.
Lurking on the forums for the last year I’m afraid I have to conclude that the community is not mature enough to go the “full community” path. Most user-created plugins still needed significant help from the amazing team who often felt stretched thin to start with. While it adds content adding value to the product as a whole, I can’t help but think it also cut into time that could be spend making more high quality paid plugins. I feel like many of us believe(d) in this product because of the community driven approach and it feels like MOD wouldn’t be the same without it.
However, it seems that MODs current commitments (e.g. t3 dwarf backers, expression pedal) are not going to be covered even with a sustainable business model right now. Unfortunately I can’t really see a way out without going more the “full business” route to convince someone that it is a solid investment. Hardware is a very hard and expensive route to keep profitable, you’ll have to either subsidize it with software or be a lot more expensive than the competition. The advantage of software also being it basically only has initial upfront cost and can scale almost indefinitely.
I’ve been thinking about this for a while and here is my two cents for a possible business model that could get an investor on board.
Become a marketplaces for LV2 plugins, maybe expand to porting MOD OS to a DAW plugin, standalone, increase your userbase by people using the knockoffs etc. and sell the Dwarf as the THE center of any DAWless setup, differentiating yourself from the likes of zoia, helix etc. Go the android / ios route and make any developer able to publish their plugins and make them available either free or paid, maybe add a subscription model somewhere for unlimited access etc. and take a percentage from the sales.
Although this might feel like a big step backwards for the goals of an open platform you could still allow to add community plugin stores or make it even easier to manually upload your own.
This would still leave the community with an open source os, a platform for dev’s to get some financial reward and the option if the community wants a full open source store. It might also make the marketing for the dwarf a little clearer.
This might be unrealistic or impossible but I hope I was able to add something to the discussion at the least.
Thank you and keep strong MOD team.
Hi Gianfranco, thanks for sharing your opinion and vision.
I still believe oll the MOD ecosystem has a lot of potencial, so hope you (we) find a way!!
I also feel afraid that going full business will mean the end of future updates and also the danger that a big fish just invests to kill the promise small open fish. I also agree that propably to focus more in software can help in these difficult times, and later on going back to hardware with all the knowledge adquired.
So, probably the best would be the community option. But of course it depends on the details, that we don’t know.
About community commitment, I would says there are 3 sides:
economic support: probably not much to be expected as small investors. The last min 500 eur limit to invest, still was too big for the majority. I did it, as I want the system alive and I’m one of the lucky backers. Also I’m optimistic that in some time the MOD ecosystem could be profitable.
users support (inform about bugs, tests, improvements,…): I think on this aspect the community it’s very mature, but it needs an infrastructure on the MOD side. The famous Jon list is a good step, but not enough. ( is this list in the hand of the insolvence admin?? it has a lot of value 
development support: I really think this was improving quite a lot lately, so the insolvenz is really bad timing. Unfortunately I still have not the knowledge to support myself…
In my opinion once you release an image with a real MOD swe for RPI or add some repository you will get a lot of valuable support, but of course you also need infrastructe to absorve all these support.
so good luck and take care.
This by itself is a multi-year multi-person endeavor, that would need financing, resources and not have anything to deliver for all those years. I don’t see how that would even be feasible and actually keep the MOD ecosystem alive during that time.
I still don’t have any tangible image of what “full business” that everybody talks about actually means.
Again, I don’t see how any “full” option is going to be able to make anyone really satisfied in the long run. Diversifying the effort (and splitting up teams and responsibilities?) seems more productive in my view.
What model / approach do critter and guitari take with their “organellle”?
It seems like almost the exact same type of product as the dwarf (yes slightly different)
Could something be learned from them?
First and foremost: personal concerns should always come first. People work for a living, we don’t live to work!
This, this, 100 times this.
Good idea! After scanning some reviews and a few searches:
Hey so I bought a Dwarf almost a year ago.
I am a worship pastor so I play a mix of electric guitar and acoustic guitar.
I play a lot of stuff by Bethel music and when I’m not doing that I’m playing rock and blues at local venues.
I bought it as a backup board and as a travel pedal board.
However now it’s my main rig. I would put it up against the Kemper and the Helix. I get funny looks from musicians and sound guys when I pull it out at a new venue and then after sound check those same people are jumping over each other to get a better look telling me how good it sounds. Granted 20 years of guitar playing, a great understanding of mixing and audio engineering AND great guitars with great pickups make the dwarf shine.
However if I gave this thing to 10 other guitarists they wouldn’t know what to do with it. The learning curve is large but we’ll worth it. Took me about 5 months to really dial in a tone that was worth using and another 3-4 months to get something that makes people go “hey where’s your amps and pedal board?”
My advice? Make the roadmap to user friendly. Idk if that means making an app, or slightly redesigning the pedal board UI to help guitarists get started.
Or stay right where you’re at and figure out a better way to market this thing. My personal advertisement is that it’s the Helix slayer.
As many other said I think that priority is your wellness. Sorry,i didn’t read all the discussion and I’m not an economist but I tried to think about and I asked to myself: are midi keyboard and usb foot controller productors possible good investors ? Even in the case where the open source lead to MOD ep rasp Pi situation they will however increase their profits selling hardware to musicians who don’t likes the laptop setup. The open source could be seen as an opportunity to make more spicy synth generator, moreover they could not be interested to make rapid obsolescence on the Mod hardware.
Probably it is a non sense… But it’s only my poor brain 
.
Hope you will find a way to maintain alive your awesome project with your special team and finding the time for your beloved… I really hope that.
Gianfranco,
I’d be happy to talk to you privately if you like, but it is difficult to compete against the big guys out there. For Looperlative, I can survive because my overhead is extremely low. I have zero employees. My only office is in my house. I don’t need income from Looperlative because I have a day job. As a result, Looperlative is stable and can survive anything.
You need to decide what you want from your life and what the realistic potential from your choices are. I really wish you the best of luck on whatever you decide for yourself.
My 2 cents:
I’ve used my Mod Duo in every gig I’ve played over the past … 7?! … years and it’s always performed flawlessly. It really is a great piece of gear and an innovative concept. I wish you the best of luck!
Yes, above people are right.
You should sell your concept to Music Tribe.