i´m wondering why yosemite is still not supported, since yosemite was released 3(!!!) months ago. am i missing something?
I think it's a testament to UA having very high standards and not cheapening the word "supported" - even though it's been completely functional and stable. I can immediately think of another interface (and DAW) that has released a "supported" version that has longtime users reverting for stability.
While the flickering is occasional, cosmetic and a small annoyance, it's not a showstopper by any means. After the initial release of Yosemite it was WAY worse, and there were more things that were much more detrimental...initially, Yosemite's Core Audio was whack and it changed values in the Console device settings like meter peaking (that also affected the physical HW). You can see some of the UA related issues I was having in a thread here (has Yosemite in the title) - You'll also see how engaged Gavin was. UA aside - there was also flickering and constant re-draw issues (white out) of assets in Pro Tools AND even Logic was crashing upon start at Yosemite's launch and required an update itself.
Software development is often a balancing act of new product development and supporting existing products. In companies that are small and mid-size category of the software development industry, their developers often work on both. I can say first hand too, that even at the largest software companies in the World this is sometimes the case too.
When this is the situation, there are business decisions and trade offs. This isn't a bad thing...It's a sign of a company that is trying to find the balance while moving forward & creating. Things that effect the prioritization along the way include budget, existing roadmap, major calendar dates that you have to ship by, high priority bugs (usually Pri-0 through Pri-3 - with P0 being the most critical), dependency on other companies to fix their own bugs, and of course customer satisfaction. Another thing that UA does that effects development resources is that they partner very closely with other companies that are also in the small to medium size category to develop very complex products. When braintrust is limited, it's really hard to get the right people in the right room (figuratively), when they each have independent schedules, roadmaps, and product cycles.
I'm not making excuses for UA - but knowing knowing what I know about the software industry, OEM partnering, customer support, and product development lifecycle/planning at large - I actually tip my hat to them and I go the extra mile to help them out repro when I can.
If I were making business decisions at UA right now I would probably be making the same decisions. I'd be focusing on creating stable products for NAMM because it's a major cyclical event that has huge impact and visibility, and be looking to add a fix to something like this (lower priority) "slipstream" into any upcoming release. I'd tag the flicker as a Pri-2 or Pri-3 honestly.
I think as a whole UA for their size and the industry do a pretty good job with a maturity and consistency that I don't always see from their competitors. Another thing I admire about UA, along with the aforementioned, is that they don't set false expectations, make future announcements / vaporware, or release things half-baked. I can think of companies in this industry that I can't say the same for.
So, yeah in short, while an occasional flicker is annoying - the sky isn't falling. Sorry, if you already knew all of this and were just venting - wasn't trying to come off as preachy and pious - just giving a glimpse into product development ecosystem considerations from my own experience.
