Future of 1.5 after this long hiatus


#1

Why hasn’t 1.5 been updated?

Is it too difficult?
Is it not a high priority?
Was the original expectation of RL that 1.5 would be phased out because everyone would want 2.0?
Is 1.5 not going to be updated, and you are afraid to tell us?

I have ceased buying Soylent of any variety for now, and am transitioning to “normal” food. I just became impatient. I expect to resume Soylent purchases when I run out of current stock, which could happen soon, because I don’t keep much in reserve. But I don’t expect to return to near-100% levels for some time, if ever.


#3

I think it depends on what the upgrade is meant to accomplish. They could push out a new version every month with trivial changes - perhaps make changes for no other purpose than to use a new version number. Or they could make the releases based on fixing problems. Like how 1.4 was out only relatively briefly because it was seen by many as flawed. Is 1.5 flawed? Are there problems?

It will be interesting when 1.6 comes out as you’ll get some people allergic to soy or otherwise anti-soy that feel they no longer have an option. In fact, I sort of wonder if that’s why they’re not so quick to release a new version. Perhaps the powder will skip over soy and go straight to algae protein, wouldn’t that be something!


#4

Ditto on the frustration with the wait. I remember hearing that 1.5 was never meant to be replaced by 2.0, and to expect 1.6 by the end of 2015. 1.6 was apparently still being beta tested last time I asked them on January 2nd; I’d love to know why it’s taking so long


#5

1.6 will come out at the same time as 2.1

:smile: :wink:


#6

I loved 1.3, hated 1.4. I took a long hiatus and just received my first box of 1.5. It is killing me. Lots of cramps and horrible gas. I never had this problem with 1.3. I’m horribly allergic to soy. I’m now worried I won’t be able to get through the rest of 1.5. I still have a box of 1.4!


#7

Are you transitioning to normal food because you don’t like Soylent 1.5 or 2.0; or because you’re frustrated because you think there should be a new powdered version by now?


#8

1.5 doesn’t contain soy, other than a tiny amount of soy lecithin (which 1.0+ also had, including 1.3). And (iirc) the lecithin derived from soy is fine for (some? all?) people allergic to soy. I’d say it’s more likely your gut flora is transitioning from a non-Soylent diet to a Soylent diet (did you go from 100% normal food to 100% Soylent?).


#9

I’m not specifically unhappy about 2.0 or 1.5 except that I can’t afford 2.0 and I feel like I’m stuck in a 1.5 ghetto. Clearly 2.0 is being presented as the “flagship“ product right now and no progress is being made in updating 1.5 so that it is closer to the 2.0 formulation.

So I’m tired of waiting.


#10

1.5 was pretty well-received in general, so I don’t think there’s a lot of pressure to get another version out as quickly as in the past. There are improvements to be made, and 1.6 is indeed in the works, but it seems like their resources are focused in other areas right now: addressing complaints about 2.0, working on expansion into Europe, development of a bar form(3.0?)…There might also be some hesitation regarding ingredient choices, such as the soy protein, which brought up complaints with 2.0. That said, since it has been quite some time, I would expect to see 1.6 rolling out pretty soon despite any delays caused by other projects. Assuming RL is well-organized…

But RL has been clear that the powdered version is here to stay and will continue to be produced and improved, so there’s no worries about it being phased out or replaced with other products. 1.6 will come eventually.


#11

Fair enough. Of course, if 1.6 comes out, you’ll then just be stuck in a 1.6 ghetto until 1.7 comes out.


#12

What specifically do you want to see in order to escape the ghetto? Parity with 2.0? I’d like to see that too.


#13

That seems pretty ridiculous to me. There are no instant ghettos. It takes a while for one to develop. And also, one is not stuck instantly. In comparison to 1.2 and 1.3 and 1.4, 1.5 has stayed the same for a heck of a long time. Also, 2.0 is what RL thinks is the healthiest version of Soylent so far. So we consumers of 1.5 are getting what RL thinks is not the best. Also, 1.6 could be better than 2.0. That wouldn’t be a ghetto.


#14

I would like to see a stab at parity with 2.0. We haven’t seen any tries so far.


#15

I don’t mind feeling poor for buying the cheap stuff, I just want something that tastes a little better (so I can get dad to drink it) and that has enough protein to keep up with my attempts at gaining muscle.


#16

I always put 1 tablespoon of Maca and non-Alkalized cocoa powder in mine. The maca and cocoa together gives it a nice taste with added antioxidants while apparently boosting testosterone. Unprocessed cocoa has more antioxidants.

Cocoa powder is something so many put into their 1.5 powder and Soylent has enough sweetness so that it doesn’t taste bitter (unless you want bitter).

There are also those flavoring drops that can make it taste like banana, coconut, or anything.


#17

Maybe. Did Rosa Labs actually say that they thought 2.0 was healthier than 1.5? From memory, it seemed to me that RL has mostly been working towards making Soylent nicer for people to consume (“improved texture”), and more convenient (no more separate oil bottles, and pre-mixed liquid).


#18

2.0 has a lower GI, at least.


#19

“We are thrilled to announce that Soylent 2.0, the latest advancement in nutrition, begins shipping today.” Is it too much of a stretch to deduce that if Soylent 2.0 is the latest advancement in nutrition, 1.5 is not the latest advancement in nutrition?

I think there are other similar quotes from RL; this is the one I found after 15 seconds of searching.


#20

It’s an advancement in the dimension of nutritional convenience, not necessarily in being more healthy. Maybe it is more healthy, but the referenced statement doesn’t support it.


#21

What evidence do you have that a statement saying “nutrition” refers to “nutritional convenience” rather than, uh, “nutrition”?