Ochen K?

This forum is for discussing Rack Extensions. Devs are all welcome to show off their goods.
avasopht
Competition Winner
Posts: 3931
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

19 Nov 2017

JiggeryPokery wrote:
19 Nov 2017
The features you list there are largely to do with the install or management process of the plugin or platform hosting. Mattias specifically referred to the "Rack Extension SDK and platform", as being "amazing and unique". He's intentionally conflated the two, but they are somewhat independent, and IMO you've rather fallen into his trap there, and only considered the platform aspect in terms of feature-as-hyperbole. (This is based upon my interpretation of the RE SDK being what an RE can do, and the platform being how the RE is managed by the host; I'll concede others' definitions may differ here).
I think platform, marketplace and distribution channels are pretty intertwined these days. I mean, if you're writing an iPhone app you're targeting the iOS platform and as a result tied to the iOS marketplace and Apple's distribution channel.

I'm guessing when speaking about the platform Mattias/PH also includes the marketplace and distribution channel since they all come as a package deal.

In terms of hyperbole, the sum that results from each of the parts makes it pretty amazing and unique.

Sure you can get copy protection (that seems to actually work and with no upfront cost), platform independence at native speeds (without garbage collection or running via a VM) capable of low latency / high frequency processing, write once portable GUI and online sales and distribution with additional usability perks such as sync for all outside of the RE SDK and platform. But not all at once.

The platform independence is something I think can manifest in so many ways, such as offering demos in the browser! If they want to be clever they could even create something like a Muse box but with REs.

The submission by LLVM bytecode for platform independence was certainly unique at the time, though webassembly may encourage similar APIs for platform independent GUI applications and games. Well. Apart from the lack of installation and a proper system for webassembly plugins that is pretty much what they have now.
Last edited by avasopht on 20 Nov 2017, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MattiasHG
Reason Studios
Posts: 488
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

20 Nov 2017

JiggeryPokery wrote:
18 Nov 2017
And you can see what I mean in action. Take the official response I got above on this very thread: "[REs do] amazing things that no other plug-in format does". I'm not sure who that's aimed at. It's not aimed at me or any other developer, as we all know what it can and can't do. So what does that even mean? It's probably had every dev who read that scatching their heads for days now: REs don't even have the unique luxury of being the only plugin that work in Reason anymore. Amazing things that no other plug-in does? Seriously? Mattias had better name one, and it had better be "amazing". "REs fit in the classic 754px width rack without a container" does not count! :lol:
I still claim that yes, the RE format does amazing things no other plug-in format does. I know of no other format where as a developer you build once and that build, without sharing the source code, can be compiled for virtually any platform. PC, Mac, 32-bit, 64-bit and so on. The LLVM technology supports running an RE wherever there might be a host in the future. So yeah, no other audio plug-in format does this and I definitely think it's unique and amazing.

Compared to other plug-in formats, for the dev, there is also a distinct lack of codebase management, compatibility, copy protection and building a file system—that IS a difference. I don't think saying "you can build those in VST though" is fair, the difference is that they're already built and you just hook into them so there's less development from an SDK perspective.

And to what EnochLight said, I really do think all those things (and some more) are differences between Rack Extensions as a format compared to other plug-in formats. I wouldn't dismiss them, they matter for both developers and users. Together I'd say they're pretty damn great :)
  • Unified, cross-browsable patch format with one browser implementation (that the host takes care of)
  • Proven, ready-made copy protection that's yet to be cracked
  • A greater extent of crash protection built in to the format
  • Download and manage your plug-ins, regardless of developers, in one place with one license
  • Native undo support
  • Fully integrated into a DAW workflow and layout
  • Seamless collaboration between users and—the latest version is always available on all platforms and is compatible if you both have it
  • Updates to the plug-in can't break your songs
  • 30-day trial for all plug-ins
  • Future-proof technology — once you've bought an RE, it's yours forever and will work forever

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

20 Nov 2017

MattiasHG wrote:
20 Nov 2017
I still claim that yes, the RE format does amazing things no other plug-in format does. I know of no other format where as a developer you build once and that build, without sharing the source code, can be compiled for virtually any platform. PC, Mac, 32-bit, 64-bit and so on. The LLVM technology supports running an RE wherever there might be a host in the future. So yeah, no other audio plug-in format does this and I definitely think it's unique and amazing.

Compared to other plug-in formats, for the dev, there is also a distinct lack of codebase management, compatibility, copy protection and building a file system—that IS a difference. I don't think saying "you can build those in VST though" is fair, the difference is that they're already built and you just hook into them so there's less development from an SDK perspective.
Yes, I have to agree that coding and publishing RE's is EXCEPTIONALLY easy and convenient as a developer. Its easy to maintain even as a small developer which imo is why we see so many developers focused on Reason.

But this also ties in with my view I presented earlier where exactly BECAUSE a market is closed it is a good place for a small developer - he can offer standard tools everybody needs that don't exist in that market yet. And that in turn is exactly what's the problem with opening that market to a slew of VST tools that amassed over the years, taking away any chance of supporting yourself as a developer with such tools.

The way it looks to me is that REs are doomed to become CV-only, simple because nobody develops anything else aynmore. And the Rack becomes a remnant of the past much like Logics MIDI Environment - some people might still use it but its all but dead for the scope of the DAW.

User avatar
chimp_spanner
Posts: 2908
Joined: 06 Mar 2015

20 Nov 2017

Native undo! Man I loaded up Cubase for the first time in a long time to try and rekindle the love. Made an instrument. Made some changes. Pressed control+z...it undid me creating the instrument track.

I closed Cubase.

Took all of about 2 minutes.

User avatar
Loque
Moderator
Posts: 11170
Joined: 28 Dec 2015

20 Nov 2017

chimp_spanner wrote:
20 Nov 2017
Native undo! Man I loaded up Cubase for the first time in a long time to try and rekindle the love. Made an instrument. Made some changes. Pressed control+z...it undid me creating the instrument track.

I closed Cubase.

Took all of about 2 minutes.
21st century. I never complain again about Reason....maybe :-)
Reason12, Win10

User avatar
etyrnal
Posts: 316
Joined: 24 Jan 2016
Contact:

20 Nov 2017

Goodbye wrote:I think they've massively underpriced the subscriptions. It betrays a complete lack of confidence in REs and a clumsy attempt at pulling in some extra revenue.

Perhaps Propellerhead will change things up, but I expect nothing other than the glib corporate sound-bytes about how they are 'listening' and how much they 'believe' that seems to be what passes for engagement nowadays.
Well if you just have a desire to pay extra money, I can send you my PayPal email address, and every time you buy a rack extension, you can just send twice that amount of money to me.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


User avatar
etyrnal
Posts: 316
Joined: 24 Jan 2016
Contact:

20 Nov 2017

eXode wrote:
joeyluck wrote:
18 Nov 2017
Talking about subscriptions
The two are tied together whether you like it or not.

It's funny, when it comes to propellerheads people go "Oh, but they are a business, bla bla". With all due respect, RE developers are trying to make ends meet too, regardless if it's a source of extra income, or trying to make a living, it is still work.
Just because someone is trying to make ends meet does not justify a thing. Henchmen are also just trying to make ends meet for their family. Is that directed at you directly? Absolutely not. Just challenging the idea that making ends meet is all important compared to what is being done to try to make those ends meet. That would be like trying to protect hundreds of thousands of jobs, despite the fact that the activity of those hundreds of thousands of jobs are destroying the atmosphere or ecosystem. Those people are just trying to make ends meet. In a sense, the customer is always right. Which of course is balanced against what a product or service provider can actually afford to produce or provide. So, trying to make ends meet never justifies a bad product, or a bad service, or an overpriced product, or a mediocre product that doesn't really meet up to the value presented by the producer, in the customer's mind.



Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


avasopht
Competition Winner
Posts: 3931
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

20 Nov 2017

etyrnal wrote:
20 Nov 2017
So, trying to make ends meet never justifies a bad product, or a bad service, or an overpriced product, or a mediocre product that doesn't really meet up to the value presented by the producer, in the customer's mind.
Nobody is suggesting making inferior or overpriced products though, neither is this comparable to someone exhibiting destructive business practices for the sake of money. Unlike a bailiff just following orders, these people are creating value for your benefit.

If the customer doesn't want to pay the amount of money that would enable the producer to earn a living then the customer ends up with nothing. No funky rack extensions, no fancy soundbank, no tantalizing synths and no careful attention to fixing bugs because the developers can't afford to spend the time doing it (they'll get evicted before they can make your bugfix).

It's why there is no equal to Reason, Photoshop or Adobe Premiere on Linux.

And the issue being raised here is that developers may be being short changed in subscriptions. That doesn't really fit into the "customer is always right" narrative, which I also don't believe is a true statement. Customers can have unrealistic expectations. If a customer asks for an hour of my time but is not willing to pay for it, their valuation of my time is wrong and thus they don't get any of it. If I am looking for customers to devote my time to I will not devote them to the customer who is not willing to pay for it, so the customer ends up without it.
Last edited by avasopht on 20 Nov 2017, edited 2 times in total.

Goodbye
Posts: 220
Joined: 21 May 2017

20 Nov 2017

etyrnal wrote:
20 Nov 2017
Goodbye wrote:I think they've massively underpriced the subscriptions. It betrays a complete lack of confidence in REs and a clumsy attempt at pulling in some extra revenue.

Perhaps Propellerhead will change things up, but I expect nothing other than the glib corporate sound-bytes about how they are 'listening' and how much they 'believe' that seems to be what passes for engagement nowadays.
Well if you just have a desire to pay extra money, I can send you my PayPal email address, and every time you buy a rack extension, you can just send twice that amount of money to me.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
I didn't say anything about thinking REs were cheap. I was talking about subscriptions. I buy my REs outright, as I would suggest should anyone that wants the developers to make a fair amount of money.

User avatar
jayhosking
Posts: 613
Joined: 28 Nov 2016
Contact:

20 Nov 2017

MattiasHG wrote:
20 Nov 2017
  • Unified, cross-browsable patch format with one browser implementation (that the host takes care of)
This really is an awesome and time-saving feature.

User avatar
Exowildebeest
Posts: 1553
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

20 Nov 2017

normen wrote:
20 Nov 2017
MattiasHG wrote:
20 Nov 2017
I still claim that yes, the RE format does amazing things no other plug-in format does. I know of no other format where as a developer you build once and that build, without sharing the source code, can be compiled for virtually any platform. PC, Mac, 32-bit, 64-bit and so on. The LLVM technology supports running an RE wherever there might be a host in the future. So yeah, no other audio plug-in format does this and I definitely think it's unique and amazing.

Compared to other plug-in formats, for the dev, there is also a distinct lack of codebase management, compatibility, copy protection and building a file system—that IS a difference. I don't think saying "you can build those in VST though" is fair, the difference is that they're already built and you just hook into them so there's less development from an SDK perspective.
The way it looks to me is that REs are doomed to become CV-only, simple because nobody develops anything else aynmore.
If somebody makes a tape sim RE, I'm pretty sure people will buy it. Even if it's crap. See CrapRE ;) There must be more of these opportunities out there, whether CV, FX or synth. I see lots of people here hungry for RE's (specifically that tape sim) and where there is demand, there's money to be made. Instead of looking at Propellerheads for direction, I think developers should look to the users, to the market. Make the future, instead of trying to predict it or waiting for it to happen.

(And maybe developers could also look to eachother - which they've already been doing, with PolyCV (as I understand it this was introduced by Blamsoft and got support from other devs) - e.g. what if Panda licensed his patch randomisation expertise to other devs? I think there's lots more to the RE platform than just the individual devices/developers and Propellerheads. Reason is more than the sum of it's parts. That's where there seems to lie a lot of possibility for creative ideas to make the RE world more interesting than other platforms.)

User avatar
Faastwalker
Posts: 2281
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: NSW, Australia

20 Nov 2017

joeyluck wrote:
17 Nov 2017
Faastwalker wrote:
17 Nov 2017

I think you missed the boat! Seriously, dude.

Exactly.
Sure, I guess with Spotify, as an artist, you can opt out as well.

You were taking my comments out of context. I don't think Jiggery-Pokery took them the same as you. I was making a point that I subscribed to something specifically to fill a gap in my subscription... something that I didn't use during my subscription and had no plans of buying. That without subscriptions in place, from the angle of me as a customer, it would have made no difference today. Unless that difference might be me subscribing to an item (somewhat at random to fill my cart) leading to me saying, "Hey, not sure what I missed when I trialed this, but this is awesome" and then I buy it. And that could not have happened before. And statistics like those we might not see yet since it's early and subscriptions just wrapped their first month along with Reason 10 being released.
If subscribing an RE leads to a sale that's all good. A lot of 'ifs' & 'buts' here though and it seems like a long winded way to make a sale! We keep coming back to (at least this is my take on it) that the subscription model is a disaster for developers overall, leading eventually to less developers even getting involved. And we know where this will lead. I fear for the future of RE, although I really hope I'm wrong. I think we will eventually see a very small, hardcore or RE developers as the only source of new RE's. Maybe the odd one from Propellerheads & some hobbiest developers that just love the format & Reason. I think it will become an incredibly niche arena. It's already a very niche market. How 'niche' can it get & still survive at all?!
Also I'm pretty sure I've seen you pushing for re-tries of REs in this forum. And that would instead be free for you, right?
I'm all in favor of a RE-TRY at the developers behest. But it sounds like this is not an option. If an RE has a major update, and certainly if there is a cost for the upgrade, then it would be beneficial for the developers to allow users to RE-TRY, which may also lead to a sale. It's the same logic as your subscribe to buy angle. Given less information, translated here as a chance to re-assess a device following an update, users are more likely to make no choice & not go for the upgrade or buy the device ...... but really this is a moot point now we have the subscription model. If nothing else it's a reasonable way to TRY devices.

User avatar
Aosta
Posts: 1051
Joined: 26 Jun 2017

20 Nov 2017

jayhosking wrote:
20 Nov 2017
MattiasHG wrote:
20 Nov 2017
  • Unified, cross-browsable patch format with one browser implementation (that the host takes care of)
This really is an awesome and time-saving feature.
The Aqueduct?

Image
Tend the flame

OverneathTheSkyBridg
Posts: 377
Joined: 15 Jan 2016

21 Nov 2017

What if developers could set their own monthly rental rate. For example you have an RE like Expanse that's normally $150. I've already demoed it but never really dove into it. What if I could rent it for a month for $5 or $10? This beats the 50 cents developers are making on the current model, and props could take a reasonable percentage. And maybe if before the end of the month I decided to buy it that $5 rental fee gets knocked off the full price. Everyone wins. :)

User avatar
FLVZ
Posts: 519
Joined: 17 Aug 2016
Location: ZW | GB

21 Nov 2017

OverneathTheSkyBridg wrote:
21 Nov 2017
What if developers could set their own monthly rental rate. For example you have an RE like Expanse that's normally $150. I've already demoed it but never really dove into it. What if I could rent it for a month for $5 or $10? This beats the 50 cents developers are making on the current model, and props could take a reasonable percentage. And maybe if before the end of the month I decided to buy it that $5 rental fee gets knocked off the full price. Everyone wins. :)
Agreed
I feel like this is something that could have worked, set a retrial price and if you choose to buy before the retrial expires you get the retrial price knocked off the purchase price. I think this would allow those of us holding back on trialing a lot of things because we don't have time, to actually just go for it knowing there's a second chance. With the sub model the time factor is still an issue, I'm not going to get enough time on $1000 worth of REs in a month and essentially it just feels inefficient to have my browser filled with things I'm not going to use. I'd be happy to subscribe for maybe 3-4 devices a month knowing those developers are getting a decent share of my custom. Not the peanuts! This is clearly something PH just really need to look closely at!

User avatar
etyrnal
Posts: 316
Joined: 24 Jan 2016
Contact:

21 Nov 2017

avasopht wrote:
etyrnal wrote:
20 Nov 2017
So, trying to make ends meet never justifies a bad product, or a bad service, or an overpriced product, or a mediocre product that doesn't really meet up to the value presented by the producer, in the customer's mind.
Nobody is suggesting making inferior or overpriced products though, neither is this comparable to someone exhibiting destructive business practices for the sake of money. Unlike a bailiff just following orders, these people are creating value for your benefit.

If the customer doesn't want to pay the amount of money that would enable the producer to earn a living then the customer ends up with nothing. No funky rack extensions, no fancy soundbank, no tantalizing synths and no careful attention to fixing bugs because the developers can't afford to spend the time doing it (they'll get evicted before they can make your bugfix).

It's why there is no equal to Reason, Photoshop or Adobe Premiere on Linux.

And the issue being raised here is that developers may be being short changed in subscriptions. That doesn't really fit into the "customer is always right" narrative, which I also don't believe is a true statement. Customers can have unrealistic expectations. If a customer asks for an hour of my time but is not willing to pay for it, their valuation of my time is wrong and thus they don't get any of it. If I am looking for customers to devote my time to I will not devote them to the customer who is not willing to pay for it, so the customer ends up without it.
Customers collectively. A developer can produce something, release it into the wild, and if customers don't see the value in it, that developer really doesn't have a leg to stand on by ridiculing the customers for not making their living for them. They have to produce something of useful or novel value, and price it in a way that's not completely out of step with reality. Customers are not mindless slaves as has been suggested. Thinking that they are, and treating them as such, can ruin your business picture.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


User avatar
eXode
Posts: 838
Joined: 11 Feb 2015

21 Nov 2017

etyrnal wrote:
21 Nov 2017
avasopht wrote:
Nobody is suggesting making inferior or overpriced products though, neither is this comparable to someone exhibiting destructive business practices for the sake of money. Unlike a bailiff just following orders, these people are creating value for your benefit.

If the customer doesn't want to pay the amount of money that would enable the producer to earn a living then the customer ends up with nothing. No funky rack extensions, no fancy soundbank, no tantalizing synths and no careful attention to fixing bugs because the developers can't afford to spend the time doing it (they'll get evicted before they can make your bugfix).

It's why there is no equal to Reason, Photoshop or Adobe Premiere on Linux.

And the issue being raised here is that developers may be being short changed in subscriptions. That doesn't really fit into the "customer is always right" narrative, which I also don't believe is a true statement. Customers can have unrealistic expectations. If a customer asks for an hour of my time but is not willing to pay for it, their valuation of my time is wrong and thus they don't get any of it. If I am looking for customers to devote my time to I will not devote them to the customer who is not willing to pay for it, so the customer ends up without it.
Customers collectively. A developer can produce something, release it into the wild, and if customers don't see the value in it, that developer really doesn't have a leg to stand on by ridiculing the customers for not making their living for them. They have to produce something of useful or novel value, and price it in a way that's not completely out of step with reality. Customers are not mindless slaves as has been suggested. Thinking that they are, and treating them as such, can ruin your business picture.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
Erm, that was not suggested at all. What was discussed was primarily the propellerhead - RE developer relationship. A point being that both are businesses.

Your posts so far indicate that you haven't understood the discussed topic at all, to be completely honest.

User avatar
etyrnal
Posts: 316
Joined: 24 Jan 2016
Contact:

21 Nov 2017

eXode wrote:
etyrnal wrote:
21 Nov 2017
Customers collectively. A developer can produce something, release it into the wild, and if customers don't see the value in it, that developer really doesn't have a leg to stand on by ridiculing the customers for not making their living for them. They have to produce something of useful or novel value, and price it in a way that's not completely out of step with reality. Customers are not mindless slaves as has been suggested. Thinking that they are, and treating them as such, can ruin your business picture.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
Erm, that was not suggested at all. What was discussed was primarily the propellerhead - RE developer relationship. Point being that both are businesses.
This reminds me of one of those situations where the producer of a product or service believes that they are always right, because customer has the OPTION of purchasing their product or service, and there's an expectation that the customer should just like whatever the producer of the product or service puts out there, because the customer has the OPTION of whether or not to purchase the product or service. Except the difference now is, the tables are turned, and the product or service producer is now sitting in the customers chair, standing in the customer shoes, because now the producer of the product or service is in a similar position to the customer, because they have willingly decided to subject themselves to the terms of the distributor. And as far as I know that relationship is also a voluntary relationship. So technically if producers of products or Services under a distributor don't like it, they have the option to produce or distribute with another distributor, don't they? And like it's suggested that customers are supposed to be happy with what producers produce, or go their own way, then I would think that the same philosophy should apply to producers of products or Services who don't like the model that their distributor is using, and they should be able to go another way just like any customer is expected to.

I have occasionally heard producers of products and services become harsh with customers or prospective customers who are complaining about their product or service, suggesting that the customer, if they don't like it, has a choice about whether or not they want to use the service or purchase the product, and that customer, if they don't like it, should go another way.

Seems like this exact philosophy can be directly applied to producers of products or Services who do not like the distribution model that they have voluntarily chosen to invest themselves into. They could start developing vsts, or they could start developing accounting software, or they can start developing the sound effects for nature channels. They are not stuck here. And if they don't like it, shouldn't they also go another way?

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


User avatar
eXode
Posts: 838
Joined: 11 Feb 2015

21 Nov 2017

etyrnal wrote:
21 Nov 2017
eXode wrote:
Erm, that was not suggested at all. What was discussed was primarily the propellerhead - RE developer relationship. Point being that both are businesses.
This reminds me of one of those situations where the producer of a product or service believes that they are always right, because customer has the OPTION of purchasing their product or service, and there's an expectation that the customer should just like whatever the producer of the product or service puts out there, because the customer has the OPTION of whether or not to purchase the product or service. Except the difference now is, the tables are turned, and the product or service producer is now sitting in the customers chair, standing in the customer shoes, because now the producer of the product or service is in a similar position to the customer, because they have willingly decided to subject themselves to the terms of the distributor. And as far as I know that relationship is also a voluntary relationship. So technically if producers of products or Services under a distributor don't like it, they have the option to produce or distribute with another distributor, don't they? And like it's suggested that customers are supposed to be happy with what producers produce, or go their own way, then I would think that the same philosophy should apply to producers of products or Services who don't like the model that their distributor is using, and they should be able to go another way just like any customer is expected to.

I have occasionally heard producers of products and services become harsh with customers or prospective customers who are complaining about their product or service, suggesting that the customer, if they don't like it, has a choice about whether or not they want to use the service or purchase the product, and that customer, if they don't like it, should go another way.

Seems like this exact philosophy can be directly applied to producers of products or Services who do not like the distribution model that they have voluntarily chosen to invest themselves into. They could start developing vsts, or they could start developing accounting software, or they can start developing the sound effects for nature channels. They are not stuck here. And if they don't like it, shouldn't they also go another way?

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
No one here except you has said anything to that effect.

EdGrip
Posts: 2343
Joined: 03 Jun 2016

21 Nov 2017

etyrnal wrote:
21 Nov 2017
...They are not stuck here. And if they don't like it, shouldn't they also go another way?
I think the worry, (and what's become the point of this thread,) is that the RE developers will indeed do exactly that. And then we won't have any more lovely new REs to play with. So ideally we'd like them not to (have to) do that. See? I think this is being over-complicated.

avasopht
Competition Winner
Posts: 3931
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

21 Nov 2017

etyrnal wrote:
21 Nov 2017
Customers collectively. A developer can produce something, release it into the wild, and if customers don't see the value in it, that developer really doesn't have a leg to stand on by ridiculing the customers for not making their living for them. They have to produce something of useful or novel value, and price it in a way that's not completely out of step with reality. Customers are not mindless slaves as has been suggested. Thinking that they are, and treating them as such, can ruin your business picture.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
You've lost me completely.

1. Nobody here has ridiculed customers for not making their living. Can you please show me where this has happened if I have missed it.
2. Nobody here has said or suggested customers are mindless slaves. Can you please show me where this has happened if I have missed it.
3. Exactly who here is treating customers like they are mindless slaves and have priced their device out of step with reality? And how is pricing reality determined anyway?

Forget anyone else. All I am saying is that, if it is not viable for someone to make money producing software because the market is not willing to pay, then the market gets no software. What is the problem with that notion exactly? Are you suggesting developers devote months of their time for an endeavour that will not pay their rent rather than using their skills to earn up to 3 times the average wage?
etyrnal wrote:
21 Nov 2017
Seems like this exact philosophy can be directly applied to producers of products or Services who do not like the distribution model that they have voluntarily chosen to invest themselves into. They could start developing vsts, or they could start developing accounting software, or they can start developing the sound effects for nature channels. They are not stuck here. And if they don't like it, shouldn't they also go another way?
If you have read the thread, the developer who raised concerns about the platform said this:

1. He had already developed a Rack Extension.
2. Propellerhead asked them to sign new terms for subscription.
3. Since subscriptions the amount they have received is not even enough for them to be able to afford a single cup of coffee every 6 months.
4. Propellerhead pocket the difference when users underutilise their subscription.
5. The subscriptions were not thought with considerations for what would be viable for developers.
6. They have not received good communicaiton.
etyrnal wrote:
21 Nov 2017
And if they don't like it, shouldn't they also go another way?
Aaaaand then you get no Rack Extensions.

All the mentioned developer is raising is concerns about an unviable model. I really can't see a valid argument against that at all.

I gave examples of why this leads to much less commercial support for Linux. So yes, developers will go another way as you said, and some have. So now we have no Korg or even fixes for the Uhe Rack Extension, because it doesn't bring in enough money to justify the cost of development.

User avatar
joeyluck
Moderator
Posts: 11029
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

21 Nov 2017

Here's my thoughts on this thread:
  • Ochen K. has been located.
  • RE has always competed with VST by comparison. It might be more direct competition now, but having VSTs alongside RE helps to differentiate the two and showcase the strengths of RE.
  • Subscriptions have only been out for a little over a month (Oct. 9).
  • During the same time, Reason 10 had already been announced (Sept. 22) and then was released (Oct. 25). Many customers were buying or saving to buy R10.
  • Everyone knew Black Friday was just around the corner, and many customers likely waiting for sales.
  • Not only that, but subscriptions are a whole new thing, and not as many customers are going to jump on it right away.
  • I feel it is a bit premature to draw any conclusions based on any data so soon during a rather complex time.
  • Aside from timeline, I feel you can't draw conclusions based on the responses of a few devs; And yes, including those who welcome it, which equates to about the same in this thread.
  • Subscriptions are an option for developers
  • Many here are basing opinions off of little data based on one month of subscriptions... Being shown a few cents... As if to say only one or a handful of users subscribed to a RE...and got all the extra use they needed out of it? Big loss? Were they ever going to buy it? Are they not going to continue to subscribe? Maybe going to buy now? Who the heck knows?
  • I think it is ok to form opinions and speculate. At this point it can only be speculation. I think revisiting this in a few months or a year and doing a proper study would be best if you really care to know how well it works.
  • We have threads on both the opinions of subscriptions and VST support...

avasopht
Competition Winner
Posts: 3931
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

21 Nov 2017

joeyluck wrote:
21 Nov 2017
  • Many here are basing opinions off of little data based on one month of subscriptions... Being shown a few cents... As if to say only one or a handful of users subscribed to a RE...and got all the extra use they needed out of it? Big loss? Were they ever going to buy it? Are they not going to continue to subscribe? Maybe going to buy now? Who the heck knows?
  • I think it is ok to form opinions and speculate. At this point it can only be speculation. I think revisiting this in a few months or a year and doing a proper study would be best if you really care to know how well it works.
  • We have threads on both the opinions of subscriptions and VST support...
Just for the record, I was responding solely to the rhetoric and rationale, not actually making any predictions or assuming the first month is representative. Basically, I can see where JP comes from. His points are valid. Those views may be shared by others.

That being said I had considered making a Rack Extension back in 2014 (I posted a little demo of the effect), but just didn't seem worth my time to get back up to scratch with the level of DSP required to create a competitive product. I still work on it in downtime, but in my mind it's more of a hobby because I can't make a strong business case for the time investment.

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

21 Nov 2017

I don‘t know why people even answer to comments that amount to „X should do this and that“. Customers should do this, developers should do that, companies should do something else - thats all bullshit. The discussion is about what people DID do (like Ochen) or what people THINK could happen. So lets just ignore the „should-ers“ and continue exchanging impressions as this is one of the most interesting threads I‘ve seen on here in a long time.

Note we ARE already talking about a market that is mainly driven by small developers here. There is no large players in the RE market that came here for the actual market - they went in early in good faith. Not ONE SINGLE large devloper came in later - so small developer concerns are very important IMO.

User avatar
Psuper
Posts: 524
Joined: 29 May 2016

21 Nov 2017

I'm not one for speculation, but my gut is usually right based on a killer instinct and 35+ years experience in multiple industries.

1. REs are going to die off.
2. Subscriptions are a bust. Which doesn't matter for Propellerhead, it's free money to them so will continue for as long as they want to. But it won't be "successful -- just some extra monthly dosh for props and a few cents for the existing RE devs.
3. RE developers and users become more disenfranchised with how propellerhead develop their DAW and handle user expectations.
4. Another marketing mistake like "The Biggest Reason Update Ever‎" from props with some slim monetizing IDTs and two synths is gonna nail Reason into a coffin.

Please keep in mind, it's not what I want nor wish for, I'm very much a propellerhead fan and use it every day despite the many shortcomings from Propellerhead. A fans job, should they be inclined, is to offer advice and help the direction go up up up in use for their DAW of choice. Lip service never helps, tell them like it is if you feel you have something to offer.

My advice to Propellerhead to help change the direction they're going:

1. Work on Reason the DAW: GUI, Performance, Options, Back-end.
2. Stop making devices that RE developers can make.
3. Stop immediately with the (pang, klang, human) monetizing crippled packs.
4. Begin immediately utilizing your RE developer base as your content "providers".(instead of said prior crippled packs).
5. Change the subscription model to one that encourages us to purchase REs and increase RE developers profits. I know how, so should Propellerhead.
Reason needs to DAW.viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7504985

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests