Pro Tools 12 — I don't care about the release date, because...

[JFreak]

I have absolutely no idea why my previous reply went into this thread. I'm kind of sure I was answering to another thread so you're right it looks very silly here :)

[noiseboyuk]

Originally Posted by upscaps

The point you glossed over is that high end facilities with avid hardware have already been on support plans forever. Nothing has changed. Business as usual. There is a misnomer by forum folks that the industry changes and upgrades to the latest and greatest and are affected by every whim. No need to upgrade anything if your current TDM rigs, Icons are stable, your billables are fine, and you are meeting your deadlines. I know facilities still on 8 and 7. That doesn't make you any less of a Avid user/facility. Producers have been bringing in sessions to high end facilities in Logic/Cubase/DP, etc, forever. That's nothing new and hasn't changed a thing.

You are adding a bunch of "so if's" and "what if's" that are not representative of the current real world industry. You are also stating your version of the future as a given. Which it isn't. You can go back 15 years + and find the same "if's" and "avid is dead" qualifiers online. The norm is every time Avid does something people online default to them.

BTW, every high end facility I have worked in the UK, Germany, France, Japan, China, Russia, etc. over my time in this business has been pro tools. Sure Nuendo "may be becoming popular" somewhere. Fairlight is something I have heard about in my 20 years but I have never seen one in person, anywhere.

Well if you don't believe that Nuendo is becoming popular in Europe or that Sky really does exclusively use Fairlight because you personally haven't experienced it, then I guess it might be difficult to see how things actually do change over time.

One of the biggest fallacies we make as a species is this - "it's always been like this, therefore everything will stay like this". Companies and indeed civilisations have fallen over this basic and common (if very human) mistake. The ability to sense change and respond appropriately is what enables survival.

"But we're just guessing" many say. "Let's wait til Avid announce their HD plans". This is straw that many are currently clinging on - the idea that Avid will announce some kind of new HD software only deal. This may happen (another of your "ifs" and "maybes" perhaps). But they've had a consistent policy now for a couple of years - HD new is only available as part of a hardware purchase. There have been no indications that they are reviewing their policy. It is, in effect, wishful thinking on our part if we assume that they will.

Until that day, the current maths is pretty simple - if you need a professional DAW (VCAs, high or unlimited track counts etc) without hardware, you can buy the cheapest PTHD rig for circa $5000, or Cubase Pro 8 for $549. (If you're Post, you'd need Nuendo at $1,700). So if you're a music artist or producer, that's a x9 difference in cost. Ongoing upgrades are $600 and mandatory for PT (or face buying from scratch again when the next OS means you need to), $100 and optional for Cubase. In terms of functionality, they are essentially comparable for audio (well, it's unlimited tracks in Cubase not 256), and far superior for midi in Cubase.

Let's compare that with the situation 2 or 3 years ago. I forget the exact cost of CPTK in dollars, but I think it was around $1,800, plus another $500 or so for the basic software. $2,300 to start (less than half today's cost), and Cubase had a significantly reduced feature set in terms of routing, VCAs etc. Ongoing PT costs were circa $300 per version every couple of years (maybe less?) and optional, so let's say $150pa. So the market a couple of years ago was entirely different to today - PT was a superior professional audio product (no longer the case); and the cost differential (buying new plus annual costs) was closer to 3x than the current 9x.

Now, perhaps I'm getting all carried away that those facts will ultimately have real world implications, regardless of what supported hardware is in a studio (my argument is that change will be client and not studio led, since they'll be coming in with their projects). Perhaps the extrapolation that now even the most pro features are available in Cubase at a tenth of the cost will start to make inroads in the coming generations of producers and engineers is in some way wildly fanciful. If the current status quo is so guaranteed to continue, perhaps Avid could get really bold and charge $100,000 for a new HD license and make people pay $30,000 to upgrade per year - maybe there is simply no limit that is too high that people and companies will continue to pay up believing that there's simply no practical alternative. It's a thought experiment to illustrate the wider point - the Business As Usual scenario is actually every bit as reliant on assumptions and guesswork. The notion that just because things are a certain way right now, they must remain a certain way regardless of any other factors that might have come along seems extraordinarily foolish to me. But what do I know.

[Drew Mazurek]

The argument will change once Steinberg goes subscription.

Which they will. If I were a betting man.

New paradigm for software devs. Get used to it.

[Craig F]

Then Apple, they already have the paradigm in place they just have to start charging

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by Craig F

Then Apple, they already have the paradigm in place they just have to start charging

It doesn't hurt to give software updates away for free if customers keep buying hardware. I mean, the initial cost of OSX/iOS license is tied to the hardware price, and the free upgrades come from planned obsolescence (iOS customers buy a new one every 1-2-3 years and OSX customers in 3-5 years).

In addition, Apple only sells mid to high level hardware and leave the cheapo companies produce cheapo hardware. Too much competition and too little profit there. I could make an Avid comparison out of this, but I'll leave it for others.

[noiseboyuk]

Originally Posted by Drew Mazurek

The argument will change once Steinberg goes subscription.

Which they will. If I were a betting man.

New paradigm for software devs. Get used to it.

Even if they did, it wouldn't really change any of my argument, assuming they follow a model such as Sonar's. Sonar users are delighted with Cakewalk's new approach.

It's not subscription per se that is the issue with PT, its the implementation - high cost, twinned with mandatory annual updates in order to keep the ability to upgrade. Add in crippling point of entry prices for those wanting an HD permanent license (or as close to one as can now be bought), and it's the perfect storm. No-one else has quite hit on this lethal combination.

[Drew Mazurek]

Originally Posted by noiseboyuk

assuming they follow a model such as Sonar's. Sonar users are delighted with Cakewalk's new approach.

Will be interesting to see how it shakes out.

I hold a little hope that Avid will learn from Waves and modify their plan.

[JoelG]

Originally Posted by seafoam green

There are also many other things Avid have not stated either ...., which is nothing short of sly IMO ...., This is what p#ssing everyone off and this is why no one feels compelled to trust Avid.

I agree completely with this statement. When Avid announced this new support plan they should have had everything figured out and ready with all the information available for customers. However, there is constant posting of either misinformation or information that is in the FAQ being posted as a revelation. That is what I was posting in response to.

Joel

[upscaps]

Originally Posted by noiseboyuk

Well if you don't believe that Nuendo is becoming popular in Europe or that Sky really does exclusively use Fairlight because you personally haven't experienced it, then I guess it might be difficult to see how things actually do change over time.

One of the biggest fallacies we make as a species is this - "it's always been like this, therefore everything will stay like this". Companies and indeed civilisations have fallen over this basic and common (if very human) mistake. The ability to sense change and respond appropriately is what enables survival.

"But we're just guessing" many say. "Let's wait til Avid announce their HD plans". This is straw that many are currently clinging on - the idea that Avid will announce some kind of new HD software only deal. This may happen (another of your "ifs" and "maybes" perhaps). But they've had a consistent policy now for a couple of years - HD new is only available as part of a hardware purchase. There have been no indications that they are reviewing their policy. It is, in effect, wishful thinking on our part if we assume that they will.

Until that day, the current maths is pretty simple - if you need a professional DAW (VCAs, high or unlimited track counts etc) without hardware, you can buy the cheapest PTHD rig for circa $5000, or Cubase Pro 8 for $549. (If you're Post, you'd need Nuendo at $1,700). So if you're a music artist or producer, that's a x9 difference in cost. Ongoing upgrades are $600 and mandatory for PT (or face buying from scratch again when the next OS means you need to), $100 and optional for Cubase. In terms of functionality, they are essentially comparable for audio (well, it's unlimited tracks in Cubase not 256), and far superior for midi in Cubase.

Let's compare that with the situation 2 or 3 years ago. I forget the exact cost of CPTK in dollars, but I think it was around $1,800, plus another $500 or so for the basic software. $2,300 to start (less than half today's cost), and Cubase had a significantly reduced feature set in terms of routing, VCAs etc. Ongoing PT costs were circa $300 per version every couple of years (maybe less?) and optional, so let's say $150pa. So the market a couple of years ago was entirely different to today - PT was a superior professional audio product (no longer the case); and the cost differential (buying new plus annual costs) was closer to 3x than the current 9x.

Now, perhaps I'm getting all carried away that those facts will ultimately have real world implications, regardless of what supported hardware is in a studio (my argument is that change will be client and not studio led, since they'll be coming in with their projects). Perhaps the extrapolation that now even the most pro features are available in Cubase at a tenth of the cost will start to make inroads in the coming generations of producers and engineers is in some way wildly fanciful. If the current status quo is so guaranteed to continue, perhaps Avid could get really bold and charge $100,000 for a new HD license and make people pay $30,000 to upgrade per year - maybe there is simply no limit that is too high that people and companies will continue to pay up believing that there's simply no practical alternative. It's a thought experiment to illustrate the wider point - the Business As Usual scenario is actually every bit as reliant on assumptions and guesswork. The notion that just because things are a certain way right now, they must remain a certain way regardless of any other factors that might have come along seems extraordinarily foolish to me. But what do I know.

You are applying hobby/project/midi setup principles to large scale Post/High End industry reality. I run a multi-million dollar facility and they are two entirely different worlds. Making up crazy scenarios like avid charging $30k for support to make a point shows you really don't understand.

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by Drew Mazurek

I hold a little hope that Avid will learn from Waves and modify their plan.

Me too. As much as I understand why it is a great idea to have active support plan for every user out there, I also understand that mistakes happen and failing to renew contract will happen to many people. It seems rude to me to expect that such mistake leads to a new license sale.

If it seems impossible to let a user have a non-support year and then renew the contract later (thus saving a year of support plan cost), wouldn't it be sensible to either:

1) let a user pay a small penalty and renew with higher (penalty + yearly support fee) price, or at the very least
2) let a user renew later and pay for all the years that weren't paid already.

Option one would (I think) not bother anyone too much. Option two would mean PT standard software becomes "worthless" in 6 years (899 includes one year of support so after six years one would have paid 995 for support therefore renewing after six years would be more expensive than buying a new license).

That is, assuming prices won't change for 6 years.