AVID Must DO Something for AAX DSP

[Dave Lang]

http://bostonherald.com/business/tec...s_some_editing

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by Dave Lang

...
I don't think that defending this company against all criticism is useful at this time...

I think negative speculation before we have any facts is even less useful.

[Carl Kolchak]

Originally Posted by TOM@METRO

From the Terms Of Use:

"Avid reserves the right to remove posts or restrict the posting privileges of individuals that exhibit a clear agenda designed to slander, insult, or otherwise undermine Avid, its employees, our development partners, or any other company or individual."

Doesn't explain why they killed that thread about Hot Dogs

Burgers are apparently fine, but Hot Dogs...

[blairl]

Originally Posted by Dave Lang

I've been using ProTools with various hardware on various platforms to perform various jobs since the system before the Mix system (can't even remember what the name of it was then.)

"Pro Tools III" with a "Disk I/O" card, and "DSP Farm" card or cards.

[sunburst79]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

I think negative speculation before we have any facts is even less useful.

Exactly.

I'm not trying to sugar coat anything since delaying their annual report isn't great news but filing one with unresolved issues would both illegal and unethical. And its not uncustomary to order a look at the books any time theres a changing of the guard. At the moment no one knows what the issues are. Or how severe they are. It could be the new CEO wanting to recalculate and restate some figures before they close the books.

Neither law firm currently seems to have any specific charges which tends to suggest they may have their best interests in mind. Both are asking for information.

All in all its not positive news and hopefully in the end it's much a do about nothing and simply the new guard wanting time get the books in order. Time will tell.

[John_Toolbox]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

I think negative speculation before we have any facts is even less useful.

+1 It's an investigation, which has not been completed, and therefore not come to any conclusions yet.

[John_Toolbox]

Doesn't explain why they killed that thread about Hot Dogs

Wait what? There was a thread about hot dogs and I missed it!

[sunburst79]

Originally Posted by Carl Kolchak

Doesn't explain why they killed that thread about Hot Dogs

Burgers are apparently fine, but Hot Dogs...

Originally Posted by John_Toolbox

Wait what? There was a thread about hot dogs and I missed it!

Me too. Kinda bummed.

Like Brats better my self.

[Carl Kolchak]

Originally Posted by sunburst79

Exactly.

I'm not trying to sugar coat anything since delaying their annual report isn't great news but filing one with unresolved issues would both illegal and unethical. And its not uncustomary to order a look at the books any time theres a changing of the guard. At the moment no one knows what the issues are. Or how severe they are. It could be the new CEO wanting to recalculate and restate some figures before they close the books.

Neither law firm currently seems to have any specific charges which tends to suggest they may have their best interests in mind. Both are asking for information.

All in all its not positive news and hopefully in the end it's much a do about nothing and simply the new guard wanting time get the books in order. Time will tell.

From what I can tell, they just seem to be ambulance chasers.

It just looks like Avid realised the might have made an honest miscalculation in a couple of their accounts, and opted for an extension, rather than submit suspect figures - which of course is above board, and a matter of public knowledge.

The law firms are going to jump on any & every company in this predicament, because there is the slim chance of impropriety, which could convince share holders to hire said law firms for possible damages claims.

The law firms are in it for the fees, and potential commission if they uncover evidence of foul play, and if they convince share holders to hire them, and if they win the case.

The law firms are going to be competing with each other, much like Paparazzi competing for photo's outside a stretch Limo. And whilst they may grab a shot of some starlet stepping out of the Limo without her underwear on, it's more likely a drunken hen party of nobodies will spill out of the car, and throw up everywhere - no story there, and probably no story here either.

[John_Toolbox]

Originally Posted by Carl Kolchak

And whilst they may grab a shot of some starlet stepping out of the Limo without her underwear on, it's more likely a drunken hen party of nobodies will spill out of the car, and throw up everywhere - no story there, and probably no story here either.

I personally don't see much difference in either one. It's a shame they don't just publish both types of photos/stories in the tabloids, because they both have the exact same interest level for me(NONE!)