Just a reminder to everyone that blogs often get it wrong!

[mesaone]

http://www.bleehd.com/news/2015/1/26...f-pro-tools-12

I pointed out the inaccuracies, and linked to the Licensing FAQ The blogger then claimed he was just repeating what an Avid rep told him, and banned me for "accusing [him] of lying", then deleted my comment

So if you read something about the licensing that seems iffy, double check at the source.

[beatlogik]

Thanks for this, in our world where the line between fact and opinion is increasingly blurred by the minute, it's easy to forget that even software policy reports should be double checked before making assumptions

[BleeHD]

Originally Posted by mesaone

http://www.bleehd.com/news/2015/1/26...f-pro-tools-12

I pointed out the inaccuracies, and linked to the Licensing FAQ The blogger then claimed he was just repeating what an Avid rep told him, and banned me for "accusing [him] of lying", then deleted my comment

So if you read something about the licensing that seems iffy, double check at the source.

There are always two sides to a story. I talked with an Avid rep at NAMM (like anyone else could) and asked questions, and clarified on points that I found rather troubling. I simply reported what he told me, which I think the average person would do normally in conversation and what not as the trust that the rep knows what he is talking about.

This was not true. I have made the correction to the website.

I banned you because you accused me of never actually talking to a rep and to stop pretending I did so when I did not. You kept calling me a liar and were abrasive as you attacked me on my site. I have a right to ban you on my own site.

As stated often, if you had been more gracious in raising your concerns instead of attacking me and calling me a liar that never actually talked to a rep (when I seriously did), then I would have responded better. Still, you fail to respond with graciousness and you go around slandering me on the internet.

[musicman691]

Originally Posted by BleeHD

There are always two sides to a story. I talked with an Avid rep at NAMM (like anyone else could) and asked questions, and clarified on points that I found rather troubling. I simply reported what he told me, which I think the average person would do normally in conversation and what not as the trust that the rep knows what he is talking about.

This was not true. I have made the correction to the website.

I banned you because you accused me of never actually talking to a rep and to stop pretending I did so when I did not. You kept calling me a liar and were abrasive as you attacked me on my site. I have a right to ban you on my own site.

As stated often, if you had been more gracious in raising your concerns instead of attacking me and calling me a liar that never actually talked to a rep (when I seriously did), then I would have responded better. Still, you fail to respond with graciousness and you go around slandering me on the internet.

If you had bothered to fact check your 'facts' then none of this would have happened. That's called poor journalism not to have done that. As to mesaone being less than gracious I wasn't there but I kind of doubt he was. When I read your site this morning it was so full of errors it was beyond laughable; misleading and dangerous. And the Avid rep you talked to - who was it? Tony Cariddi or whom?

[Emcha_audio]

Originally Posted by BleeHD

There are always two sides to a story. I talked with an Avid rep at NAMM (like anyone else could) and asked questions, and clarified on points that I found rather troubling. I simply reported what he told me, which I think the average person would do normally in conversation and what not as the trust that the rep knows what he is talking about.

This was not true. I have made the correction to the website.

I banned you because you accused me of never actually talking to a rep and to stop pretending I did so when I did not. You kept calling me a liar and were abrasive as you attacked me on my site. I have a right to ban you on my own site.

As stated often, if you had been more gracious in raising your concerns instead of attacking me and calling me a liar that never actually talked to a rep (when I seriously did), then I would have responded better. Still, you fail to respond with graciousness and you go around slandering me on the internet.

By the way you still have innacuracies on your blog.

Pro Tools 12 is the last version of Pro Tools that will use the number system for versions. There will be no "Pro Tools 13," it will only be known as "Pro Tools" after 12 is released.
To upgrade to the new version of Pro Tools 12, you have two options, a subscription model or an option to pay outright for a years worth of use.

When you pay outright, you pay for a permanent license that will give you 1 year of support included with the upgrades in that year. But once that year is over, you simply do not get the further upgrades nor the support, but the license will still be able to work and you will still be able to use pro tools 10 years down the road on that license if you wanted to.

[Bill Denton]

Originally Posted by Emcha_audio

By the way you still have innacuracies on your blog.

Pro Tools 12 is the last version of Pro Tools that will use the number system for versions. There will be no "Pro Tools 13," it will only be known as "Pro Tools" after 12 is released.
To upgrade to the new version of Pro Tools 12, you have two options, a subscription model or an option to pay outright for a years worth of use.

When you pay outright, you pay for a permanent license that will give you 1 year of support included with the upgrades in that year. But once that year is over, you simply do not get the further upgrades nor the support, but the license will still be able to work and you will still be able to use pro tools 10 years down the road on that license if you wanted to.

Pro Tools 12 is the last version of Pro Tools that will use the number system for versions. There will be no "Pro Tools 13," it will only be known as "Pro Tools" after 12 is released.

I find this interesting as I was the first, and possibly the only, person to put forth the possibility of Avid moving to "versionless" Pro Tools.

I suggested this possibility as it is quite commonly used by vendors of high-end professional software.

Instead of "versions", they typically use something like a "build number" so both the vendor and the user can keep track of what "revision" is being used.

Again, I am about the only person who has put forth this possibility, and while I have mentioned it on several forums, I doubt if it has been widely discussed...so, if an Avid rep in fact did mention this to the blogger, it is very interesting...

[mesaone]

Originally Posted by BleeHD

you accused me of never actually talking to a rep and to stop pretending I did so when I did not.

You rephrased that so much that it no longer bears a resemblance to what I said. I said that there is no way an Avid rep told you that buying a license meant the software is unusable after a year. I'm not slandering you by calling out false information - what I wrote is not libelous because it is true.

Musicman I actually was abrasive - not how he described it, but in fairness I should be clear that I wasn't very polite. I put "WRONG" in all caps, said his article was "terrible" but I never insulted him. I gave a link to the FAQ and told him to do his due diligence.

Misinformation can be dangerous, especially if people are potentially missing out on something they paid for.

[musicman691]

Originally Posted by mesaone

You rephrased that so much that it no longer bears a resemblance to what I said. I said that there is no way an Avid rep told you that buying a license meant the software is unusable after a year. I'm not slandering you by calling out false information - what I wrote is not libelous because it is true.

Musicman I actually was abrasive - not how he described it, but in fairness I should be clear that I wasn't very polite. I put "WRONG" in all caps, said his article was "terrible" but I never insulted him. I gave a link to the FAQ and told him to do his due diligence.

Misinformation can be dangerous, especially if people are potentially missing out on something they paid for.

I wouldn't call what you wrote as you describe it here as abrasive or impolite - far from it. But then again I guess people like BleeHD can't take criticism.

[mbourque]

Originally Posted by Bill Denton

I find this interesting as I was the first, and possibly the only, person to put forth the possibility of Avid moving to "versionless" Pro Tools.

I suggested this possibility as it is quite commonly used by vendors of high-end professional software.

Instead of "versions", they typically use something like a "build number" so both the vendor and the user can keep track of what "revision" is being used.

Again, I am about the only person who has put forth this possibility, and while I have mentioned it on several forums, I doubt if it has been widely discussed...so, if an Avid rep in fact did mention this to the blogger, it is very interesting...

This is what I think too. Avid said that with the new model, they will be able to push new features more frequently. I think they not wait for a version X to bring new stuff.

Anyway, as far as it goes, only Avid knows the plan, everything else is assumptions.

[BleeHD]

I can take CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. I will not tolerate attacks on what my intentions are, my integrity, etc.

I'm not sure who is who here, but whoever left a comment for me that I saw this morning when I woke up pointed things out in a gracious and non-threatening way. I quickly resolved the issue and thanked him. That's just people skills. If you come out being brash and offensive, you automatically turn people off.

When it comes down to it, it's honestly a personal blog I just created this past Friday and is not intended to be high level journalism but thoughts and musings.