Thinking out loud - I'd like more toolkits not less.

[DAWgEAR]

Regarding the ideascale idea, if someone wants to pursue that, go ahead. I'm not particularly motivated to do so simply because I am certain Avid already is aware of all this.

Anyone who has studied economics would understand this, and Avid is a corporation with numerous employees in decision-making and advisory capacities who have certainly studied economics. Avid already does this and has been doing this for years (e.g. LE vs. HD). The question is, why do they not do more of it?

Considering that this would involve managing iLok licenses, which I assume is not very costly to implement, and that resale or transfer of iLok assets could be prevented, I do not see a logistical impediment.

[speculation]

I suspect that there might be a real or imagined perception that higher end HD customers will be upset if "their" exclusive features are provided to people who have not paid to join the HD club.

I would counter that by pointing out that the pricing could be implemented in such a way that a customer who purchased several "toolkits" or "upgrades" (or whatever we want to call the unlocking of selected features) would end up spending more than the cost of simply buying an HD system.

So for example, someone who only wanted VCAs would spend x additional dollars. Someone with an HD system would not feel this particular customer got what they have for less since HD software is much more than just VCAs. Ditto for a different customer who only wanted increased track counts for y additional dollars.

But if someone wanted VCAs at x dollars and increased track counts at y dollars and advanced automation at z dollars and surround capabilities at w dollars, etc. ... it would end up costing more than simply buying an HD system. And that person would be better off simply buying an HD system. That is how mixed bundling is done.

The pricing would have to be worked out carefully to (i) be profitable and (ii) be perceived as fair by all groups of customers, including the HD customers. The fairness is important not because Avid is in the business of being "nice" (although that is not a bad thing) but because it is important for customers to be willing to spend top dollar for the features they want and also feel they got their money's worth. But it can be done. Economics is about incentives and mutually beneficial transactions where both seller and buyer walk away from a transaction better off than if they had not traded.

Avid terminated the CPTK. I assume that is because it was not profitable to carry it forward. One could simply conclude that, based on the data, "toolkits are not profitable" and be done with it.

But another explanation could be that it was not profitable because there was only one choice. Someone who valued VCAs and would have been willing to pay e.g. $800 for that feature alone would not have bought CPTK. But they would have bought a VCA-only toolkit. Someone else who valued only advanced automation and would have been willing to pay e.g. $800 for that feature alone would not have bought CPTK. But they would have bought an automation-only toolkit. And someone who valued only increased track counts and would have been willing to pay e.g. $800 for that feature alone would not have bought CPTK. But they would have bought an increased track count-only toolkit.

With only one toolkit priced at $2000, Avid would have made $0 in revenue from these three customers. With three toolkits priced at $800 each, Avid would have made $2400.

[/speculation]

Of course, I may be way off base. Not about economic theory, because in my day job I do this for a living, but about how it relates or does not relate to the specifics of Avid's unique situation.

[Dave Lang]

Nice work. I can't even compose a thank you that makes as much sense. So..thanks.

[nigelpry]

DAWgEAR, you make an interesting case for an 'a la carte' toolkit purchase option. Thanks for that. My only concern is that $800 per feature is a little on the steep side. And, of course, I'd expect all the licences needed to replace my existing CPTK licence to be deposited for exchange free of charge.

Also, they could, if they wished, get back into the licence rental market, like they used to do with plugins (maybe still do, I've not looked for a long time). I need surround, but not all the time. I need higher track counts, but not all the time.

Give me a month for $100, and once I've rented 5 times, give me it permanently. I guess the trade off in admin costs might well be prohibitive, but moving into the future it would not be beyond the wit of man to develop a fully automated system for that. Take my money, rachet up the counter on the relevant licence by one, and deposit a one month licence into my iLok account. When the counter gets to five, deposit a permanent licence instead.

What it boils down to is, I guess, how much work is involved code-wise to have multiple licence based on-off switches, what hit that might have on app performance, checking for multiple licences (only needed at start up) and what desire the company have to make the effort.

I can't really believe that major players have pressured Avid into this change, because they are annoyed at people getting the features at less cost. It's less cost because we don't enjoy the benefit that the hardware gives. If Avid has bent to that kind of argument, and doesn't stand up that kind of blackmail, then we really are on the road to PT oblivion.

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by WernerF

And a major part of the market is saying that HEAT on a Native system would show up as a highly viable option for a whole bunch of P Tools users.

I kind of agree with this.

The problem is, Avid needs to make money, and right now it seems they need to push the hardware sales up. HEAT being a unique process only available for TDM/HDX customers so they must think that HEAT license price is too low to be offered for anyone. So they make it HDX only. That said; I do not have real information whether it would be even possible to run HEAT without DSP cards but that's another story.

What I don't get is that HD|native users are also left out even though they have paid top dollar for the HD interfaces and the HDN card. I would certainly understand if HEAT-native was available for HDN users only. But as HDN is unable to use HEAT it feels like it is not even a HD system (but only because I've used HEAT with my TDM cards "since day one" and have hard time thinking about mixing without it).

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by nigelpry

Also, they could, if they wished, get back into the licence rental market, like they used to do with plugins (maybe still do, I've not looked for a long time). I need surround, but not all the time. I need higher track counts, but not all the time.

That is a very interesting suggestion -- what if we could rent a HD license for a week or month at a time? Avid, your marketing department should be listening to this!!! This means good money that you would otherwise never get from folks that really do not need HD more than once a year.

[Righty27]

Originally Posted by DAWgEAR

But another explanation could be that it was not profitable because there was only one choice. Someone who valued VCAs and would have been willing to pay e.g. $800 for that feature alone would not have bought CPTK. But they would have bought a VCA-only toolkit. Someone else who valued only advanced automation and would have been willing to pay e.g. $800 for that feature alone would not have bought CPTK. But they would have bought an automation-only toolkit. And someone who valued only increased track counts and would have been willing to pay e.g. $800 for that feature alone would not have bought CPTK. But they would have bought an increased track count-only toolkit.

Of course, I may be way off base. Not about economic theory, because in my day job I do this for a living, but about how it relates or does not relate to the specifics of Avid's unique situation.

DAWgEAR - interesting points. Maybe low sales of the CPTK toolkit does not warrant the marketing effort, confusing customers (keep it simple!), etc. ... especially as I suspect most of these toolkits trade on eBay ... so they drop it from their catalogue possibly forgetting (?!) or insufficiently researching (unlikely I guess!) the fact that those CPTK buyers were not going to buy HD hardware ... may have bought HD iLok assets on eBay however.

I was at a conference yesterday (nothing to do with PT - day job) and heard an interesting presentation by an economist/tax specialist who advises governments - he discussed the Laffer curve (which you will no doubt be familiar with). I'm sure there is an equivalent for sales units vs revenue $ ... what we regularly articulate as 1 x $10k sale or 10,000 x $1 sales (would be interested to know what this theory is called?)

I feel that Avid could make a good go of the $500 and $5,000 PT products but they are unnecessarily hampering their $500 product in the mistaken belief that giving it greater/maximum functionality could pollute the $5,000 product which is sold primarily on the basis of 'horsepower'. As a non-HD user, am I very wide of the mark?

[Righty27]

Maybe it is not deemed exciting enough to mention ... with the speedier 64-bit audio engine, VI issues addressed through access to more RAM, increased availability of SSDs since PT10 launch, etc.?

Or maybe Avid changed their minds and were originally going to include disk cache ... or maybe they've changed their minds since the announcement, after reading our endless rants on DUC?! :)

Unfortunately (as it's the only HD feature I would like), whilst there was initially some hope/speculation that it was ncluded in PT11, it was confirmed that it is not included on one of the Avid videos.

Edit for mods - sorry; this was intended for a topic on disk cache not being mentioned on a PT11/11HD comarison at http://www.prolyd.no/downloads/pdf/a..._Datasheet.pdf (can't find he thread now!)

Edit 2 - apologies again guys - can't find it ... still, a related topic! Issue being discussed is that disk cache is not mentioned on the linked feature comparison, suggesting that it is not a 'difference' so must be included.

[Dave Lang]

sorry righty27 that was my fault

i posted about this

http://www.prolyd.no/downloads/pdf/a..._Datasheet.pdf

then noticed that at the bottom it said it was "preliminary"

thought I could delete it in time but you got caught!

[Righty27]

Originally Posted by Dave Lang

sorry righty27 that was my fault

i posted about this

http://www.prolyd.no/downloads/pdf/a..._Datasheet.pdf

then noticed that at the bottom it said it was "preliminary"

thought I could delete it in time but you got caught!

No problem Dave! Thought I was cracking up for a moment :)

Still, 'preliminary' suggests they thought about it so could think about it again?!