New Licensing

[CygnusX-1Bk2]

Vanilla is an exotic flavoring extract. How about people stop using it to describe limited software?

[mesaone]

Originally Posted by CygnusX-1Bk2

Vanilla is an exotic flavoring extract. How about people stop using it to describe limited software?

From now on I will describe non-HD as "PT", and Pro Tools HD as "PT Saffron".

Better?

[CygnusX-1Bk2]

I'm just wild about Saffron

[seanbil]

Originally Posted by Bill Denton

The "vanilla" service plan renewal is $199, not $299...

Sorry, but Righty27 already took the honors earlier this morning. Unfortunately there is no prize for second place, but thanks for playing! ;-P

P.S. I didn't bother to correct that post for the sake of continuity with his response, if not for a bit of laziness. ;-)

[seanbil]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Avid's issue is significant profit. What good is dominating a market were you can't break even selling at a competitive price?

What is the true cost of selling software that is downloaded from a server and an owner's manual in PDF? I would think that the margins on Vanilla is nearly all profit considering that its foundation is based wholly on Saffron, which was intended for professional post houses anyway.

[zedhed]

Originally Posted by nigelpry

1) First though, paragraph 4 confirms the concept that if you don't sign up to a support plan, or later let it expire, you will have to buy/rent a completely new license to get any future upgrades. Your existing licence will be frozen at its then current version.

My point regarding this is that I believe this policy is so firmly stated and integral to the new arrangements that it is nothing more than wishful thinking for some people here to suggest that we .... should not worry, as Avid will offer opportunities in the future to get those old licenses back onto an active support plan. Just think how people who stayed on a support plan would feel if those who didn't were then allowed to bring their old licenses back up to date. I don't think Avid will do that!

You're not suggesting Avid operates by being 'fair' are you?

Considering those who have already shelled out for Beta PT11 are being treated in relation to those who choose to upgrade now, I've arrived at a different conclusion.

However I do agree with your logic, but for different reasons other than fairness......MONEY!

[LDS]

Originally Posted by zedhed

You're not suggesting Avid operates by being 'fair' are you?

Considering those who have already shelled out for Beta PT11 are being treated in relation to those who choose to upgrade now, I've arrived at a different conclusion.

However I do agree with your logic, but for different reasons other than fairness......MONEY!

Yeah, I will second that. Avid's duty to its shareholders will trump its duty to its customers any day of the week.

If the way things have rolled since the release of Protools 9 are anything to go by, the last thing I would be expecting is any kind of stability or certainty in the way Avid operates. For a number of years, its felt like they are just making stuff up as they go along, then seeing what sticks and what doesn't.

[CygnusX-1Bk2]

Originally Posted by zedhed

You're not suggesting Avid operates by being 'fair' are you?

Considering those who have already shelled out for Beta PT11 are being treated in relation to those who choose to upgrade now, I've arrived at a different conclusion.

However I do agree with your logic, but for different reasons other than fairness......MONEY!

You write this as if 11 isn't still broken. It's a good ways away from stability.

[holler]

Originally Posted by Righty27

For the sake of good order (!), it's actually $199 per year :)



Evidently, selling essentially the same product, without adding HD features to 'vanilla' which e.g. Cubase 8 versions offer for less $, at a higher cost and with less 'popular' licence conditions is unlikely to help increase sales numbers!



If they ant to get out of the artist 'space', there must be easier and more effective strategies. However, if they are going to maintain a different version (non-HD), the sales channels, support, etc. for this sector, why not differentiate it with features that would limit its use in the post arena (e.g. DSP/HDX, number of channels, surround, etc.), throw in the remaining HD features to let 'vanilla' compete without its hands tied, and keep normal upgradeable licences without support? Price accordingly ... and maybe numbers would increase instead?!

+1

[nigelpry]

Originally Posted by zedhed

You're not suggesting Avid operates by being 'fair' are you?

Considering those who have already shelled out for Beta PT11 are being treated in relation to those who choose to upgrade now, I've arrived at a different conclusion.

However I do agree with your logic, but for different reasons other than fairness......MONEY!

Point taken ;-)

I wasn't intentionally suggesting fairness on the part of Avid!

A faux pas of epic proportions, for which apologise ;-)