Waves central a complete bust!

[robotmonkey]

Here are some relevant points to consider... There are a lot of small developers that receive various complaints or bug reports about their software that rely mostly on user feedback. Think of How many times we've seen companies fix reported issues without remote connections!

Because it's simples. For example I have a problem with some PSP plugins and a similar problem with Audiffex Mutlidrive Pedal where knobs on the plugins get stuck and have huge lag. I have been in contact with both devs trying to explain my system configuration as best as I can. But half a year later there's still no resolution and I'm not even sure the devs understand what the problem is or what it is related to. A simple remote session would have probably saved all a lot of time. With Waves such problems would have been fixed in two weeks max usually if the tech would not find a solution on the spot.

[ghettosynth]

Here are some relevant points to consider... There are a lot of small developers that receive various complaints or bug reports about their software that rely mostly on user feedback. Think of How many times we've seen companies fix reported issues without remote connections!

Because it's simples. For example I have a problem with some PSP plugins and a similar problem with Audiffex Mutlidrive Pedal where knobs on the plugins get stuck and have huge lag. I have been in contact with both devs trying to explain my system configuration as best as I can. But half a year later there's still no resolution and I'm not even sure the devs understand what the problem is or what it is related to. A simple remote session would have probably saved all a lot of time. With Waves such problems would have been fixed in two weeks max usually if the tech would not find a solution on the spot.

Even though I'm not as convinced as you are that it would necessarily be resolved that quickly, it sounds like you wouldn't have a problem with that. That's fine, as I say, offering it is good service. But, you can't argue based on your experience that it has the same cost/benefit ratio to everyone else.

For me, it isn't that they offer the service, it's that they require it. I agree with pc2000, all of the arguments that others have been making are more valid for larger firms that will have a VIP relationship with Waves. They will be treated differently, it's naive to think otherwise.

He's also right about tech support having their own agenda. They're humans, they're employees. Are you going to tell me that they're not judged and evaluated on the number of calls that they field in a day? Of course they are, and that will drive their actions far more than some random customer's concerns. They will use the same empty arguments that are in this thread. The right thing to do is to take the customer's concerns seriously.

It's that simple, if they offered it, but were willing to solve a problem without it, then I would say that there's no way that you can argue with that as great customer service.

Like I said, it's a red flag or me. I hope that I never have to call their customer service.

[trimph1]

I guess fear is the big divider here. Some of us fear THEM, and others not so much.

I'm out.

[Andy Gone]

Oh why did I read all this? Can anybody help me to un-read it back? Lol!

If you are paranoid about something, just do not use it. @ghettosynth is behaving (well, ok, posting things around) like when you have to go visiting your physician, but you are shy to undress. Recently I had to be tested to enter a public swimming pool. A young girl working in the lab had to scrap my penis from inside to get a sample for testing. I can tell she was much more shy than I was (well, it was not a pleasant operation anyway, but she was gentle, don't worry).

A software developer is interested to help you in the best way, because naturally they want you to buy more. This is the ultimate reason they would never harm you in any way. If you have no trust they can help you, well, why are you using their products? Actually, why you are in the Internet while not trusting anybody? Internet is dangerous. Everybody can hurt you in the Internet.

[ghettosynth]

I guess fear is the big divider here. Some of us fear THEM, and others not so much.

I'm out.

I don't "FEAR" Waves, there's no reason to fear something that can do you no harm. I'm not saying that Waves is untrustworthy, I'm saying that I have no reason to trust them, those are very different statements. You don't either, unless you work for them, you simply don't know. That is a factual statement. You may choose to trust someone, but you don't KNOW that they're trustworthy. You are simply making a judgement based off of almost zero information.

We simply have different defaults. You have to earn my trust, you give yours freely.

There's a really great paper that talks about where security threats come from and presents a series of case studies, I wish I could remember the title. Most bank fraud comes from inside, the very people that some of you are arguing should be trusted, are not necessarily trustworthy. The upshot is, most security threats come from exactly this reversal of default attitude. You trust the bank, you trust Waves, you trust Bernie Madoff. In other words, the things that you think that you should trust when you have no reason to do so. You wouldn't argue that all car salesmen should be trusted, but that's because you have experience with untrustworthy salesmen. Do you trust people to stop at red lights in bad neighborhoods? Good neighborhoods?

I do not enable remote connection to my windows machine for anybody. If you insist on that, you'll lose my business, end of discussion. Granted, that business isn't worth much, so that's probably no concern to anyone. That's part of the equation for me, having any brand's plugins specifically on my machine is worth very little. Waves is easily replaceable. There is really only one plugin that I consider irreplaceable, and that's Reaktor.

[chk071]

I don't "FEAR" Waves, there's no reason to fear something that can do you no harm. I'm not saying that Waves is untrustworthy, I'm saying that I have no reason to trust them

Why? And what is the subject of trust in this case? As has been mentioned, they can't do shit on your computer, even when doing remote support. Unless you seriously believe they would snuff through your personal folders, while you're watching.

[ghettosynth]

I don't "FEAR" Waves, there's no reason to fear something that can do you no harm. I'm not saying that Waves is untrustworthy, I'm saying that I have no reason to trust them

Why? And what is the subject of trust in this case? As has been mentioned, they can't do shit on your computer, even when doing remote support. Unless you seriously believe they would snuff through your personal folders, while you're watching.

I've already answered this in excruciating detail. What "has been mentioned" neglects facts. You are presenting silly scenarios. I don't expect them to "snuff" anything on purpose, that doesn't mean that things won't get "snuffed."

I'm not going to repeat myself. If you are actually interested in understanding, read what I've written carefully.

I think that you're misunderstanding, I'm not just saying that only "I" don't have any reason to trust them as if it's something that is about my personality, I'm saying that "nobody" who doesn't actually have data has any reason to trust them either, including you. If you trust them, you are just like the people who got bilked by Bernie Madoff, you are trusting someone without reason to do so.

[trimph1]

I don't "FEAR" Waves, there's no reason to fear something that can do you no harm. I'm not saying that Waves is untrustworthy, I'm saying that I have no reason to trust them

Why? And what is the subject of trust in this case? As has been mentioned, they can't do shit on your computer, even when doing remote support. Unless you seriously believe they would snuff through your personal folders, while you're watching.

I've already answered this in excruciating detail. What "has been mentioned" neglects facts. You are presenting silly scenarios. I don't expect them to "snuff" anything on purpose, that doesn't mean that things won't get "snuffed."

I'm not going to repeat myself. If you are actually interested in understanding, read what I've written carefully.

I think that you're misunderstanding, I'm not just saying that only "I" don't have any reason to trust them as if it's something that is about my personality, I'm saying that "nobody" who doesn't actually have data has any reason to trust them either, including you. If you trust them, you are just like the people who got bilked by Bernie Madoff, you are trusting someone without reason to do so.

You see, this is part where you fall down. Since it is a matter of trust there is going to be a fear of some consequence...such as the Madoff scenario. If it is just as you said then why throw Bernie Madoff and the victims of his manipulations into the mix?

As I said earlier, I had to do this twice with Magma and on both times there were no snooping background things or other types of manipulations done. My experience is different.

[chk071]

I don't "FEAR" Waves, there's no reason to fear something that can do you no harm. I'm not saying that Waves is untrustworthy, I'm saying that I have no reason to trust them

Why? And what is the subject of trust in this case? As has been mentioned, they can't do shit on your computer, even when doing remote support. Unless you seriously believe they would snuff through your personal folders, while you're watching.

I've already answered this in excruciating detail. What "has been mentioned" neglects facts. You are presenting silly scenarios. I don't expect them to "snuff" anything on purpose, that doesn't mean that things won't get "snuffed."

I'm not going to repeat myself. If you are actually interested in understanding, read what I've written carefully.

I think that you're misunderstanding, I'm not just saying that only "I" don't have any reason to trust them as if it's something that is about my personality, I'm saying that "nobody" who doesn't actually have data has any reason to trust them either, including you. If you trust them, you are just like the people who got bilked by Bernie Madoff, you are trusting someone without reason to do so.

Except that you totally miss the point. It's not about trusting them or not. Do you have to trust the bus driver to take the bus to work? Do you have to trust in the health system to see a doctor? I don't think so. Unless you're a bit weird.

See, bridges or skyscrapers can break down too. Can't trust anyone these days.

[ghettosynth]

I don't "FEAR" Waves, there's no reason to fear something that can do you no harm. I'm not saying that Waves is untrustworthy, I'm saying that I have no reason to trust them

Why? And what is the subject of trust in this case? As has been mentioned, they can't do shit on your computer, even when doing remote support. Unless you seriously believe they would snuff through your personal folders, while you're watching.

I've already answered this in excruciating detail. What "has been mentioned" neglects facts. You are presenting silly scenarios. I don't expect them to "snuff" anything on purpose, that doesn't mean that things won't get "snuffed."

I'm not going to repeat myself. If you are actually interested in understanding, read what I've written carefully.

I think that you're misunderstanding, I'm not just saying that only "I" don't have any reason to trust them as if it's something that is about my personality, I'm saying that "nobody" who doesn't actually have data has any reason to trust them either, including you. If you trust them, you are just like the people who got bilked by Bernie Madoff, you are trusting someone without reason to do so.

You see, this is part where you fall down.

No, it isn't.

Since it is a matter of trust there is going to be a fear of some consequence...such as the Madoff scenario. If it is just as you said then why throw Bernie Madoff and the victims of his manipulations into the mix?

I'm trying to explain it in a way that you would understand it. Bernie Madoff is an example of "victims" trusting an entity without data. Trust here isn't the simple lay understanding of trust, it's a probabilistic statement.

As I said earlier, I had to do this twice with Magma and on both times there were no snooping background things or other types of manipulations done. My experience is different.

Sorry, that's just fallacious reasoning. It doesn't matter how many times you flip a coin, the probably of each flip is independent of the past flips.

You have no knowledge of my experience, I haven't given you any. Please tell me where I told you about my experience with remote connections causing damage?

I haven't. You see, this is where your thinking is falling down. You are inferring facts without data. It's common, but that doesn't make it correct.

So, as another example about KNOWLEDGE, you actually don't KNOW that our experiences are any different. You only think that you know because you are reading too much into my point of view.

[chk071]

So many words, yet you miss the most basic point. That the guy on the Waves support line first of all does his job (like, what he's being paid for). And that's not to try to sneak his way into the pictures folder with your moms dirty underwear or whatever. Come on.

[ghettosynth]

Except that you totally miss the point.

No, you do, but, we're getting closer.

It's not about trusting them or not.

Yes, it is, your examples don't disprove this at all.

Do you have to trust the bus driver to take the bus to work?

Yes, you do. But you are acting with a lot of information. You can see the bus driver, he's only one person. There is still risk here, he may choose to drive the wrong way down the freeway, or he may have a heart attack. Those are risks. You have no data about those risks, so you have to TRUST that no voluntary or involuntary actions will happen while you're on the bus.

But, you place a high value on getting to work. So, the cost benefit ratio of making that trust assessment is low.

Do you have to trust in the health system to see a doctor? I don't think so. Unless you're a bit weird.

Of course you do, you simply don't understand what I mean. Try reading instead of telling me that I don't understand. Do you really want me to post example after example of doctor misconduct, misdiagnosis, and fraud? You absolutely have to trust your doctor and you absolutely have to do due diligence in gathering information.

Are you trying to tell me that you take every doctor's word on the face of it? That's a mighty high level of misplaced trust. Just like the mechanic example I posted earlier, you gather information and make an assessment based on how much data you have and how much value you put on that information and the potential risks and rewards for trusting or not trusting any particular doctor.

There are stories after stories, in the U.S., of why you can't trust hospital billing/computer systems. They all center around many humans being involved in the process. When people get involved, mistakes WILL happen. If you don't go to the doctor, then you cannot experience a billing mistake, understand?

Again, as with the bus driver, the cost to benefit ratio is pretty low here. The benefits are huge, the cost is manageable, and you have a good ability to gather data. So not going isn't really a valid choice for most people.

Now, let's consider Waves, or really, almost any other corporate entity. You know nothing about their network, nothing about their employees, and you have no way to gather this information. You know nothing about any potential man in the middle type of attack and it's not just one person. Yes, you're dealing with one person but you are allowing their network of workstations with many employees to connect to your network and you know nothing about that network or the people who work there.

The value, to me, is incredibly low compared to the risk. If I don't trust the bus driver, I might lose my job and have to figure out how to eat. If I don't let waves connect to my system, OMG, I'll have to use some different plugins.

You may place more value on losing your waves plugins, so you have to take the risk to trust Waves, that doesn't mean that you have any data, it just means that you've chosen to take the risk.

[ghettosynth]

So many words, yet you miss the most basic point. That the guy on the Waves support line first of all does his job (like, what he's being paid for). And that's not to try to sneak his way into the pictures folder with your moms dirty underwear or whatever. Come on.

No, you miss the point, completely. It's not just about him, and you are placing a lot of trust in his ability, when the only data that we do have is that tech support people aren't the highest paid positions, so assuming salary is a proxy, it's likely that despite his desire to do a good job, he may not be able to.

Further, and I've already made this point, because this is a cost management measure, you will always start out at the lowest tier, that is, the least capable people.

I'm repeating myself now, so it's clear that you are either unwilling or unable to understand what I've written about this.

[chk071]

Do you have to trust the bus driver to take the bus to work?

Yes, you do. But you are acting with a lot of information. You can see the bus driver, he's only one person. There is still risk here, he may choose to drive the wrong way down the freeway, or he may have a heart attack. Those are risks. You have no data about those risks, so you have to TRUST that no voluntary or involuntary actions will happen while you're on the bus.

But, you place a high value on getting to work. So, the cost benefit ratio of making that trust assessment is low.

See, that's the thing. He's doing his job, and that's all which is of concern to you. You don't know how often he cleans the seat covers, you don't know if he empties or cleans the toilet after every ride, basically you don't know anything about him. All you have to know is that he safely brings you from A to B, and that he doesn't rip you off with the carfare. Everything else is irrelevant for you, unless you think it's relevant. Obviously you think it is, but that's your personal thing, nothing general.

[ghettosynth]

Do you have to trust the bus driver to take the bus to work?

Yes, you do. But you are acting with a lot of information. You can see the bus driver, he's only one person. There is still risk here, he may choose to drive the wrong way down the freeway, or he may have a heart attack. Those are risks. You have no data about those risks, so you have to TRUST that no voluntary or involuntary actions will happen while you're on the bus.

But, you place a high value on getting to work. So, the cost benefit ratio of making that trust assessment is low.

See, that's the thing. He's doing his job, and that's all which is of concern to you.

Nope, that's not true. Everything is a concern to you, whether you choose to evaluate it or not. You can evaluate whether he's doing his job by watching him. You don't actually have to trust that blindly because you have data.

You don't know how often he cleans the seat covers, you don't know if he empties or cleans the toilet after every ride, basically you don't know anything about him.

You can look at the seat covers, you can look at the toilet or choose to not use it. That's data. You do know things about him, and about the environment because you can evaluate it yourself in real time. That's what everyone does every time. Trying to argue otherwise is nonsense. If he looked drunk you wouldn't get on the bus.

All you have to know is that he safely brings you from A to B, and that he doesn't rip you off with the carfare.

You can't know that until you get to your destination, so it's not even relevant to this discussion. It is impossible to answer the question with certainty "will this bus get to it's destination."

Everything else is irrelevant for you, unless you think it's relevant. Obviously you think it is, but that's your personal thing, nothing general.

Everything else is not irrelevant, it is simply managed risk. You wouldn't view dirty toilet seats irrelevant if you contracted a flesh eating virus? You are simply making a choice to trust based on limited data and a high reward value. The risk is low, the reward is high, you have a lot of data.

The point is, you MUST trust him, if you want to take the ride so to say otherwise is nonsense. Further, you have SOME information. Again, the doctor example is better because you don't get to choose among bus drivers, but you do choose among doctors.