Avid; you're a bunch of silly twats.

[LawrenceF]

Seems to me observing how some of these things show up, that one thing must be true...

Their code base is probably so large or complex that they have to go to great lengths to not break anything, so they introduce features like that kinda piece-meal. They did the same thing with stem export, didn't really take it all the way to what is a more logical result in other products. I can't believe they don't actually know that the clip FX falls short of what it should be, comparatively speaking, that's not a logical conclusion, nobody that is or leads a professional team of software engineers can ever really be that stupid.

They certainly know how it works in other places. It has to be more that they just can't get it all done right away so they do a little bit of it and release it.

I do think some of those products, Cubase, PT, maybe Logic to some degree, etc, etc, are still working with legacy code bases to some degree that may become more problematic for some new features. It's an issue that some others might also encounter 20 years down the road if their code bases aren't kinda modular.

I think that feature is likely the result of meetings that asked the question... "What can we do along those lines "for now"?"... maybe figuring that doing that now is better than nothing.

[elxsound]

Well, how much "legacy" code is involved here, considering they touted ProTools 11 as having been "rewritten from the ground up."

[LawrenceF]

Mmv as usual but I don't (never did) personally buy that they "re-wrote" the entire application from the ground up.

Anyway, my previous comments was just theory, not fact, so... who knows.

[fmr]

In my email yesterday:

Valued Pro Tools Customer:

Our records indicate that you own Pro Tools and have never had an Annual Upgrade Plan to receive ongoing software updates. In case you weren’t aware, all Pro Tools updates and upgrades are only available through an Avid Upgrade Plan for Pro Tools.

Why, thank you for noticing, Avid. That might have something to do with the $300 it will cost simply to get on the treadmill where I keep paying you year-in, year-out.

And what about receiving this e-mail with a subscription currently valid?

[ontol]

[incubus]

Mmv as usual but I don't (never did) personally buy that they "re-wrote" the entire application from the ground up.

Anyway, my previous comments was just theory, not fact, so... who knows.

Oh, but you BITCH at people for speculating about people complaining about other companies "decline" ....

Such a hypocrite.

[Gamma-UT]

Their code base is probably so large or complex that they have to go to great lengths to not break anything, so they introduce features like that kinda piece-meal. They did the same thing with stem export, didn't really take it all the way to what is a more logical result in other products. I can't believe they don't actually know that the clip FX falls short of what it should be, comparatively speaking, that's not a logical conclusion, nobody that is or leads a professional team of software engineers can ever really be that stupid.

That may apply to a bunch of things but in the case of Clip FX, it looks a lot more like price management designed to extract the most milk from the cash cow that is post production. PT 12.6 finally ditches the need for Avid hardware - it's pretty much all native now. The Clip FX uses the ChannelStrip IIRC, which runs either on DSP or native, and which is included in PT vanilla. Plus, PT vanilla can play back Clip FX OK - you just can't make edits other than simple stuff like volume.

So, having ditched the hardware, how does Avid ensure it keeps people on the more expensive HD subscription? Simples. Restrict something like Clip FX, which should be very useful in bunging in foley and FX, to HD.

Now, you can argue that it's good business. But the emails going out at the same time which basically say, "We see you haven't spent any money on us recently, why haven't you spent money on us? Don't you understand this is Avid? You need to show us the money", do smack more of desperate cash grab.

[LawrenceF]

Mmv as usual but I don't (never did) personally buy that they "re-wrote" the entire application from the ground up.

Anyway, my previous comments was just theory, not fact, so... who knows.

Oh, but you BITCH at people for speculating about people complaining about other companies "decline" ....

Such a hypocrite.

Stop being an infant Hibidy. I didn't bitch at anyone. I offered a theory as to why I think they do things like that. What is your issue? Sonar again? Jeez. I didn't bitch at you, I asked you a question "How do you know SHITLOADS of users left?" That's all. You're the only drama queen here... yet again injecting drama into a thread where nobody is arguing about anything.

You're like a child, waiting in the weeds to cause drama in almost every KVR thread. The only person calling people trolls and the first person to start calling people names, like a child. Seek help.

[LawrenceF]

That may apply to a bunch of things but in the case of Clip FX, it looks a lot more like price management designed to extract the most milk from the cash cow that is post production. PT 12.6 finally ditches the need for Avid hardware - it's pretty much all native now. The Clip FX uses the ChannelStrip IIRC, which runs either on DSP or native, and which is included in PT vanilla. Plus, PT vanilla can play back Clip FX OK - you just can't make edits other than simple stuff like volume.

So, having ditched the hardware, how does Avid ensure it keeps people on the more expensive HD subscription? Simples. Restrict something like Clip FX, which should be very useful in bunging in foley and FX, to HD.

Makes sense, that might be the case. Thanks.

[LawrenceF]

Off the topic of AVID, but more in general....

I tend to give developers the benefit of the doubt when they don't do something that seems obviously logical... where on the surface it seems like a no-brainer. There are examples of that in most daws like...

Reaper: Users have been asking for 10 years to move automation lanes. It seems illogical not to be able to. It still doesn't, so I assume it's maybe something not easy to do for technical reasons.

Cubase: Same as above with directly moving mixer channels. People were asking for it 20 years ago and they still don't move directly.

Studio One: Really odd thing with stop markers, where you can click on a marker and check "Stop" to make playback stop at any marker, but you can't do that on the End marker... which on the surface seems really illogical.

When I see things like that my first assumption is not that the developers are just dumb, I usually assume that (for some unknown technical reason) they just can't do it. But AVID, to the previous posters point, has a bit of a history of making really strange financial based decisions, so that may not be the case with them.

[MarlaPodolski]

Well, how much "legacy" code is involved here, considering they touted ProTools 11 as having been "rewritten from the ground up."

Only, supposedly, the engine was rewritten. It really is what Lawrence said above. But add to that that all or most original coders are long gone. You have people sitting there today, staring at the stacks of code, going, What do you think they were doing here? or Can you figure out what his intentions were? or Why did they use all this? Just imagine.

[incubus]

Or, it's just speculation, Hmmmmmmmmmm.

I've been hearing about "avid's" demise for a very long time.

Wake me when it happens.

[koolkeys]

Isn't everything we talk about just speculation? Unless you sit on the board of directors or are a developer, nobody really knows the truth. I don't think anyone is claiming to KNOW what is happening.

It could be that they are just pinching dollars and pulling a douche move. It could be that they are dealing with "old code" that is messy or unoptimized and the feature won't work without hardware, etc. It could be that the coders are just terrible. It could be because a marketing director told them to keep it exclusive and all it would take is 5 minutes to add it to all versions of the software.

NOBODY really knows. Chances are, knowing Digi/Avid over the years, they are trying to "take care" of their most precious users who have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years by throwing them a bone with exclusive features. Because without those users, Avid can no longer make the 'industry standard' claims. That's my guess. Only a guess. But an educated one.

In the end, to users like "us", this is a pretty ridiculous limitation considering how many other hosts already have it.

Brent

[incubus]

True. But I think the OP made a funny but true observation, that turned into the same ol'

Again, if there is any real frustration, it's that we even have these conversations in the mold of they most certainly should be better. Always something. It should simply be about choice, and not all the weird nonsense that these companies make us go through.

[LawrenceF]

Isn't everything we talk about just speculation? Unless you sit on the board of directors or are a developer, nobody really knows the truth. I don't think anyone is claiming to KNOW what is happening.

In the end, to users like "us", this is a pretty ridiculous limitation considering how many other hosts already have it.

Brent

Hey Brent, long time no see my friend.

Yes, it's all speculation and yes, on the surface it looks ridiculous. My point was two fold... A) Like you say, we don't know ... and B) Given that we don't know, maybe we shouldn't assume the worse, that they don't know any better or they didin't forsee some people saying what we are... "Man, that's not even close to what's already out there."

Like I said earlier, I tend to give developers the benefit of the doubt when something looks illogical and I don't know why it is, but I also fully recognize that the Internet doesn't really work that way, that more often than not the first impulse is to assume the worst.

See the thread title. "Silly Twats".

But yeah, my first thought was ... "Why the hell did they do that?"

If I were a betting man, my bet would be that it's currently not possible (or highly problematic, engineering wise) in the current architecture to insert any or all realtime 3rd party plugins on audio clips like everyone else doing that (same for Cubase actually that still doesn't do it) that they both have some more engineering work to do to make it possible. That's a feature that's also been on the Cubase FR list for at least a decade.

I may still lose that bet though, it might indeed be a money grab, or just raw stupidity.