Steinberg: No more VST2 Development

[lkjb]

But that's a fairly rare case, isn't it?

Dragging automation points during playback? Problably more common than you think.

Even if it is possible (and I highly doubt it is without problems with at least some plugins), you still can't enter values directly (632 Hz) which every other commerical plugin format allows.

And no Reaper extensions required.

The thing is, Reaper has this functionality. What other hosts do allow this with VST2 plugins and even with the way you described?

And it would of course have been trivial to add a function for this in a VST 2.5. getParameterDisplayFor(index, value), say.

Yes, but Steinberg decided differently and now we have to live with it. Whining about evil Steinberg doesn't change the fact that there's a demand for VST3 from customers. Period.

[AdmiralQuality]

Yes, but Steinberg decided differently and now we have to live with it. Whining about evil Steinberg doesn't change the fact that there's a demand for VST3 from customers. Period.

Not any demand that we've been able to detect. A couple of customers inquired about it and after explaining to them that they would lose a lot of existing functionality, were perfectly understanding of why we don't support it.

[lkjb]

Not any demand that we've been able to detect.

Of course not. You have a synth and a filter, neither of which would profit from VST3 (aside from the automation stuff, but I don't expect many users to care here). Build a compressor with sidechain input and have a look about the demand then.

(OT: Funny that your customers listen about VST3 but you won't educate them about 64-bit float plugin interfaces being unnecessary. )

[AdmiralQuality]

Not any demand that we've been able to detect.

Of course not. You have a synth and a filter, neither of which would profit from VST3 (aside from the automation stuff, but I don't expect many users to care here). Build a compressor with sidechain input and have a look about the demand then.

(OT: Funny that your customers listen about VST3 but you won't educate them about 64-bit float plugin interfaces being unnecessary. )

That's because tthere's no reason not to make a plugin 64 bit. I'm fine with a little overkill. Doesn't hurt, doesn't cost anything in most cases.

[Echoes in the Attic]

Not any demand that we've been able to detect.

Of course not. You have a synth and a filter, neither of which would profit from VST3 (aside from the automation stuff, but I don't expect many users to care here). Build a compressor with sidechain input and have a look about the demand then.

(OT: Funny that your customers listen about VST3 but you won't educate them about 64-bit float plugin interfaces being unnecessary. )

That's because tthere's no reason not to make a plugin 64 bit. I'm fine with a little overkill. Doesn't hurt, doesn't cost anything in most cases.

Does that mean you are close to releasing the 64bit VST of Poly-Ana for Mac? Was really hoping 2013 was the year for that...

[AdmiralQuality]

Not any demand that we've been able to detect.

Of course not. You have a synth and a filter, neither of which would profit from VST3 (aside from the automation stuff, but I don't expect many users to care here). Build a compressor with sidechain input and have a look about the demand then.

(OT: Funny that your customers listen about VST3 but you won't educate them about 64-bit float plugin interfaces being unnecessary. )

That's because tthere's no reason not to make a plugin 64 bit. I'm fine with a little overkill. Doesn't hurt, doesn't cost anything in most cases.

Does that mean you are close to releasing the 64bit VST of Poly-Ana for Mac? Was really hoping 2013 was the year for that...

He's talking about 64 bit audio data, which the 32 bit code version processes fine. But yes, it's a high priority.

[briandc]

I don't know of any other DAWs than Reaper that work with Wine so it doesn't port "all the stuff made with Windows". Also you can't use Windows plugins in Linux DAWs with Wine.

LMMS. It integrates Wine very nicely, and you can use most Windows plugins that way just fine. Here's a list of tested, working Windows-based plugins for LMMS:
http://lmms.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Tested_VSTs

brian

[briandc]

Yes in both cases - see http://www.museresearch.com for details.
But that...
a) is a heavily customized WINE setup (and they don't disclose the sources, or at least not in a form that I can see - he, Brian, how does that look, hmmm?)

I can see the "conflict" of interests when a for-profit corporation tries to put its apps into the linux realm. Obviously, they are not as "free" as they should be. And I guess that's ok in my book. If they want to make money off it, I understand that. Perhaps the best of both worlds would be to release two versions: one open source (probably with limited capabilities) and a pay version.

Personally, I like the whole philosophy of sharing apps. There's lots of creativity in the world, and no one has "the only corner" on that market.

brian

[Urs]

I can see the "conflict" of interests when a for-profit corporation tries to put its apps into the linux realm. Obviously, they are not as "free" as they should be.

Well, if apps "should be free" on Linux, then we won't waste another thought on it

[aciddose]

Perhaps the best of both worlds would be to release two versions: one open source (probably with limited capabilities) and a pay version.

Unfortunately the reality of commercial software is that doing things the code-monkey way is rare. Instead, successful developers will look at working code and either license it, or if it is simple enough duplicate it. Those are in some cases arguably license violations but who is going to stop them? The faerie code police who magically and majestically check all proprietary code for potential violations?

In fact one of the biggest issues with releasing code open-source for a commercial product is that you need to have lawyers involved and document the source and authorship of all code. Otherwise there is a risk of liability for these sorts of violations.

For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_v._Google

Or more importantly, a case which was found to have had absolutely no merit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_v._IBM

“Certainly if an individual was stopped and accused of shoplifting after walking out of Neiman Marcus, they would expect to be eventually told what they allegedly stole. It would be absurd for an officer to tell the accused that ‘you know what you stole I'm not telling.’ Or, to simply hand the accused individual a catalog of Neiman Marcus' entire inventory and say ‘it's in there somewhere, you figure it out.’”

Even if you are fully respecting copyright, you have never once in your life even briefly seen any source-code other than what you wrote yourself and so there is absolutely no way any part of your work may be considered a derivative, you are still at risk. You open yourself up to "trolls" like SCO who can simply make accusations without ever backing them up.

With a large enough bankroll they can put force behind their bullshit and tie you up in court, costing you ridiculous amounts of income capable of making virtually any small corporation unprofitable. At which point it makes more sense to file for bankruptcy and close down the corporation.

Open-source is a risk, and if you run a business to turn a profit taking obvious and unnecessary risk is your greatest enemy. Of what benefit would it be to open-source the product? That is the real question. In most cases it would be of very little or no benefit.

If you'd like to see this change become a programmer and release open-source copyleft licensed audio libraries capable of significantly out-performing common proprietary code. You will undoubtedly have many license violations you might never know about, but over time it may be possible to add momentum if the trustworthy developers who want to keep things above-board see the advantage in incorporating your source into their projects.

At the same time you'll need to turn down any offers to re-license your source, no matter how significant they are.

[briandc]

Anyone developing programs is in some way helping the entire world with their work. Proprietary developers tend to think that what they do is somehow "always theirs," but that's not how the world works. One person develops an idea, then others develop more on that same idea, then others develop on that idea, etc etc etc. The lawsuit issue in software development (and hardware development too) is childish. No one has "a corner on the market" of creativity. We all need each other, that's just how it is. No need to try to "own the software world." (Although that is what Microsoft would like to do.)

The same is true for softsynths. What comes out today as proprietary, tomorrow will be freeware, whether offered freely by the same developer, or someone else making a similar application.
And many of these now free softsynths are very good, and people all over the world can utilize them for their creative endeavors. And imo, this is a good thing, in particular in the world of music production.

Another example: remember VCRs and cassette recorders? Who never recorded their favorite program or music coming off the radio? Of course we all did. Technology offered us this freedom, and we all benefitted from it.

So what has to change, imo, is the mentality of the developers. Some things can be made as proprietary software. But eventually, things become open and available to all. Thank God.


brian

[aciddose]

I assure you developers don't give a crap about keeping it theirs.

What they worry is about risks:

1. Providing benefit to competing products
2. Liabilities without consideration

Maybe more in there but those are definitely the two top ones for myself,

Also your point of view is a bit too idealistic, you should probably push harder and use different reasoning regarding open source.

In fact a majority of effort doesn't become open or free in time. In time, a majority of effort is allowed to disintegrate because it can not be used to further the goals of the author and releasing it poses risks without consideration.

The purpose of copyright, patents and so on is to try to hold back some of that valuable effort going down the drain.

It seems self defeating doesn't it? When applied to the fair arts it makes sense. Copyright to benefit the useless fair arts, patents for the useful arts. We don't want useful knowledge to spiral down the drain but fair arts change with the times. You can't fight the tides and only the product is really of any value, and often temporary.

Centuries ago they were completely unaware that something like software would appear and create a completely unforeseen conflict.

[AdmiralQuality]

Anyone developing programs is in some way helping the entire world with their work. Proprietary developers tend to think that what they do is somehow "always theirs," but that's not how the world works. One person develops an idea, then others develop more on that same idea, then others develop on that idea, etc etc etc. The lawsuit issue in software development (and hardware development too) is childish. No one has "a corner on the market" of creativity. We all need each other, that's just how it is. No need to try to "own the software world." (Although that is what Microsoft would like to do.)

The same is true for softsynths. What comes out today as proprietary, tomorrow will be freeware, whether offered freely by the same developer, or someone else making a similar application.
And many of these now free softsynths are very good, and people all over the world can utilize them for their creative endeavors. And imo, this is a good thing, in particular in the world of music production.

Another example: remember VCRs and cassette recorders? Who never recorded their favorite program or music coming off the radio? Of course we all did. Technology offered us this freedom, and we all benefitted from it.

So what has to change, imo, is the mentality of the developers. Some things can be made as proprietary software. But eventually, things become open and available to all. Thank God.


brian

Yeah, it's so awesome how they're giving keyboards and guitars away for free these days! We deserve that!

[fese]

...
Yeah, it's so awesome how they're giving keyboards and guitars away for free these days! We deserve that!

No, you misunderstood. You don't get keyboards for free but can download the sources and hardware schematics for free and built it yourself and you have the right to modify it, which is neccessary anyhow as the developer graduated last year and got a real job and the software is still in version 0.7.9a and won't compile with newer glib versions.

[briandc]

I assure you developers don't give a crap about keeping it theirs.

What they worry is about risks:

1. Providing benefit to competing products
2. Liabilities without consideration

Maybe more in there but those are definitely the two top ones for myself,

Also your point of view is a bit too idealistic, you should probably push harder and use different reasoning regarding open source.

In fact a majority of effort doesn't become open or free in time. In time, a majority of effort is allowed to disintegrate because it can not be used to further the goals of the author and releasing it poses risks without consideration.

The purpose of copyright, patents and so on is to try to hold back some of that valuable effort going down the drain.

It seems self defeating doesn't it? When applied to the fair arts it makes sense. Copyright to benefit the useless fair arts, patents for the useful arts. We don't want useful knowledge to spiral down the drain but fair arts change with the times. You can't fight the tides and only the product is really of any value, and often temporary.

Centuries ago they were completely unaware that something like software would appear and create a completely unforeseen conflict.

I think to a large degree many developers do indeed think that their products will always remain "special" and that no one can take what they've done and build on it. And that is related to the first point you mentioned, the fear that the competitor will benefit from the new ideas/technology.

But isn't that what life's all about? Each one helping the next, so that we can all improve? The challenge should be to find the next new idea, not try to keep it "one's own."

That said, I have nothing against donating or financially supporting development of new things. I see you have a softsynth, which looks very nice! If there was the idea of porting it to linux, I'm sure there would be some who would support that move. (I for one!) The linuxmusicians.com forum helps with stuff like that..

brian