Bye bye VST2

[gaggle of hermits]

It also matters to the developers of other hosts that Steinberg purposefully made adoption difficult for them. Steinberg's first priority is to give advantage to their own DAW's. In this regard, Steinberg has a conflict of interest in being the steward of a common standard.

Can you please eloaborate how they do that exactly?

there are examples upthread. they are not difficult to find.

[mi-os]

Regarding VST3 MIDI implementation

I've read a discussion about the VST3 MIDI implementation since i'm interested in MIDI and MIDI controllers. To me it looks like some devs don't like it because they want to do MIDI the old VST2 way in VST3 or downright hacky stuff like programming MIDI plugins in VSTi format. Something it was never intended to be. SB reworked some aspects of the interface and delegated the MIDI mapping to the host to achieve better separation of concerns respectively better software architecture. In VST3 the host is responsible to connect/route/map MIDI devices to plugins. One advantage would be, for example, when MIDI 2.0 is implemented in the host, plugins don't have to be modified to make them MIDI 2.0 compatible. It would just work because VSTi plugins have nothing to do with MIDI. They communicate via parameter lists instead. The decision to do it this way sounds rather plausible to me. I may missed something but that's what i gathered after spending not too much time with it.

[gaggle of hermits]

Regarding VST3 MIDI implementation

I've read a discussion about the VST3 MIDI implementation since i'm interested in MIDI and MIDI controllers. To me it looks like some devs don't like it because they want to do MIDI the old VST2 way in VST3 or downright hacky stuff like programming MIDI plugins in VSTi format. Something it was never intended to be.

luckily there's a format that supports this kind of stuff. you might have heard of it by now.

[Propellerhands]

Hey
Basically I'm just not gonna install it (the VST3)
I know.... UGH I know ..... I'm sorry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's just that I'm not gonna install it is all
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

[Urs]

The absence of MIDI in a plug-in format surely was the result of thinking that MIDI would become obsolete, that MIDI would fade away. But that didn't happen. Instead it went USB class compliant and became even more ubiquitous.

So now the argument is "MIDI 2 is too complicated, plug-in developers shouldn't have to handle can't be trusted with it". But that of course is utter bullshit. None of it is overly complicated, MIDI 1 isn't going away anyway, and the attitude of not giving choices towards plug-in developers is exactly what's wrong with all of it.

In fact, MIDI is a standard, whereas plug-in specific abstractions are not. Standards should support other standards instead of shielding themselves off of them, or, worse, outright reinvent the wheel without truly offering further merits.

It's kind of ironic that Yamaha being the driving force of MIDI in the MMA is also the owner of a plug-in format that doesn't get to support it beyond scraps, even occasionally calls it "legacy" in their APIs.

[defiantnerd]

It is one of the major design flaws of VST3 to think MIDI should all live in the host and controllers are just mappings to parameters. It was obviously a clean room design, failing to meet up with reality and the creativity of MIDI in plugins.

All developers went like „wtf?“ back then…

Plugins have everything to do with MIDI… maybe not if you are just a reverb, but even then.

[EvilDragon]

It's kind of ironic that Yamaha being the driving force of MIDI in the MMA is also the owner of a plug-in format that doesn't get to support it beyond scraps, even occasionally calls it "legacy" in their APIs.

Frankly I don't think Yamaha is doing anything useful with Steinberg, they just let them roam free and do whatever the hell they want. STMG's actions definitely seem to support that notion.

[donkey tugger]

It's kind of ironic that Yamaha being the driving force of MIDI in the MMA is also the owner of a plug-in format that doesn't get to support it beyond scraps, even occasionally calls it "legacy" in their APIs.

Frankly I don't think Yamaha is doing anything useful with Steinberg, they just let them roam free and do whatever the hell they want. STMG's actions definitely seem to support that notion.

On page 11 here https://www.yamaha.com/en/ir/library/pu ... -2022e.pdf the annual turnover of Yamaha Group is given (for the 2022 accounts) as 408 billion Yen, or about 2.7 billion dollars.

Teh internet gives a figure for Steiny of around 30 million dollars a year, about 1.1% of total revenue.

'Flea fart in a hurricane' springs to mind.

[S0lo]

..... SB reworked some aspects of the interface and delegated the MIDI mapping to the host to achieve better separation of concerns respectively better software architecture. In VST3 the host is responsible to connect/route/map MIDI devices to plugins. One advantage would be, ....

As much as debatable and controversial that notion is. I would have accepted it as an engineer design choice if it was done from the beginning at the time of VST2 was introduced. But by the time VST3 came in, it was already too late. Way too late man. You can't just turn a blind eye on years of code of hundreds of VST2 plugins with thousands of lines of code expecting to process MIDI input and output. And just say, deal with it.

If you want to deprecate something. Don't remove it, keep it working, and introduce the new one along side. If the new one is truly better, developers would naturally follow it and leave the old one. survival for the fittest, not the enforced.

[Sascha Franck]

On page 11 here https://www.yamaha.com/en/ir/library/pu ... -2022e.pdf the annual turnover of Yamaha Group is given (for the 2022 accounts) as 408 billion Yen, or about 2.7 billion dollars.

Teh internet gives a figure for Steiny of around 30 million dollars a year, about 1.1% of total revenue.

'Flea fart in a hurricane' springs to mind.

And that's only their media related product portfolio. What about all the boat motors, bikes and stuff?

[mi-os]

Regarding VST3 MIDI implementation

I've read a discussion about the VST3 MIDI implementation since i'm interested in MIDI and MIDI controllers. To me it looks like some devs don't like it because they want to do MIDI the old VST2 way in VST3 or downright hacky stuff like programming MIDI plugins in VSTi format. Something it was never intended to be.

luckily there's a format that supports this kind of stuff. you might have heard of it by now.

Why did so many people like your post that makes no sense in the context of what I wrote?

Edit
Oh, finally someone got what i was talking about (thanks @S0lo)

[donkey tugger]

On page 11 here https://www.yamaha.com/en/ir/library/pu ... -2022e.pdf the annual turnover of Yamaha Group is given (for the 2022 accounts) as 408 billion Yen, or about 2.7 billion dollars.

Teh internet gives a figure for Steiny of around 30 million dollars a year, about 1.1% of total revenue.

'Flea fart in a hurricane' springs to mind.

And that's only their media related product portfolio. What about all the boat motors, bikes and stuff?

Although being Yamaha, they couldn't resist including in this report some random stuff...

yamaha.jpg

[mi-os]

It's kind of ironic that Yamaha being the driving force of MIDI in the MMA is also the owner of a plug-in format that doesn't get to support it beyond scraps, even occasionally calls it "legacy" in their APIs.

Frankly I don't think Yamaha is doing anything useful with Steinberg, they just let them roam free and do whatever the hell they want. STMG's actions definitely seem to support that notion.

I've been wondering about that for years. There doesn't seem any overall strategy perceptible. Missing any momentum. Pretty depressing when you think about the potential possibilites. It seems they just do the bare minimum and call it a day.

[mothra]

Just a correction:

Apple did not do AU because of VST/SB.. I am pretty familiar with this one with inside information...your reasoning is close though just not SB.

It was Gibson buying Opcode, killing OMS (and Opcode) that led Apple to decide not to ever depend on a third party again, which led to AU and Core Audio and Core Midi.
rsp

Err not quite.. Apple was quite happy Opcode was around, because they were prohibited from adding any sort of functionality to their operating system thanks to a lawsuit from Apple Records.. They had been itching to do their own audio/midi subsystem since day 1, but legally couldn't. When that was all cleared up making way for OS X, of course Apple was ready to go, they probably had been for awhile.

[zvenx]

You know not what you speak about.
I am 99.99% confident I have it right. Why? cause i knew the opcode engineers who then went to work for apple developing au, core audio and core midi. I got to know them from being an opcoder user and beta tester.

When Gibson killed oms, in effect it killed the possibility of oms being developed for use in os x which was in development to be released shortly.

It is why au, core audio and core midi only came out a few years later after the demise of opcode as the engineers were developing it for OS X.

Only steve jobs coming to tell me personally would make me more confident.

Btw the legal battle you speak of is documented here...
https://www.cultofmac.com/473927/today- ... r-beatles/

(for completeness I wasn't implying that only ex opcode employees were involved, but some were part of that team who went to apple to help develop those mentioned technologies.)
rsp