Why don't more developers create AUs as well as VSTs?

[Muon Software Ltd]

Speaking dry, a Mac version alone won't save the business.

speaking dry indeed

[C-note]

, but then I realized that Sylenth is actually better than z3ta and Cakewalk sucks.

Most ridiculous post I've ever read, imo of course

Most ridiculous post I've ever read, imo of course

Everyone knows Sylenth kills Z3ta

@Maadfoo I have them both, Do you?

[Zaphod (giancarlo)]

I can't think of an actively developed commercial plugin that is available for OSX in VST form that is not also available in AU form.

Anyone?

AU or VST isn't the problem, it's dealing with Apple, Macs and OS-X. (If AudioUnits compared to VST is a serious problem for a developer, the developer has some deeper issues.)

Well, anyone who is serious about business will see that investing in a little Mac and 3 weeks of a freelance developer will pay off in a month or two. If however the monthly revenues make this difficult to afford then maybe some other steps are required first. Speaking dry, a Mac version alone won't save the business.

agreed but not on everything. Not all plugins have the same complexity or are based on crossplatform libraries. Everything could be ported, but it could require efforts. Sometimes the developer doesn't want to share code for strategic purposes. Or he can't pay a developer.
It's obvious that a big company will develop everything: AU, VST 2, VST 3, DX, RTAS. A big company will develop for iphone, smarphones and for your bread toaster.
And not, not many developers are using juce.

Guys, you are not answering to the question.
We are not asking if it's better to develop here and there, and if you get money selling a mac osx plugin or not.
The question is different: why not many AU?
Well, the answer is damn simple. Smaller market, and availability of plenty of windows pc for little developers.

And I have an other question here. Why AU.

[mateo]

Guys, you are not answering to the question. Why not many AU?
Well, the answer is damn simple. Smaller market, and availability of plenty of windows pc for little developers.

Except the market *isn't* smaller. Every cross platform developer who has chimed in here says that mac os accounts for 50% of their paying customers. Yes, porting requires effort and resources, but it's probably worth doing so if you're doubling your potential market., no?

And I have an other question here. Why AU.

Not sure what your question is. Why Mac AU rather than just Mac VST? Or why does AU exist at all?

[kevvvvv]

giancarlo

why not many AU?
Well, the answer is damn simple. Smaller market, and availability of plenty of windows pc for little developers.

Dave Waugh's business argument is good.

Buy the cheapest mac to develop on, and over 3 years you'll easily see the ROI.

He's practically showing small devs how to make more money

[djanthonyw]

there is not one commercial studio that doesn't have a Mac.

Mine doesn't.

Going by your website, your studio may be professional, but it's not commercial.

huh?

Lets straighten out our terminology shall we:

I am a professional, as I earn my living entirely from sound engineering.

My studio is commercial because I charge my clients to record in it.

My web-site is amateur becasue I knocked it up in an afternoon with a wysiwyg editor.

Hi again.

Yes, I said from the looks of things you are running a professional studio. You make money and earn a living doing so, but this doesn't make you a commercial studio. Commercial studios record major selling acts or produce for major motion pictures that cross over internationally. I was not judging your website, I was just looking at the pictures and information on your website.

[Urs]

And I have an other question here. Why AU.

Unfortunately only few people "get" AU. Those who do think "Why VST?!?"

(and those who think even further wonder why VST3 when the same can be had on Windows with QuickTime and CoreFoundation, and it's called, yes, AU, which could be made crossplatform without any license issues... one could even do open source plugins which one still can't with VST's licensing jungle... Apple offered AU as a solution/foundation for GMPI which was IMHO absurdly rejected by the advocates of com programming)

Seriosuly, when MacOS X 10.2 came out there was no sign of VST Mach-O, but a very rudimentary api called AU 1.0 had been in OS X 10.1 already. So it was rather logical for Apple to add the missing bits (instrument support, custom view support) and establish *something*. Otherwise there wouldn't have been anything, while Steinberg hibernated. They probably thought they'd get through with the old MacOS 9 stuff, while a little flood of Cocoa apps surfaced which needed Mach-o binding (not everyone was as capable as Plogue back then who IIRC established a Carbon-Mach-o-bridge to run MacOS 9 VSTs in Bidule).

[Zaphod (giancarlo)]

giancarlo

why not many AU?
Well, the answer is damn simple. Smaller market, and availability of plenty of windows pc for little developers.

Dave Waugh's business argument is good.

Buy the cheapest mac to develop on, and over 3 years you'll easily see the ROI.

He's practically showing small devs how to make more money

well, I was not arguing about that, I think a medium sized company should develop for all possible platforms (rtas included). You are right about ROI, we paid our 2 mac books and software related with mac osx easily.
But it doesn't explain everything: not all developers are interested in ROI (one of them is developing good freeware).
And I think it's not a matter of platform, if you really need a product and it's not available for your platform you buy an other computer or you switch to a different host (reaper is a good example).
I think AU is today very close to what DX was around 5 years ago (oh well, DX was linked to windows, no?).

[deraudrl]

...one could even do open source plugins which one still can't with VST's licensing jungle...

By "licensing jungle", I assume you mean the fact that the VSTSDK (given away for free by Steinberg) doesn't pass GPL's ideological purity test?

It is trivially simple to do open-source VST plugins...as long as you don't equate "open-source" with "GPL-compliant".

[Urs]

...one could even do open source plugins which one still can't with VST's licensing jungle...

By "licensing jungle", I assume you mean the fact that the VSTSDK (given away for free by Steinberg) doesn't pass GPL's ideological purity test?

It is trivially simple to do open-source VST plugins...as long as you don't equate "open-source" with "GPL-compliant".

No. The VST license forbids to open source derivative products. It's quite the opposite of GPL.

And of course, no GPL'd code can ever be used in any VST plugin.

[Jeff McClintock]

And I have an other question here. Why AU.

Apple offered AU as a solution/foundation for GMPI which was IMHO absurdly rejected by the advocates of com programming)

I don't remember any serious Apple involvement?
At the time AU was far better than VST2, a cross-platform AU would have been great. The problem is the big DAW companies strongly resist using their competitor's plugin formats. Cakewalk, Steinberg, Logic etc all wanted thier own formats. That's the real reason GMPI had to be neutral.

[Gamma-UT]

well, I was not arguing about that, I think a medium sized company should develop for all possible platforms (rtas included). You are right about ROI, we paid our 2 mac books and software related with mac osx easily.

And that must be purely through word of mouth because if looking at your site, you'd have to be psychic to work out that an OS X version, even if just on VST, is actually available. Apparently, I have to register to find out how to, or if I could buy a Mac version in the shop.

Seriously, if you now have an OS X compatible version ready, you need to make it a bit more obvious on the product pages. They all just mention Windows, unless I'm missing something obvious.

[Urs]

I don't remember any serious Apple involvement?

Apple wasn't involved with GMPI, but GMPI was discussed on and off the CoreAudio mailing list, where Apple folks stated that they would appreciate the adoption of AU by GMPI. And of course, due to the BSDish license I think it was, AU was basically open source, apart from the Component stuff that is part of MacOS X and QuickTime for Windows. Which one probably would have had to abstract to make AU a fully open standard.

[deraudrl]

...one could even do open source plugins which one still can't with VST's licensing jungle...

By "licensing jungle", I assume you mean the fact that the VSTSDK (given away for free by Steinberg) doesn't pass GPL's ideological purity test?

It is trivially simple to do open-source VST plugins...as long as you don't equate "open-source" with "GPL-compliant".

No. The VST license forbids to open source derivative products.

No. What it forbids is (re)distributing VSTSDK itself: i.e. you can't distribute an open-source project with the real (or modified) SDK inside of it. So the software package for an open-source VST simply includes instructions that it requires files from the official (and freely-available) Steinberg VSTSDK. No big deal.

And of course, no GPL'd code can ever be used in any VST plugin.

Because the (supposedly less restrictive) GPL forbids it, not Steinberg's license. And again, you're equating "open-source" with "GPL-compliant".

The argument line you're using is equivalent to saying, "The engine in my Ferrari is defective because the local cops won't let me drive over 65MPH."

[bM3w]

there is not one commercial studio that doesn't have a Mac.

Mine doesn't.

Going by your website, your studio may be professional, but it's not commercial.

huh?

Lets straighten out our terminology shall we:

I am a professional, as I earn my living entirely from sound engineering.

My studio is commercial because I charge my clients to record in it.

My web-site is amateur becasue I knocked it up in an afternoon with a wysiwyg editor.

Hi again.

Yes, I said from the looks of things you are running a professional studio. You make money and earn a living doing so, but this doesn't make you a commercial studio. Commercial studios record major selling acts or produce for major motion pictures that cross over internationally. I was not judging your website, I was just looking at the pictures and information on your website.

Geez, DJane is probably the most deluded character on KVR. Where did you go to school, if at all? They apparently forgot to tell you what "commercial" means...