Musikmesse 2012: Propellerhead to share "exciting news"

[davidka]

I'm with Sean on the payments. The original idea is good, but the scale is off.


Part of Reason's 'niche' came from it's exclusive semi-modular rack devices whiches rarely can be found elsewhere.

It'd suck big time if we'd mostly have straight vst ports. Of course I'm the guy who always uses demos and freebie stuff, so I suppose it would not concern me big time.

[eXode]

One thing is certain, only time will tell where this will all end up.

[melime]

I am not a developer, but 30% seems a lot

Let me see here, you get:

1. Store solution
2. Digital distribution
3. Storing (even of older versions, for ever)
4. Propellerhead fix cross-platform for you
5. Propellerhead maintain your code base for you
6. Propellerhead offer the copy protection

The dev only need to worry about 3 things:

1. DSP
2. GUI
3. Workflow

With paypal (if you use that option) you loose a percentage on every transaction. Then you got to add hosting, the actual store solution. Count in the time and effort for you to develop multiple OS versions on your own, and maintaining that code as well as to actually implement the copy protection (which will likely be hackable? Reason 6 protection has not been hacked so far, afaik).

With this in account, I seriously don't think that those 30% seem unfair tbh.

Here's a breakdown of the above costs for my current sales model. I'm going to use a hypothetical situation where I sell 1000 copies of the VST/RTAS/AU, versus 1000 copies of a Re plugin (as someone suggested earlier for a hypothetical Valhalla Re plugin). For the sake of argument, we will amortize the sales and costs over 1 year. The prices for both the VST/AU/RTAS and Re plugin will be $50.

1) Store solution: I use PayPal. On average, I incur costs of $2 per plugin, at a sales price of $50.

2) Digital distribution. I fulfill orders manually. It takes me about a minute to fill out the order form, and send it to the customer. As far as updates, sending out emails to 1000 customers is free, either through your own mail program, or through Mail Chimp (once you get more customers than 2000 or so, things get more expensive).

3) Storing of older versions: included in my web hosting costs. $30/month.

4) Cross-platform: I use Juce for my cross-platform code. Juce is TRULY cross-platform, in that it supports VST, AU and RTAS, on both Mac and Windows. I paid ~$1100 for the Juce licence in early 2010, but for the sake of this discussion, I will amortize the entire Juce license cost across the 1000 plugins.

5) Maintaining code base: What does this mean? Will Propellerheads actually retain and modify the source code of each plugin, from each developer? This would not be something that plugin developers would like. Do you have more details about this?

6) Copy protection: I'm going to cheat here, as I already have my own copy protection solution. It isn't perfect, but no copy protection solution is. As I mentioned earlier, any commercial plugin developer will already have a copy protection in place. Things like iLok (BOOOOO!!!!!) cost money, but most smaller developers roll their own copy protection when starting up their company. So the cost of developing this will have already been taken care of before starting work on new plugins.

So, a breakdown of the costs:

My own solution: $2/plugin for PayPal, + ($1100/1000 plugins) per plugin for Juce, plus ($30*12/1000 plugins) for web storage costs, + free email (I'm not including the costs for my home internet, as I'd have to pay that anyway). Total cost per plugin: $3.46.

Propellerheads App Store: 30% of $50 = $15.00.

The difference between the two models is that the Propellerhead App Store results in my making $11.54 LESS per plugin sold, for doing things that I already do with my own sales solution.

The vast majority of the costs for ANY plugin developer will be in the 3 categories you listed last: DSP, GUI, and workflow. With my current solution, I can use the same DSP and GUI code for VST, AU and RTAS (it looks like AAX will require some reworking). Meanwhile, the GUI code I use won't be usable in Re plugins, so this will involve a fair amount of extra work.

So, why do I care? To be honest, this isn't really about the money. I guess the thing that is upsetting me right now is that the announcement of Re plugins seems to have been accompanied by a VERY inaccurate assessment of the costs and issues currently faced by plugin developers. If Propellerheads had simply said "all purchases are in app, and we are charging 30%, in order to have access to a market that you didn't have access to before," fair enough. It's their product. What is bugging me are the straw man arguments about how this makes things easier and/or more profitable for existing* plugin developers. It doesn't. And if these arguments are being postulated by Propellerheads themselves, this seems misleading.

Sean Costello

* A new plugin developer, on the other hand, might find making Re plugins far easier than developing VST and AU, due to the copy protection and sales issues that need to be solved. However, the discussion has been focused on existing plugin developers, as opposed to unknown entities.

why dont those plugin developers just charge 30 % extra ! done ! YOU SET THE PRICE!

[eXode]

Also I really think that it's worth repeating:

Of course we might see ports (were applicable) of VST's and similar in the beginning, surely there is a market for that, but personally I can honestly say that I'd much rather see developers do new, unique, and exclusive RE's for Reason that utilize the whole audio and CV patching paradigm to it's fullest.

I think that Angus Hewlett of FXpansion hit's the nail on the head with this post on twitter:

Reason isn't Cubase. Am inclined to say if you release identical products on both, yr doing it wrong.

[emtear]

One thing that has not been talked about here is what will companies like Native and Spectrasonics do. Is PH going to support sample libaries that large? I understand taking a synth and making modular Re's, but what happens when your plugin has a large libarary? Also if Steinberg follows and makes there own closed plugin format dropping Vst support. Things can get pretty interesting, or maybe not. I just can not see all the DAW's watching this happen with out some kind of reaction. Lets just hope it all benefits the end user and music being made and not these corprate giants...

[standalone]

Also if Steinberg follows

When has Steinberg followed Propellerheads? Why they should? They are worlds apart.

[christianmusicmaker]

Also if Steinberg follows and makes there own closed plugin format dropping Vst support. Things can get pretty interesting, or maybe not. I just can not see all the DAW's watching this happen with out some kind of reaction. Lets just hope it all benefits the end user and music being made and not these corprate giants...

IMO some kind of reaction is surely on the way. I would say the question is when not if. But what kind of reaction that is, only time will tell. There is no way Re will take off and not get some kind of response from other host devs even if it is just one or two. A possible slice of each developer apps is far too big a carrot IMO for other devs to ignore as it could be extremely lucrative long term.

Host Devs are used to getting VST plugins for their hosts and that is it. Now the Props are turning that idea on it's head and looking to make money from each app / plug in their shop. That cannot be ignored by other devs in such a fiercely competitive DAW market.

Cakewalk might only need to set up a better shop and offer distribution and copy protection for each plug like Props. ProChannel Plugs AFAICT are VST plugs with extra hooks into Sonar. So they are good to go there already. The format / plugin type seems very popular with Cakewalk users and also appear to be of a very high quality. A pretty good start if they decide to set up their own app / plugin shop. Cakewalk IIRC on their forum have not totally ruled out possibly selling existing Pro Ch. (X1 only) Plugs as VST plugs to use elsewhere. A Prop App style shop would be ideal for that.

Softube have shown that ProChannel Plugs can be dual format. VST (used used in any host) and X1 only. So devs appear to have an easier and more familiar dev path with Cakewalk's Pro Channel format but that is just FX not instruments (for now). But VSTi's already cover that. The big thing missing here is the shop. So Cakewalk seems best placed to respond to Re. But like Steinberg they will likely wait and see for a bit at least.

If Props make it work others will follow though IMO. Not sure how Steinberg can make theirs work as they will want VST to remain as open as possible. Closing it off could kill it off. So Steinberg will have to come up with something creative...if they feel the need to respond to Re. Steinberg IMO can pretty much wait and see (for now) as well.

I think other dev's will surely want that 30% cut or similar. It just a case of what (bigger) carrot / shop set up will do it for them if Props shop can work. The bigger problem here is VST plugs do not require a cut of any sort AFAICT so maybe a proprietary format is the only way to justify it like Re. Still I doubt it is impossible to say...ask for 10% and offer copy protection and distribution even for VST plugs. VST devs might accept that if they feel a Cake shop or Steinberg shop saves them enough money on copy protection and distribution / visibility / marketing.

But that might be Steinbergs call to make with VST being thiers. Cakewalk might offer VST and another new format of their own or throw DX plugs into the mix again with VST plugs for their shop.. Maybe Cakewalk and Steinberg will be both happy to sell VST plugs if it means Re's uptake is slowed down.

Either way I just cannot see Re taking off with no response from other Devs. That 30% cut is just too lucrative for a Host dev that can make their shop offering work.

[Anosou]

Just gonna chime in to say I (and the rest of the company I assume) really enjoy this discussion - very constructive! We take all feedback into account.

I want to stress that what you've seen is a technology preview, emphasis on preview - like Ernst said at the conference it's not quite ready. This means we have a LOT of info that's not out in public or to developers yet so we ask you to bare with us for a while. Furthermore, this is just the beginning of the format too so all feedback is incredibly valuable and we're all ears (and eyes).

In any case, really happy to see this kind of varied and often constructive response here at KVR too (I've lurked around here unregistered for quite some time) and great to see Sean giving his opinions and discussing this in an honest and open way. I think that benefits all in the end.

[valhallasound]

Either way I just cannot see Re taking off with no response from other Devs. That 30% cut is just too lucrative for a Host dev that can make their shop offering work.

This is the reason why I am upset about this direction.

The good news, for me and other plugin developers, is that I don't think Propellerhead is anywhere near big enough a company to force these changes through. Propellerhead has 35+ employees. For comparison, Ableton probably has over 100 employees. Native Instruments (a plugin developer) has 270+ employees. Waves is over 100 employees IIRC. Steinberg is owned by Yamaha, which has several thousand employees. Avid laid off several hundred employees last fall, and still has a few thousand left on board. These companies are probably not going to take their direction from Propellerhead.

Sean Costello

[christianmusicmaker]

One thing that has not been talked about here is what will companies like Native and Spectrasonics do. Is PH going to support sample libaries that large? I understand taking a synth and making modular Re's, but what happens when your plugin has a large libarary?

Based on recent discussions I think bigger existing synths and samplers will likely have a unique but reduced core set of features that will allow it to be sold for *far* less than the VSTi version. I cannot see Spectrasonics or NI selling the flagship products for $15. I don't expect them to either with that many features and stay in business. But with a much reduced subset of features one can get a flavour of the fuller version with perhaps some form of Reason CV routing thrown in. for $15 to $10 I think at least for certain products it can work and potentially work well at such low prices.

A version of Kontakt that has a nice set of key features with sample import could allow for one to buy the app (with no samples) and then once bought get an email link to download a much larger Library to use with it. That Library could be any size in theory. This could also work for Spectrasonics products so that would solve the library problem.

The Propshop could simply ask the dev for a time sensitive link to use for downloading content. That process is already used by at least a few devs already. That link will then get sent out to customers of apps that have a library available with a receipt of their purchase. I see that as being well within the potential scope of the Prop shop (personally) or any other Dev shop in future.

Still I think Re plugs are likely to be unique and in most cases a subset of features from more expensive VSTi versions going forward. I would add that the Props IIRC never said there is a cap on prices in the Prop App shop, so most devs will likely sell their offerings for less (initially to encourage uptake) but that does not stop another dev who might have spent a lot of time (months or longer) on a far more complex plugin, charging an amount similar to a VSTi version of a plug they are offering, with a very unique feature set for Re. Indeed in due time I think there will be some very complex plugins for Re that may very well rival VSTi versions (Library size and price).

[christianmusicmaker]

Either way I just cannot see Re taking off with no response from other Devs. That 30% cut is just too lucrative for a Host dev that can make their shop offering work.

This is the reason why I am upset about this direction.

The good news, for me and other plugin developers, is that I don't think Propellerhead is anywhere near big enough a company to force these changes through. Propellerhead has 35+ employees. For comparison, Ableton probably has over 100 employees. Native Instruments (a plugin developer) has 270+ employees. Waves is over 100 employees IIRC. Steinberg is owned by Yamaha, which has several thousand employees. Avid laid off several hundred employees last fall, and still has a few thousand left on board. These companies are probably not going to take their direction from Propellerhead.

Sean Costello

Hey Sean

Yeah the downside is fragmentation of plugin formats and it could get worse but while fragmentation of plugin formats does mean potentially more work for devs and possibly too much choice for consumers the fact is it might now be something unavoidable going forward. If Props get enough dev and customer support then that 30% cut is a really lucrative slice for Host devs to consider and somewhat unlikely they will be able to ignore for too long.

I agree yes Props might have a much smaller staff set up compared to other truly global major players like Roland / Cakewalk, Yamaha / Steinberg (either could potentially come up with an even bigger and better version of the Re concept...)but a single person can put forward an idea that changes an entire market. Props clearly appear to have a loyal and wide enough user base to at least cause a major stir with Re so far.

Personally I think it would be great if there was a single format for all. No AU, VST or similar just one simple format for devs like you to code for and customers to choose from but...I think we both know that is highly unlikely to happen. So at the moment Sean it is what it is.

[EnochLight]

Also if Steinberg follows

When has Steinberg followed Propellerheads? Why they should? They are worlds apart.

Steinberg actually worked with Propellerhead to develop ReWire back in the ReBirth days - that's what the whole point of ReWire was initially... to get ReBirth into Cubase and other DAW's... They also worked with Propellerhead to develop VST 2.0 back in 1999, ironically. Prior to the Propellerheads getting involved, the VST spec only handled effects, no instruments. ;^)

[christianmusicmaker]

Just gonna chime in to say I (and the rest of the company I assume) really enjoy this discussion - very constructive! We take all feedback into account.

[n8tron]

I wouldn't be afraid at all of a closed plugin format/store happening with any of the DAWs that currently host AU/VST. It wouldn't make sense for them and customers wouldn't like it. Then the last DAW left to keep AU/VST support would likely gain quite a few customers. Folks are arguably more entrenched in their plugins than there DAW in a lot of ways, if you think about it.

This makes sense for Reason because it is already a closed system. It's opening up a market that wasn't there before, not constricting an already flourishing market.

[sellyoursoul]

Just gonna chime in to say I (and the rest of the company I assume) really enjoy this discussion - very constructive! We take all feedback into account.

I want to stress that what you've seen is a technology preview, emphasis on preview - like Ernst said at the conference it's not quite ready. This means we have a LOT of info that's not out in public or to developers yet so we ask you to bare with us for a while. Furthermore, this is just the beginning of the format too so all feedback is incredibly valuable and we're all ears (and eyes).

In any case, really happy to see this kind of varied and often constructive response here at KVR too (I've lurked around here unregistered for quite some time) and great to see Sean giving his opinions and discussing this in an honest and open way. I think that benefits all in the end.

It's good to see someone from Props over here reading this stuff and taking it into consideration.