Open letter to companies still using iLok ( looking at you Slate Digital )

[jancivil]

the simple fact that there are people (companies) that depend on the software to make their own living (think commercial studios). If some stupid copy protection system gets in the way of that, it's a real problem instead of 'just not liking iLok'.

If there is a systems-critical user of something on an iLok, and they saw the iLok 2 and mindlessly installed it, to get a couple of new conveniences? They're inept. That's just stupid. I would know better. This is REALLY basic, don't update if you've a job on the line and you aren't sure.

In time they sorted it out. Obviously this was an horrendous botch job, I'm not a fan of iLok or Pace, but that argument isn't very good.

[conleec]

So you have to spend all of that time installing 70+ pieces of software in every studio you use? Do you also uninstall all of that software the studio did not ask to have installed on their system after you are done?

This is why I do everything on a laptop. It is portable, and not only do I not have to spend time installing software, but I get to take my whole working computer environment with me along with any necessary projects and files which I can dock anywhere... and I know it will work without having to worry about any problems like OS upgrades for whichever software you want to install too. That seems to make a bit more sense.

I install what I need to. Fact is, most of the plugins I use are already installed at most studios...because they all use iLok. It's pretty easy in Pro Tools to move unlicensed plugins into the unused folder, so if I leave something stray behind, the next person who launches can just tell it to go away.

Also, I don't really have to bother trying to remember what licenses I own, because they're all neatly collected right on my iLok. No spreadsheets. No scribbled lists.

As I said, you're free to pack around your laptop as a dongle, I'd rather put an iLok in my pocket. Honestly, it's the same thing as you describe it, except that mine is smaller and I have protection thru them in the event that I lose mine.

And the the user who just said iLok's server is down, that's simply not true. I'm using it right now. Are you updated to their new software? Outside of the glitches during their recent switch to a new front-end, iLok has been absolutely trouble free for me.

To each their own.

Chris Conlee

[zakufan]

So you have to spend all of that time installing 70+ pieces of software in every studio you use? Do you also uninstall all of that software the studio did not ask to have installed on their system after you are done?

This is why I do everything on a laptop. It is portable, and not only do I not have to spend time installing software, but I get to take my whole working computer environment with me along with any necessary projects and files which I can dock anywhere... and I know it will work without having to worry about any problems like OS upgrades for whichever software you want to install too. That seems to make a bit more sense.

I install what I need to. Fact is, most of the plugins I use are already installed at most studios...because they all use iLok. It's pretty easy in Pro Tools to move unlicensed plugins into the unused folder, so if I leave something stray behind, the next person who launches can just tell it to go away.

Also, I don't really have to bother trying to remember what licenses I own, because they're all neatly collected right on my iLok. No spreadsheets. No scribbled lists.

As I said, you're free to pack around your laptop as a dongle, I'd rather put an iLok in my pocket. Honestly, it's the same thing as you describe it, except that mine is smaller and I have protection thru them in the event that I lose mine.

And the the user who just said iLok's server is down, that's simply not true. I'm using it right now. Are you updated to their new software? Outside of the glitches during their recent switch to a new front-end, iLok has been absolutely trouble free for me.

To each their own.

Chris Conlee

This is the screen I just got and I am using license manager ver. 2.2.2.377

[djanthonyw]

So you have to spend all of that time installing 70+ pieces of software in every studio you use? Do you also uninstall all of that software the studio did not ask to have installed on their system after you are done?

This is why I do everything on a laptop. It is portable, and not only do I not have to spend time installing software, but I get to take my whole working computer environment with me along with any necessary projects and files which I can dock anywhere... and I know it will work without having to worry about any problems like OS upgrades for whichever software you want to install too. That seems to make a bit more sense.

I install what I need to. Fact is, most of the plugins I use are already installed at most studios...because they all use iLok. It's pretty easy in Pro Tools to move unlicensed plugins into the unused folder, so if I leave something stray behind, the next person who launches can just tell it to go away.

Also, I don't really have to bother trying to remember what licenses I own, because they're all neatly collected right on my iLok. No spreadsheets. No scribbled lists.

As I said, you're free to pack around your laptop as a dongle, I'd rather put an iLok in my pocket. Honestly, it's the same thing as you describe it, except that mine is smaller and I have protection thru them in the event that I lose mine.

And the the user who just said iLok's server is down, that's simply not true. I'm using it right now. Are you updated to their new software? Outside of the glitches during their recent switch to a new front-end, iLok has been absolutely trouble free for me.

To each their own.

Chris Conlee

It's really not the same thing though. Even if the given studio has all of the software you use pre installed you still have to deal with project files and any settings you are accustom to. When you start to factor in that there is not just one type of dongle, this gets to be even more of a hassle. Being able to carry around my whole computer working environment is definitely not the same as what a dongle offers, which is just copy protection. My laptop does a lot of things, while a dongle does one thing, which myself and many others do not view as a blessing.

I also don't use excel sheets or scribble notes to tell me what software I have. There's no need to if everything is right on the laptop and setup, ready to use as it was when I am home or away. I also just keep my software installations backed up on two mirrored external drives organized by dev / product. So, even in the instance where I reinstall my software on a new computer or OS upgrade, there are still no spreadsheets involved.

[iainduncan]

People are IMHO really confusing a lot of issues here. I'm not telling anyone not to use iLoks if they like it. I'm not saying piracy doesn't happen. I'm saying that I think it's a poor business decision to protect $250 dollar software with iLok, because too many people will choose alternatives. The market of indy producers is exploding, and many many of them are making money and buying legit software. In my world (underground electronic), basically no one uses iLok products and companies who market the way we expect it are doing well.

A simple thought experiment shows that regardless of what happens to sales when a crack comes out, iLok is not *necessary* to run a successful company, and I argue, not even optimal.

Native Instruments, Logic Audio, and Ableton *don't use iLok*. They are hugely successful. NI and Ableton are moving boatloads of $500 products by ignoring the piracy problem, knowing that this years pirates are the customers they want in 5-10 years. They are in growth mode, NI is hiring like crazy. And on the small boutique scale ( in line with Slate say ), U-he doesn't use iLok, and he's growing too.

Clearly, this proves beyond a doubt that you don't *need* onerous schemes like iLok to sell software. And I believe ( as they obviously do too) that is not even optimal, that the sales you chase away by being part of the supposed High End iLok'd clique are more valuable than the losses to piracy.

I am very simply saying "hey you lost my business over this".

iain

[Shy]

You say "it's a poor business decision" and yet more than enough companies have found out for themselves that it's a great business decision for them. They have actual data, too. This can go on forever with people saying companies screw potential customers (including them), while well over 99% of users of some (I'd guess most) plugins that have been cracked "pirated" it. And now comes the "not everyone who pirated it would have bought it anyway, and piracy often helps popularity and sales". Yes that's right, but apparently it usually has little, if not essentially nothing to do with actual sales of actual plugins.

[AudioGuy720]

Read that Slate email I posted above and tell me that preventing piracy didn't translate into more sales. You cannot argue with the facts.

I read it, and I simply don't agree with the notion that is brought forward there. From my point of perspective, the music business is basically going to die and is being replaced by home-studio owners that distribute their music over the net instead of through big record companies. If you are operating in this changing demagogic (as Steven Slate is doing) you can focus on the constantly shrinking market of professional users, or get with the program (as I see it) and understand that the future of music-software is in the bedroom. Only companies like Avid (Protools) will survive in the high-end sector of this market, simply by market-share alone. Everyone else (including audio hardware companies) are shifting their market strategies accordingly.

So it's basically about price-point (one of the 5 P's in marketing); you price accordingly to market segment. So back at my previous point: if you price your product towards professional segments, you won't get additional sales from hobbyists (where the most cracks are used) by dongling-up your software. It just doesn't translate marketing-wise.

I'm pretty sure Steven Slate would see a whole lot more sales from targeting bedroom-producers (by using a lower price-point), then by iLok-ing his products. Mind you, in sharp contrast with copy-protection schemes, lowering prices have only positive connotations. And if he is worried about getting in less money from professionals that way, there's always dual licensing like e.g. Cockos uses for Reaper.

A small note on my perspective here: I'm owning a small business myself with a few people in my employment. I'm in IT (we develop software ) and my company also has to scramble constantly to keep afloat in the current economic situation. So I do somewhat know what I'm talking about

Everything that you wrote there is speculation, vis a vis Slate's customers.

Go check out their Facebook page and see who their users are. People from all walks of life...the vast majority male. Across the world, across age groups and economic strata. Slate Digital's price points are good for the home studio user and the professional. The lower-grade price point comes during sales times. And the most important part? No one is free loading.

Did everyone see that news story about Wal-Mart's shelves being emptied when food stamp cards were glitched? Yeah...that's people free loading and it's the same thing in the digital world. http://gma.yahoo.com/walmart-shelves-em ... ories.html

As a student of Michael Port's "Book Yourself Solid" system, I think that Slate Digital is a case study in how to do things right as a small business. I wouldn't doubt that "Book Yourself Solid" and a few of its spin-offs aren't sitting on Steven's bookshelf right now. It's a great system to run a business by.

[hibidy]

Slate knows what side his bread is buttered on. SSD is NOT ilok protected. You can't say it's not cracked. These other plugs are "boutique" and being a pretty sharp cookie realizes that that market will accept the ilok paradigm. I think there are some who don't realize just how many people use ilok.

[jancivil]

A simple thought experiment shows that regardless of what happens to sales when a crack comes out, iLok is not *necessary* to run a successful company, and I argue, not even optimal.

no, that doesn't *show* that, that is just an opinion but you're using some lingo as if to make it seem like more. What thought experiment is that? I think you're saying if we think like you do, we'd get it.

There is in this actual thread Slate's statements regarding his business decision. The piracy if not countered will have put them out of business altogether. So he thought it was necessary to make a move, it was this move, in order to have any business at all. But your dislike of this method is just so right, clearly it must mean you know better. This is your foundation here.

BTW, me remarking on you telling us you were a pirate in your initial remarks, as a bona fides ('See, I'm legit!') - me, I think it's a given that we do not steal the software - is not what an ad hominem does. Ad hominem means 'your argument is bad because you're a bad person', as a fallacious approach. I remarked it was kind of funny, 'precious' to have to announce that. That tells you my opinion about What You Said.

I've had exactly one show-stopper from copy-protection, and it had to do with servers being down. I had more than the three authorizations for my BFD2, which my system did not care about until one day I cleaned my system. I was using but one. I was down for over four days behind that, requiring them to manage my auths. OTOH, I have broken a 9 year old dongle and Steinberg and VSL were both on the ball and there was a few hours of downtime that wasn't mission-critical fortunately.

I sold Nebula because one day the thing wasn't aware of the serial file /crash/ and here is at least a couple of days waiting for an individual to get back to me, and some more back-and-forth as per my experience since this was the third time. I understand when something is too inconvenient to bother with, I do.

I would not however, out of an anecdote - let alone your theoretical positions - want to try some overarching argument about how this or the other thing is absolutely the only way. You've stated your point-of-view. I don't share it and the very fact of yet another thread to argue about teh dongles was off-putting. Your arguments don't seem so well-founded but I understand your POV.

[conleec]

The other argument to be made here, is that some developers are protecting THEIR CUSTOMERS by protecting their software. Some of this software is a secret weapon for people who have paid for it. They don't want EVERYBODY using the same tools. It takes away their competitive advantage. It's not always about the developers needs. Just some food for thought.

Chris Conlee

[djanthonyw]

A simple thought experiment shows that regardless of what happens to sales when a crack comes out, iLok is not *necessary* to run a successful company, and I argue, not even optimal.

no, that doesn't *show* that, that is just an opinion but you're using some lingo as if to make it seem like more. What thought experiment is that? I think you're saying if we think like you do, we'd get it.

There is in this actual thread Slate's statements regarding his business decision. The piracy if not countered will have put them out of business altogether. So he thought it was necessary to make a move, it was this move, in order to have any business at all. But your dislike of this method is just so right, clearly it must mean you know better. This is your foundation here.

BTW, me remarking on you telling us you were a pirate in your initial remarks, as a bona fides ('See, I'm legit!') - me, I think it's a given that we do not steal the software - is not what an ad hominem does. Ad hominem means 'your argument is bad because you're a bad person', as a fallacious approach. I remarked it was kind of funny, 'precious' to have to announce that. That tells you my opinion about What You Said.

I've had exactly one show-stopper from copy-protection, and it had to do with servers being down. I had more than the three authorizations for my BFD2, which my system did not care about until one day I cleaned my system. I was using but one. I was down for over four days behind that, requiring them to manage my auths. OTOH, I have broken a 9 year old dongle and Steinberg and VSL were both on the ball and there was a few hours of downtime that wasn't mission-critical fortunately.

I sold Nebula because one day the thing wasn't aware of the serial file /crash/ and here is at least a couple of days waiting for an individual to get back to me, and some more back-and-forth as per my experience since this was the third time. I understand when something is too inconvenient to bother with, I do.

I would not however, out of an anecdote - let alone your theoretical positions - want to try some overarching argument about how this or the other thing is absolutely the only way. You've stated your point-of-view. I don't share it and the very fact of yet another thread to argue about teh dongles was off-putting. Your arguments don't seem so well-founded but I understand your POV.

What iainduncan is saying is that if there are sucessful developers around such as u-he, who do not depend on copy protection which can be a burden for some, then other developers do not have any excuses to base their decision of copy protection on piracy.

Companies that focus their energy on paying customers will always be more successful than companies focusing on piracy unless those companies are Pace, Codemeter, ect...

[conleec]

Companies that focus their energy on paying customers will always be more successful than companies focusing on piracy unless those companies are Pace, Codemeter, ect...

Always is a very big word. And what about the argument that many PAYING CUSTOMERS don't appreciate every slimy pirate running the same software they spent good money buying to put them at a competitive advantage? There is more than one reason for copy protection.

Chris Conlee

[whyterabbyt]

A simple thought experiment shows that regardless of what happens to sales when a crack comes out, iLok is not *necessary* to run a successful company, and I argue, not even optimal.

no, that doesn't *show* that, that is just an opinion but you're using some lingo as if to make it seem like more. What thought experiment is that? I think you're saying if we think like you do, we'd get it.

There is in this actual thread Slate's statements regarding his business decision. The piracy if not countered will have put them out of business altogether. So he thought it was necessary to make a move, it was this move, in order to have any business at all. But your dislike of this method is just so right, clearly it must mean you know better. This is your foundation here.

BTW, me remarking on you telling us you were a pirate in your initial remarks, as a bona fides ('See, I'm legit!') - me, I think it's a given that we do not steal the software - is not what an ad hominem does. Ad hominem means 'your argument is bad because you're a bad person', as a fallacious approach. I remarked it was kind of funny, 'precious' to have to announce that. That tells you my opinion about What You Said.

I've had exactly one show-stopper from copy-protection, and it had to do with servers being down. I had more than the three authorizations for my BFD2, which my system did not care about until one day I cleaned my system. I was using but one. I was down for over four days behind that, requiring them to manage my auths. OTOH, I have broken a 9 year old dongle and Steinberg and VSL were both on the ball and there was a few hours of downtime that wasn't mission-critical fortunately.

I sold Nebula because one day the thing wasn't aware of the serial file /crash/ and here is at least a couple of days waiting for an individual to get back to me, and some more back-and-forth as per my experience since this was the third time. I understand when something is too inconvenient to bother with, I do.

I would not however, out of an anecdote - let alone your theoretical positions - want to try some overarching argument about how this or the other thing is absolutely the only way. You've stated your point-of-view. I don't share it and the very fact of yet another thread to argue about teh dongles was off-putting. Your arguments don't seem so well-founded but I understand your POV.

What iainduncan is saying is that if there are sucessful developers around such as u-he, who do not depend on copy protection which can be a burden for some, then other developers do not have any excuses to base their decision of copy protection on piracy.

Companies that focus their energy on paying customers will always be more successful than companies focusing on piracy unless those companies are Pace, Codemeter, ect...

Except u-he do have a certain amount of focus on protection against piracy; not only that but their focus on it seems to be a -good- thing for them (you did read Urs' recent thread on ACE sales didn't you?)

[djanthonyw]

Companies that focus their energy on paying customers will always be more successful than companies focusing on piracy unless those companies are Pace, Codemeter, ect...

Always is a very big word. And what about the argument that many PAYING CUSTOMERS don't appreciate every slimy pirate running the same software they spent good money buying to put them at a competitive advantage? There is more than one reason for copy protection.

Chris Conlee

If a user feels their "competitive advantage" is gone, then they are focusing on the wrong thing as well.

[Shy]

A simple thought experiment shows that regardless of what happens to sales when a crack comes out, iLok is not *necessary* to run a successful company, and I argue, not even optimal.

no, that doesn't *show* that, that is just an opinion but you're using some lingo as if to make it seem like more. What thought experiment is that? I think you're saying if we think like you do, we'd get it.

There is in this actual thread Slate's statements regarding his business decision. The piracy if not countered will have put them out of business altogether. So he thought it was necessary to make a move, it was this move, in order to have any business at all. But your dislike of this method is just so right, clearly it must mean you know better. This is your foundation here.

BTW, me remarking on you telling us you were a pirate in your initial remarks, as a bona fides ('See, I'm legit!') - me, I think it's a given that we do not steal the software - is not what an ad hominem does. Ad hominem means 'your argument is bad because you're a bad person', as a fallacious approach. I remarked it was kind of funny, 'precious' to have to announce that. That tells you my opinion about What You Said.

I've had exactly one show-stopper from copy-protection, and it had to do with servers being down. I had more than the three authorizations for my BFD2, which my system did not care about until one day I cleaned my system. I was using but one. I was down for over four days behind that, requiring them to manage my auths. OTOH, I have broken a 9 year old dongle and Steinberg and VSL were both on the ball and there was a few hours of downtime that wasn't mission-critical fortunately.

I sold Nebula because one day the thing wasn't aware of the serial file /crash/ and here is at least a couple of days waiting for an individual to get back to me, and some more back-and-forth as per my experience since this was the third time. I understand when something is too inconvenient to bother with, I do.

I would not however, out of an anecdote - let alone your theoretical positions - want to try some overarching argument about how this or the other thing is absolutely the only way. You've stated your point-of-view. I don't share it and the very fact of yet another thread to argue about teh dongles was off-putting. Your arguments don't seem so well-founded but I understand your POV.

What iainduncan is saying is that if there are sucessful developers around such as u-he, who do not depend on copy protection which can be a burden for some, then other developers do not have any excuses to base their decision of copy protection on piracy.

Companies that focus their energy on paying customers will always be more successful than companies focusing on piracy unless those companies are Pace, Codemeter, ect...

So you're claiming companies like Steinberg, AVID, VSL, Algorithmix, Synthogy, Eventide, are unsuccessful? You're wrong.
Also, wanting working copy protection doesn't go against wanting satisfied customers, and companies like u-he which you mention have invested a huge amount of time on refining and making sure their copy protection works.