You're making lots of assumptions about the relationship between MOTU and UVI. MOTU could have had a X year exclusive on the UVI engine (excluding the player/workstation). Otherwise why no direct M5 competition all these years, even from UVI themselves?Hans25 wrote:But UVI has developed everything for Machfive now haven't they? So when they upgrade the engine and cut the relationship with Motu that makes Machfive customers left with a product that won't be updated no matter if it was purchased 2 weeks ago. Didn't UVI earn on Machfive customers?GospelMusicians wrote:I don't think some of you guys understand business licensing and how it works.
Flash forward. UVI can continue the relationship, or go a different route. Meanwhile, MOTU has been SITTING on M5 updates for years. How does UVI benefit from a stale product? You can't have revenue without sales. UVI tells MOTU: if YOU'RE not going to make M5 a priority, then we'll do it ourselves, and you guys can suck it. Go sell hardware for all we care.
Or M5v4 was ready to go and either UVI or MOTU wanted a bigger cut.
Or the exclusive expired, and UVI just took complete ownership of the platform to cash is themselves.
I'm thinking it might br something closer to the first thing. But who knows. Point is: why place blame/assign responsibility when you don't exactly why things are the way they are?

