bitwig 2 is here

[incubus]

Boring. Ok, we've covered everything.

[ClubHo]

Maybe.
It's need or greed.

LOL.

[Daags]

@elxsound

they compared themselves to Adobe's creative cloud model ? ... I assume you must be perhaps misrepresenting them a little, or omitting the context this was said, because that would be rather insane since Bitwig are asking for the guts of 400 euro to begin with, followed by 160 euro a year.


the only palatable revision of this subscription idea, as far as I can tell, is a model that is tied in to features only. so you pay for software that is supposed to do X,Y,X in a stable way, and that is what they should deliver. but what seems clear is that Bitwig are determined to charge for these bugfixes and stability updates (despite stating the contrary when selling people V1). whatever backtracking or revision they may do in the upcoming weeks to the new payment model, I really don't see it boiling down to anything other than the user being expected to pay for bugfixes and updates. if they would yield to that point at all, and assure that whatever version you buy will be bug-fixed and updated until at the very least in an acceptably stable state .... well, they may as well scrap the whole controversial thing all together. because I think that's what it really boils down to ... they're spinning it in to a 'oh we can release features now as they're ready' ... but the reality is 'you buy the software expecting it to do X,Y,Z without problematic bugs or crashing frequently but we're going to keep charging you as many times as it takes until we can actually deliver that. if we even deliver it at all.'

[elxsound]

@elxsound

they compared themselves to Adobe's creative cloud model ? ... I assume you must be perhaps misrepresenting them a little, or omitting the context this was said, because that would be rather insane since Bitwig are asking for the guts of 400 euro to begin with, followed by 160 euro a year.


the only palatable revision of this subscription idea, as far as I can tell, is a model that is tied in to features only. so you pay for software that is supposed to do X,Y,X in a stable way, and that is what they should deliver. but what seems clear is that Bitwig are determined to charge for these bugfixes and stability updates (despite stating the contrary when selling people V1). whatever backtracking or revision they may do in the upcoming weeks to the new payment model, I really don't see it boiling down to anything other than the user being expected to pay for bugfixes and updates. if they would yield to that point at all, and assure that whatever version you buy will be bug-fixed and updated until at the very least in an acceptably stable state .... well, they may as well scrap the whole controversial thing all together. because I think that's what it really boils down to ... they're spinning it in to a 'oh we can release features now as they're ready' ... but the reality is 'you buy the software expecting it to do X,Y,Z, but we're going to keep charging you as many times as it takes until we can actually deliver that'

You are misunderstanding and jumping to a place I never went.

[Daags]

There's a reason I employed the question mark. it's an invitation for clarification - something you don't seem too interested in doing. what a pity.

It also seems they failed to research who else employees the same model (Avid) and only compared themselves to Adobe's model, when declaring it's not a subscription.

[elxsound]

There's a reason I employed the question mark. it's an invitation for clarification - something you don't seem too interested in doing. what a pity.

It also seems they failed to research who else employees the same model (Avid) and only compared themselves to Adobe's model, when declaring it's not a subscription.

You want me to clarify the word "seems?"

That would be a pity if I had to so.

[ghettosynth]

They can compare themselves to whomever they want, however, that comparison should be from all sides, not just the side that they want to sell to their customers. They aren't Adobe. They do not have an army of professional users who would give their left kidney to keep using photoshop, they aren't even close to becoming an industry standard for anything.

So, details of their pricing model aside, any comparison to Adobe or, frankly, even Avid, is misplaced. I'm not even sure that it's reasonable to compare them to Props.

I can't speak for everyone else, but, IMO, it's not really valid to compare their pricing model to other established companies who have survived many major update cycles. They are coming up on their first major update cycle and they are trying to move from an underdog pricing model to a premium pricing model without delivering on the features that they've made such a big deal about in the past.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but, I suspect that there are quite a few fence sitters who thought that Bitwig had a good idea but were waiting to see that idea realized in version 2.0. IMO, it's really bad that it's not even there, but, it's worse that they're bungling the release in multiple ways. What it speaks to is that they haven't learned from their initial bungled release and that they aren't likely to learn anytime soon.

They're not Adobe, or Ableton, if you want a comparison, they do seem a bit like dsprobotics (SynthMaker/FlowStone) except that their product doesn't have that cross market appeal.

[fmr]

They're not Adobe, or Ableton, if you want a comparison, they do seem a bit like dsprobotics (SynthMaker/FlowStone) except that their product doesn't have that cross market appeal.

Agree.. IMO, Bitwig is still in the "garage workbench" status. Definitely not in the "industry manufacture" status. And they seem to be abandoning what was the main reason of appeal to me (the modular concept that would be available to the users in the next version).

[mesfigas]

They can compare themselves to whomever they want, however, that comparison should be from all sides, not just the side that they want to sell to their customers. They aren't Adobe. They do not have an army of professional users who would give their left kidney to keep using photoshop, they aren't even close to becoming an industry standard for anything.

So, details of their pricing model aside, any comparison to Adobe or, frankly, even Avid, is misplaced. I'm not even sure that it's reasonable to compare them to Props.

I can't speak for everyone else, but, IMO, it's not really valid to compare their pricing model to other established companies who have survived many major update cycles. They are coming up on their first major update cycle and they are trying to move from an underdog pricing model to a premium pricing model without delivering on the features that they've made such a big deal about in the past.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but, I suspect that there are quite a few fence sitters who thought that Bitwig had a good idea but were waiting to see that idea realized in version 2.0. IMO, it's really bad that it's not even there, but, it's worse that they're bungling the release in multiple ways. What it speaks to is that they haven't learned from their initial bungled release and that they aren't likely to learn anytime soon.

They're not Adobe, or Ableton, if you want a comparison, they do seem a bit like dsprobotics (SynthMaker/FlowStone) except that their product doesn't have that cross market appeal.

I agree
i believe that if that company create a "low profile" i mean how much they ask for their product and how much they ask for the update,then they will make many users very happy
cause bitwig seems a nice DAW it feels like ableton with more standard features,
on the other hand if they feel like they can go head to head with giants like cubase or pro tools o.k fine its their decision but the reality will prove the opposite.
that's my opinion

[SLiC]

I was one of the people who upgraded to flowstone as the developer promised 64 bit VST support.....it never ever happened.....

[Daags]

There's a reason I employed the question mark. it's an invitation for clarification - something you don't seem too interested in doing. what a pity.

It also seems they failed to research who else employees the same model (Avid) and only compared themselves to Adobe's model, when declaring it's not a subscription.

You want me to clarify the word "seems?"

That would be a pity if I had to so.

... I want you to clarify the sentence, obviously. but you're incapable, or don't want to because it makes you look stupid ? I don't know why else you'd be so reluctant to clarify (while simultaneously claiming you are being misunderstood/misrepresented).

At any rate, whoever compared their proposed plan to Adobe's creative cloud is retarded. At least that sentence should be clear enough. And getting the impression that 'they made that comparison themselves' would be just as bad, for all the reasons I outlined in my previous post on that topic. And as ghettosynth seems to have pointed out now too.

cheers.

[Daags]

They can compare themselves to whomever they want, however, that comparison should be from all sides, not just the side that they want to sell to their customers. They aren't Adobe. They do not have an army of professional users who would give their left kidney to keep using photoshop, they aren't even close to becoming an industry standard for anything.

So, details of their pricing model aside, any comparison to Adobe or, frankly, even Avid, is misplaced. I'm not even sure that it's reasonable to compare them to Props.

I can't speak for everyone else, but, IMO, it's not really valid to compare their pricing model to other established companies who have survived many major update cycles. They are coming up on their first major update cycle and they are trying to move from an underdog pricing model to a premium pricing model without delivering on the features that they've made such a big deal about in the past.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but, I suspect that there are quite a few fence sitters who thought that Bitwig had a good idea but were waiting to see that idea realized in version 2.0. IMO, it's really bad that it's not even there, but, it's worse that they're bungling the release in multiple ways. What it speaks to is that they haven't learned from their initial bungled release and that they aren't likely to learn anytime soon.

They're not Adobe, or Ableton, if you want a comparison, they do seem a bit like dsprobotics (SynthMaker/FlowStone) except that their product doesn't have that cross market appeal.

bingo.

[liquidsound]

Ableton 16M/250 employees
BWS 1.4M/10 employees
No bad.

[Rappo Clappo]

Any way, 2.0 must be really something, because in business optimism cannot be confused with opportunism. That is one thing I learned from doing business.

[liquidsound]

They are cause and effect as well.