Upgrade to Live 9 (10) Suite for £191 OR get Bitwig for £265 (on sale)?

[Scotty]

It should be interesting how Bitwiggers like myself react to the $129.00 update fee. If you update this weekend for $129.00 you likely can update again this time next year for the same price. This verses $169.00 for the same licence update at anyother time of year . Hmmmm.

[pdxindy]

The first notion of "a years free updates" can be quickly discarded because you have just paid for them.

What is the point of version numbers anymore if it is no longer a significant upgrade ?

The "dribble update" model is,well, just plain boring. It lacks the pressure on developers to push the boat out with "wow" new features.

Bug fixes should be mandatory by law for a specified length of time.

Yeah, it would be more accurately said, "you get a year of updates without additional cost".

If Bitwig v2 had come out, and there was the more standard model, I would have received 2.0 and 2.1 and 2.2 would have been withheld (besides bug fixes) so that they can put enough features together for the next paid update. I'm sure before my 12 months runs out there will be a 2.3.

2.1 + 2.2 + 2.3 would then have been combined into the next paid upgrade and somewhere around a year after I purchased would have been offered to me for the price of say $169. The only way to get any of those features is to pay the fee.

As it is, I already have 2.1 and 2.2 features in hand and will get the 2.3 features when that update arrives. At that point my 12 months will be about expired and I have a choice... pay to keep my account 'current', or wait until subsequent updates arrive and see whether they have features valuable to me.

In terms of features, Bitwig's current model is working better for me (i.e. I get cool new stuff sooner when it is ready!) and my choices are more granular and not as all or nothing. The old model is likely better for bug fixes.

I like the new model. Of course I would prefer the price be $139, but the model itself is working pretty good for me as I get to use features I would not have had otherwise!

[pekbro]

Thats just it, when they came out with the new purchase model, they touted that you would only be compelled to upgrade if you wanted new features, implying that older versions would be maintained in working order, e.g. bug fixes. Mind you, they have never actually stated as much, assumingly to leave the door open. Even though they have never pinned themselves down on it, they seem to be proceeding in that manner.

My skepticism in regard to this, is mostly in the long term. I would be surprised if anyone who chooses to remain on an old version wont come to a point where maintenance for said version will be dropped, forcing them to upgrade. What remains to be seen is for how many versions, they can realistically keep this up.

BTW: You guys are mistaken if you think I'm not a fan of Bitwig, I am, I am also a fan of Live and own both.
I just see no reason to try and "soften" the choices they've made so far, or defend them. Bitwig is awesome IMHO, I have enough confidence in Bitwigs design not to try and make excuses for them. If they've made a choice I don't like, I intend to make it known so they can use that info to their benefit, one way or another.

Fanboys often don't realize that they are not really helping.

[Daags]

BTW: You guys are mistaken if you think I'm not a fan of Bitwig, I am, I am also a fan of Live and own both.
I just see no reason to try and "soften" the choices they've made so far, or defend them. Bitwig is awesome IMHO, I have enough confidence in Bitwigs design not to try and make excuses for them. If they've made a choice I don't like, I intend to make it known so they can use that info to their benefit, one way or another.

Fanboys often don't realize that they are not really helping.

[pdxindy]

Thats just it, when they came out with the new purchase model, they touted that you would only be compelled to upgrade if you wanted new features, implying that older versions would be maintained in working order, e.g. bug fixes. Mind you, they have never actually stated as much, assumingly to leave the door open. Even though they have never pinned themselves down on it, they seem to be proceeding in that manner.

My skepticism in regard to this, is mostly in the long term. I would be surprised if anyone who chooses to remain on an old version wont come to a point where maintenance for said version will be dropped, forcing them to upgrade. What remains to be seen is for how many versions, they can realistically keep this up.

BTW: You guys are mistaken if you think I'm not a fan of Bitwig, I am, I am also a fan of Live and own both.
I just see no reason to try and "soften" the choices they've made so far, or defend them. Bitwig is awesome IMHO, I have enough confidence in Bitwigs design not to try and make excuses for them. If they've made a choice I don't like, I intend to make it known so they can use that info to their benefit, one way or another.

Fanboys often don't realize that they are not really helping.

Just because someone is not unhappy with a choice that you are unhappy with does not make them a blind follower (which is what the term 'Fanboy' suggests). For them, there is nothing to soften or make excuses for because there is no problem in the first place.

So far, the Bitwig model is working well for me as I have access to features today that would have otherwise been withheld. That's a win for me!

[otherl]

More likely you have a technical problem preventing your system from running efficiently. The things a daw does are pretty much irrelevant resource-wise compared to the DSP code producing audio. My tests have been done with multiple instances of synths and fx plugins from various reputable developers representing a typical electronic music project. The test is relevant to my use case and conclusive for me and unless someone actually posts a credible, replicable test with different results, I'm content with sticking to reality, facts and results aligned with common sense.

Every line of code on top of the DSP code is an overhead, and that is a fact. You say it's irrelevant resource-wise, I say, yes, I can think of use cases where it's irrelevant, but in general it's very much relevant.

Reaper may have problems, but it's somewhat common knowledge that lighter on resources than most DAWs, and this is in align with my experiences. On all system, in every use case? Of course no, but most of the time.

As I can't post any performance test from your system, all I can say is, my tests have been done with multiple instances of synths and fx plugins from various reputable developers representing a typical electronic music project. The test is relevant to my use case and conclusive for me and unless someone actually posts a credible, replicable test with different results, I'm content with sticking to reality, facts and results aligned with common sense.

[rod_zero]

it isn't black or white, each models has its pro and advantages, definitely not seeing BW as bad as a subscription from Adobe or Slate. But I prefer Ableton model for the time being.

I do think old version maintenance will become a big problem for BW going forward, simply because the fragmentation of out of date users is going to be enormous in 4 -5 years. Especially problematic in macOS with the yearly updates.

[pdxindy]

I do think old version maintenance will become a big problem for BW going forward, simply because the fragmentation of out of date users is going to be enormous in 4 -5 years. Especially problematic in macOS with the yearly updates.

Why would they maintain older versions any more than other companies?

[Reefius]

I do think old version maintenance will become a big problem for BW going forward, simply because the fragmentation of out of date users is going to be enormous in 4 -5 years. Especially problematic in macOS with the yearly updates.

Why would they maintain older versions any more than other companies?

Let's say your year of free updates just ended, and you decide to wait to pay again because you're happy with the current state of Bitwig.
Then a big OS update comes along (which happens about every year) and after installing it Bitwig no longer works properly. You go to the Bitwig website and you see there's a new update to make it compatible with the updated OS. But to get this update you will need to pay $170 for another year of free updates.

See the problem here? It's an endless cycle forcing people to pay every year. To me this is a form of extortion.

[SLiC]

I do think old version maintenance will become a big problem for BW going forward, simply because the fragmentation of out of date users is going to be enormous in 4 -5 years. Especially problematic in macOS with the yearly updates.

Why would they maintain older versions any more than other companies?

Let's say your year of free updates just ended, and you decide to wait to pay again because you're happy with the current state of Bitwig.
Then a big OS update comes along (which happens about every year) and after installing it Bitwig no longer works properly. You go to the Bitwig website and you see there's a new update to make it compatible with the updated OS. But to get this update you will need to pay $170 for another year of free updates.

See the problem here? It's an endless cycle forcing people to pay every year. To me this is a form of extortion.

I don't see how that is different to any DAW- Are Live and Cubase supporting only V 8, Live 8, only supports up to OS X 10.9 Studio 1 not supporting version 2 etc....what's the difference? You will end up having to buy updates to keep current with O/S and even bug fixes for most DAWS. Bitwig have been supporting/updating '1 back' (Bitwig 1) which seems to be the standard for DAWS.

I remember being on Cubase 8 and having top pay quite a lot for the 8.5 update to get bug/feature fixes (and a lot of features I didn't want), how is that different?

There are lots of reasons to pick or not pick Bitwig as a DAW, but I don't think getting a year of free upgrades after you 'choose' to upgrade is one of them, especially as they have actually demonstrated that they are supporting previous version without subscription (surely this is the key point?) at least to the extent of other major DAW manufacturers who just charge in .5 or 1 increments to stay current.

[pdxindy]

I do think old version maintenance will become a big problem for BW going forward, simply because the fragmentation of out of date users is going to be enormous in 4 -5 years. Especially problematic in macOS with the yearly updates.

Why would they maintain older versions any more than other companies?

Let's say your year of free updates just ended, and you decide to wait to pay again because you're happy with the current state of Bitwig.
Then a big OS update comes along (which happens about every year) and after installing it Bitwig no longer works properly. You go to the Bitwig website and you see there's a new update to make it compatible with the updated OS. But to get this update you will need to pay $170 for another year of free updates.

See the problem here? It's an endless cycle forcing people to pay every year. To me this is a form of extortion.

As SLiC said, that is the case with lots of software... numerous times I have had to purchase a paid upgrade to get OS compatibility. But in addition to that, my guess is that if the update is an OS maintenance update (i.e. not a bigger update with new features) and your 12 months has just expired, Bitwig is gonna give it to you. They are decent people and are not trying to screw users over.

Also, you are making choices. For an audio production machine, there is no reason to be installing the latest OS each time it comes out. There are risks for doing that. Many people wait 6 months or a year or longer because their machine is working well.

So no, I don't see a problem.

[Reefius]

Sure you eventually need to upgrade every DAW to keep up with OS updates, but I rather pay $200 once every 3 to 5 years for a mature DAW like Ableton Live than $170 every year for a work in progress like Bitwig.

Even Cubase pricing is much more reasonable than Bitwig: I payed $50 for the 8 to 8.5 update, then about a year later $100 for the update to 9 and about another year later $60 for 9.5. That is between $50 and $100 a year for a DAW that has been around since the early 90's.

The main issue I have with Bitwig is that many of the built-in devices only have basic functionality. The sampler, for example, is a total joke compared to Ableton's Sampler or even Simpler. Timestretching in Bitwig sounds horrible because they use their own crappy algorithm, while other DAWs use Zplane's high quality Elastique. If you want mid/side EQ in Bitwig you need to use an extra mid/side splitter device and 2 separate EQ's, while in Live you can just use EQ8, set it to mid/side mode and you're set.
It's all these little things that make me wonder why anyone would pay $170 a year for it while they can get so much more functionality for less money by using another DAW.

[rod_zero]

I do think old version maintenance will become a big problem for BW going forward, simply because the fragmentation of out of date users is going to be enormous in 4 -5 years. Especially problematic in macOS with the yearly updates.

Why would they maintain older versions any more than other companies?

Let's say your year of free updates just ended, and you decide to wait to pay again because you're happy with the current state of Bitwig.
Then a big OS update comes along (which happens about every year) and after installing it Bitwig no longer works properly. You go to the Bitwig website and you see there's a new update to make it compatible with the updated OS. But to get this update you will need to pay $170 for another year of free updates.

See the problem here? It's an endless cycle forcing people to pay every year. To me this is a form of extortion.

As SLiC said, that is the case with lots of software... numerous times I have had to purchase a paid upgrade to get OS compatibility. But in addition to that, my guess is that if the update is an OS maintenance update (i.e. not a bigger update with new features) and your 12 months has just expired, Bitwig is gonna give it to you. They are decent people and are not trying to screw users over.

Also, you are making choices. For an audio production machine, there is no reason to be installing the latest OS each time it comes out. There are risks for doing that. Many people wait 6 months or a year or longer because their machine is working well.

So no, I don't see a problem.

That remains to be seen but it is exactly the problem going forward, how much good will? how much back that good will go?

When they announced the new model they stated they weren't going to leave users behind with versions that don't work on current OS. But I think they are not really thinking how much work and overhead it is going to cost them to maintain so many versions because the model they have chooosed will cause fragmentation. Other DAW developers only have to deal with their current version.

The other problem I see is the way they are trying to sell their update model, "you don't have to pay if you don't want, just wait for the next intereting update" it sounds cool but the reality is that as others have stated many times is not about "wanting" but "needing" to update for compatibility reasons.

[ThomasHelzle]

I give Bitwig the benefit of the doubt there.
So far AFAIK not such roadblock has happened for 1.x users, but ultimately - as has been said a lot of times before - the same can happen with every other software just the same, after a new major version is out.

I really am strongly averse to subscriptions, I did not go with Adobe CC for instance, even though I'm a graphics artist and used to use Adobe a LOT, I so far stayed with CS6, which is still running just fine for me and I have alternatives now that I can fall back upon.
But with Bitwig I just can't see that "evil spirit" that's assumed here and on many other similar threads.
Also, if Apple is the main concern as it seems, I can't see how Bitwig is responsible for them screwing up their OS once a year. Maybe better carry that bucket to where it belongs.

But this discussion won't solve this topic as did neither of the previous ones. If somebody is set to make a big deal out of it, that can't be helped. I personally am unable to get too excited about it and somehow seem to be unable to understand the problem people are having. If money is tight, go Reaper or MuLab or Ardour. If not, the decision should be more based on what inspires you IMO.

But hey, it's just my personal view of things and if somebody lives in dread of hypothetical future problems, that's definitely not good for the creative glands...

Cheers,

Tom

[SLiC]

Sure you eventually need to upgrade every DAW to keep up with OS updates, but I rather pay $200 once every 3 to 5 years for a mature DAW like Ableton Live than $170 every year for a work in progress like Bitwig.

Even Cubase pricing is much more reasonable than Bitwig: I payed $50 for the 8 to 8.5 update, then about a year later $100 for the update to 9 and about another year later $60 for 9.5. That is between $50 and $100 a year for a DAW that has been around since the early 90's.

The main issue I have with Bitwig is that many of the built-in devices only have basic functionality. The sampler, for example, is a total joke compared to Ableton's Sampler or even Simpler. Timestretching in Bitwig sounds horrible because they use their own crappy algorithm, while other DAWs use Zplane's high quality Elastique. If you want mid/side EQ in Bitwig you need to use an extra mid/side splitter device and 2 separate EQ's, while in Live you can just use EQ8, set it to mid/side mode and you're set.
It's all these little things that make me wonder why anyone would pay $170 a year for it while they can get so much more functionality for less money by using another DAW.

Seriously? I am a Live suite user: Simpler isn't even multilayer; it is the most basic sampler in any DAW I have come across. Bitwig sampler is far superior to simpler but Samper is better in some respects (although it costs 99 USD extra to Live Standard)