Is propellerhead the next cakewalk?

[chk071]

Um, yes. Bro. It's on page 2. Bro.

[Jace-BeOS]

For me it's about credibility. At least I except some long term vision when I purchase a software license. A vision that a company has to live up to IMO

Indeed. That's why i never got why people asked for VST support in Reason. Has ZERO to do with their vision. And you can be sure that Ernst Nathorst-Böös would have never signed it off without the new investors in his back.

Someone from Propellerhead posted here that the VST support was in the works for a while PRIOR to the investment discussions.

[chk071]

Supposedly, they had it in the drawer since 2004 or so. But, why did they never implemented it then? For me, the answer is clear: It was not the vision they had for their software. Right from the very beginning, they marketed Reason as a cost-effective replacement for a whole hardware studio, which works in-the-box out of the box. I really never saw VST support as something which fit to the program, or which they really wanted for Reason. Frankly, i still don't see how it fits, but, obviously the new investors see it as a worthy enhancement.

[softska]

Supposedly, they had it in the drawer since 2004 or so. But, why did they never implemented it then? For me, the answer is clear: It was not the vision they had for their software. Right from the very beginning, they marketed Reason as a cost-effective replacement for a whole hardware studio, which works in-the-box out of the box. I really never saw VST support as something which fit to the program, or which they really wanted for Reason. Frankly, i still don't see how it fits, but, obviously the new investors see it as a worthy enhancement.

Agreed, but it's a hard sell to new users without that capability (especially the segment that only wants to use the "hottest" synth XYZ)

[Image-Line]

Supposedly, they had it in the drawer since 2004 or so. But, why did they never implemented it then? For me, the answer is clear: It was not the vision they had for their software. Right from the very beginning, they marketed Reason as a cost-effective replacement for a whole hardware studio, which works in-the-box out of the box. I really never saw VST support as something which fit to the program, or which they really wanted for Reason. Frankly, i still don't see how it fits, but, obviously the new investors see it as a worthy enhancement.

Agreed, but it's a hard sell to new users without that capability (especially the segment that only wants to use the "hottest" synth XYZ)

This is an excellent point. In the early days the plugins that came with Reason were state of the art and it really was not a problem. But long-term you can't compete with an open standard and 10,000's of innovative developers. We have entered the era (largely thanks to YouTube) of the VST as 'must have' celebrity

From a developers perspective however, not having to support VSTs is a huge benefit to system stability and reliability. Also, when VSTs crash users always blame the DAW, never the plugin. There is a lot to be said for working in-the-box. Historically, there is a reason (no pun intended), Reason has such a good reputation with its users.

Regards Scott

[firepile]

I am curious what other users are predicting.

They seem to be doing OK: https://www.allabolag.se/5565462206/pro ... aktiebolag

[Jace-BeOS]

Supposedly, they had it in the drawer since 2004 or so. But, why did they never implemented it then? For me, the answer is clear: It was not the vision they had for their software. Right from the very beginning, they marketed Reason as a cost-effective replacement for a whole hardware studio, which works in-the-box out of the box. I really never saw VST support as something which fit to the program, or which they really wanted for Reason. Frankly, i still don't see how it fits, but, obviously the new investors see it as a worthy enhancement.

So you think that VST support would not have been added without the investors' pushing for it, and any statement from Propellerhead people that it was in the pipeline before the investors came around is disingenuous?

[Coxy]

I am curious what other users are predicting.

They seem to be doing OK: https://www.allabolag.se/5565462206/pro ... aktiebolag

What is your interpretation of those yearly statements?

[chk071]

Supposedly, they had it in the drawer since 2004 or so. But, why did they never implemented it then? For me, the answer is clear: It was not the vision they had for their software. Right from the very beginning, they marketed Reason as a cost-effective replacement for a whole hardware studio, which works in-the-box out of the box. I really never saw VST support as something which fit to the program, or which they really wanted for Reason. Frankly, i still don't see how it fits, but, obviously the new investors see it as a worthy enhancement.

So you think that VST support would not have been added without the investors' pushing for it, and any statement from Propellerhead people that it was in the pipeline before the investors came around is disingenuous?

If you take a look at how long VST support was "in the pipeline", then, yep, I think it's pretty safe to say that it only has been added because the investors pushed it.

I think Ernst Nathorst-Böös even said "When hell freezes over" once.

[gas pump]

Supposedly, they had it in the drawer since 2004 or so. But, why did they never implemented it then? For me, the answer is clear: It was not the vision they had for their software. Right from the very beginning, they marketed Reason as a cost-effective replacement for a whole hardware studio, which works in-the-box out of the box. I really never saw VST support as something which fit to the program, or which they really wanted for Reason. Frankly, i still don't see how it fits, but, obviously the new investors see it as a worthy enhancement.

So you think that VST support would not have been added without the investors' pushing for it, and any statement from Propellerhead people that it was in the pipeline before the investors came around is disingenuous?

Marketing departments, 3rd Party Resellers, Advertisers and Affiliated Employees will always try to spin any information to help benefit their company's image. Half the game is history and reputation, if you can get them believing positive things about a company, it can translate to revenue $$$ (ex. Stock Market). The other half of the equation is actually delivering on the promises for a lifetime.

[sfxsound3]

Supposedly, they had it in the drawer since 2004 or so.

It shouldn't be hard to implement. For example, the tracker Jeskola Buzz has its own plugin format, but can also load vst plugins via Polac's VST Adapter. Buzz is freeware, and had the functionality several years before 2004. I remember - was using it myself.

So Propellerheads implementing VST in 2016-17 is not about them overcoming some technical limitations. The way I see it, it's about milking things. First they were milking refills. That went downhill because those had zero protection - easy to pirate, and sample banks are not that attractive anyway. Then - milking Record. Then - REs. Those were protected but obviously not a big success. So the question was - what to milk next? Are we falling behind? Yes we are! OK, let us NOW bring the VSTs! Hopefully this will earn us some bucks for a version or two. What will they try to milk next? Let's wait some years and see.......

[chk071]

Frankly, I wouldn't call it milking though. It's business, simply.

[highkoo]

Or, flailing, alternatively.

[chk071]

It's just interesting that it is called "milking" when everyone is buying. It's not like you need it, to stay alive, or something.

[BMoore]

"Milking it" has nothing to do with survival of the consumer.