Catalina: Apple turns macOS into a closed platform; many audio-devs warned from the upgrade

[fmr]

I slowly feel the strong urge to get rid of all my u-he licenses.

Let's not go that way, please.

Urs is a wonderful guy, and is doing a terrific job, in Windows as well as in macOS.

I can understand his feelings. He started in macOS many years ago, when the AU format first appeared, and was one of the first third party developers for that format, as well as an "evangelizer" (is this a word?).

Of course he feels attached to the platform. I am attached to the platform too (I have been working with Macs for more than thirty years already), but I feel angry at Apple for a long time, because of some private matters. So, I am not at all in a "forgiving" mood.

[mladi]

Nah, just kidding! Urs is one of the best developers on earth and i will always buy & support u-he!

..on windows..

[hivkorn]

+1
Urs deserve respect regarding to his work.

[fmr]

+1
Urs deserve respect regarding to his work.

Certainly, and I consider him a friend. We just happen to disagree on this matter. No big deal

[hivkorn]

Maybe someone could tell us (to us the "not english native language " ) with simple words, as a osx user, what will change for us ? No more 32 bits plugins...okay i lose my vanguard and sold my SO LOVED tone2 warmverb licence but what s more ?

[fmr]

Maybe someone could tell us (to us the "not english native language " ) with simple words, as a osx user, what will change for us ? No more 32 bits plugins...okay i lose my vanguard and sold my SO LOVED tone2 warmverb licence but what s more ?

In a few months, many plug-ins (64-bit) already installed may stop working, until the vendors issue versions properly "notarized". At lest that's what I understood. This will only happen in those systems that have been "upgraded" (the software was already installed). New installers only work if "notarized".

But why would you install Catalina?

[perpetual3]

“Brought menaces?” What does that even mean?

English is not my first language, but i think you understood what that means

No, I don’t understand what you mean. I can’t imagine what is “menacing” or threatening or whatever else you could have meant about my response to a developer who wishes to no longer support me as a customer and possibly future customer as well.

[hivkorn]

I will not upgrade my os, it is too stable to be fixed.
I don t understand the fear behind notarized, do you really think apple could block some dev ? It is not a good deal for them, if people go to window the sale of their computer will fall...TBH if something like that happen i will take my ilok and cubase dongle and go to windows and it will change nothing for me, the only things that would keep me far is the end of perpetual licence,no way i rent a plugin...

[fmr]

No, I don’t understand what you mean. I can’t imagine what is “menacing” or threatening or whatever else you could have meant about my response to a developer who wishes to no longer support me as a customer and possibly future customer as well.

See? You understood perfectly what I meant. I will explain:

Fabien told that he will probably HAVE TO change the perpetual license policy regarding the macOS platform, charging a signature fee, or an upgrade fee, to which you replied that he will lose you as a customer.

That, to me, is menacing (or threatening, if you prefer). Regarding my wording, here is what https://hinative.com/en-US/questions/257159 says:

"You can think of menace as a more harsher yet subtle way of saying threaten."

I know the verb isn't as commonly used as To Threat, but I wasn't remembering the latter, and menace is closer to my language (and the meaning is basically the same).

[Etienne1973]

Maybe someone could tell us (to us the "not english native language " ) with simple words, as a osx user, what will change for us ?

Explained in the 1st post of this same thread:
viewtopic.php?f=33&t=533365

[marzelli]

WHICH IS APPLE FAULT, ENTIRELY.

I would really love to know how 3 lines on the command line are such a hardship that some developers get to these crazy conclusions. Because that really is the penultimate difference Catalina makes for most plug-in developers, in terms of workload.

(some developers have spent more time ranting about it here than it would actually have taken to get things over with)

Very obviously it is one thing to add 3 lines of code, a whole different story to make it validate successfully and another one to have it mandatory. I'm a bit surprised that someone whos against all kind of "making money with copy protection" and being dependent of the will of 3rd parties, gives up some freedom without difficulties for a company that introduced some sort of mandatory copy protection which doesn't even work properly because you either can already disable it on the client side or can loosen it up on the application side...

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

No, I don’t understand what you mean. I can’t imagine what is “menacing” or threatening or whatever else you could have meant about my response to a developer who wishes to no longer support me as a customer and possibly future customer as well.

See? You understood perfectly what I meant. I will explain:

Fabien told that he will probably HAVE TO change the perpetual license policy regarding the macOS platform, charging a signature fee, or an upgrade fee, to which you replied that he will lose you as a customer.

Do you think he objects to Fabien seeking to find compensation for extra work, or was it the rest of his post?

[mladi]

WHICH IS APPLE FAULT, ENTIRELY.

I would really love to know how 3 lines on the command line are such a hardship that some developers get to these crazy conclusions. Because that really is the penultimate difference Catalina makes for most plug-in developers, in terms of workload.

(some developers have spent more time ranting about it here than it would actually have taken to get things over with)

Very obviously it is one thing to add 3 lines of code, a whole different story to make it validate successfully and another one to have it mandatory. I'm a bit surprised that someone whos against all kind of "making money with copy protection" and being dependent of the will of 3rd parties, gives up some freedom without difficulties for a company that introduced some sort of mandatory copy protection which doesn't even work properly because you either can already disable it on the client side or can loosen it up on the application side...

1+

[Zaphod (giancarlo)]

WHICH IS APPLE FAULT, ENTIRELY.

I would really love to know how 3 lines on the command line are such a hardship that some developers get to these crazy conclusions. Because that really is the penultimate difference Catalina makes for most plug-in developers, in terms of workload.

(some developers have spent more time ranting about it here than it would actually have taken to get things over with)

Very obviously it is one thing to add 3 lines of code, a whole different story to make it validate successfully and another one to have it mandatory. I'm a bit surprised that someone whos against all kind of "making money with copy protection" and being dependent of the will of 3rd parties, gives up some freedom without difficulties for a company that introduced some sort of mandatory copy protection which doesn't even work properly because you either can already disable it on the client side or can loosen it up on the application side...

1+

Not 3 lines of code here.
It happens someone is using package maker, monolithic protection and few 3rd party libraries, but it doesn't mean all other companies are in the same boat
My 2 cents

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

I'm considering to impose subscription only licenses "exclusively" (sounds better) for mac users. While offering perpetual licenses only for windows. I think that's reasonable.

(personally, I'd prefer dropping Mac altogether, but it's still 30% of my audience)

The risk for any mac developer offering perpetual licenses is dangerously high. We'll likely stop. Changing licensing for mac only is a most pragmatic answer to it, and obviously mac users don't care too much about additional costs and paperwork anyway, according to Apple: just matter of the right wording ( ).

Ships sailing on the Apple sea predicable need more repairs. This has a price.

Rather than going a subscription route, I'd suggest a simple upgrade model where any OS updates that require significant developer effort to resolve, get charged an appropriate update fee. Want Catalina support? That's $5 per plugin (for example) due to the lost time/effort. I'm not sure you want to be punitive in the pricing, or look to turn a huge profit on upgrades, but charge just enough where you can recoup development cost/time when multiplied by percentage of the Mac user base that you believe would pay to upgrade. If one day Microsoft did the same thing, you could charge the Windows users the same type of fees.

Or build it into the cost of the plugin. $50 for Windows-only binaries. $65 for Mac+Windows binaries. "Why are we charging extra for Mac? Ask Apple to stop creating extra work for us."

And if a user doesn't like it? Either don't upgrade, don't update your system, or again...take it up with Apple.