Why you left Bitwig?

[EnGee]

I actually still believe the "classic" upgrade is a better policy. They are not chained with time. Whenever a major upgrade is ready, then announce it and get the money for it from those who want to upgrade, but till that time, fixes should continue.

Anyway, I don't have a problem with staying for one year or till there is something that I really want. So, IMO, demo it and try most everything you consider important to you, then decide.
Personally, I prefer the GUI and interface of Bitwig than S1. But not by far! Anyway, my eyes love Bitwig and Cubase colours and interface, and I can stay for hours without fatigue. I'm on Windows though.

[pdxindy]

I actually still believe the "classic" upgrade is a better policy. They are not chained with time. Whenever a major upgrade is ready, then announce it and get the money for it from those who want to upgrade, but till that time, fixes should continue.

Anyway, I don't have a problem with staying for one year or till there is something that I really want. So, IMO, demo it and try most everything you consider important to you, then decide.
Personally, I prefer the GUI and interface of Bitwig than S1. But not by far! Anyway, my eyes love Bitwig and Cubase colours and interface, and I can stay for hours without fatigue. I'm on Windows though.

I also prefer the classic upgrade approach. The Bitwig model is okay for me as it is still in my hands whether to pay more. In theory it has some advantages and some drawbacks and after using it for a couple years+ now it just doesn't seem that much different to me in practice.

[apoclypse]

That's different. I would expect that Live 9 would stop working because it used an old backend (I think was still using Carbon as a bootstrap for Live) while version 10 uses Qt. So I can understand that Live doesn't work on Catalina.

Oh, so it's a double standard? Right

But even disregarding your convenient Carbon vs. Qt argument, have they been backporting 9.x fixes to 8.x and earlier. No.

Bitwig has no such issues. They just don't bother to back port any fixes to older versions of Bitwig. So even if you don't want to upgrade if you want fixes that actually make the application usable you have to pay.

How many DAWs you can list that update previous version(s)? I was sure there's none, until someone (you?) said that it was the case with Cubase which I'm really doubtful - I had a look at their patch history and updates end within 6-9 months after release and they've annual release cycle.

It's not a double standard. Between Live 9 and Live 10 was a 4 year cycle and in-between that cycle we got countless features and 64-bit support added to the DAW. All for a one time fee. I never had to pay yearly to get 9.0-9.7. Ableton was still updating 9.7 even after they released 10.

Like I said the issue with Bitwig is that if your upgrade license expires and you have version 2.4 any fixes in version 2.5 and up never get back ported. You have to pay to upgrade and get the fixes. With Studio One, Ableton, Logic etc I don't have to worry about that. I know that I can always upgrade to .x without having to pay for a yearly license.

[antic604]

It's not a double standard. Between Live 9 and Live 10 was a 4 year cycle and in-between that cycle we got countless features and 64-bit support added to the DAW. All for a one time fee. I never had to pay yearly to get 9.0-9.7. Ableton was still updating 9.7 even after they released 10.

That's one explanation. Other would be they were busy - and luckily got enough money - developing and selling Push 1/2 and that gave them financial safety to finally afford to rewrite the app to a more modern framework, because they've hit variety of walls with old tech (PDC problems, inability to add VST3 and high-DPI screens support, shitty way to handle external sidechain for VST, etc.).

As a user though, you shouldn't care less whether they need to upgrade the framework or not - if they made wrong decision in the past you shouldn't be responsible to carry the financial burden and upgrade to 10 i 9.7 was working fine for you. The fact you're making such excuses for paid product is peculiar, to put it mildly

Like I said the issue with Bitwig is that if your upgrade license expires and you have version 2.4 any fixes in version 2.5 and up never get back ported. You have to pay to upgrade and get the fixes. With Studio One, Ableton, Logic etc I don't have to worry about that. I know that I can always upgrade to .x without having to pay for a yearly license.

Many (most) fundamental problems people have with software doesn't get fixed in point updates, though. And if it's straight up bug that prevents from doing work Bitwig's upgrade plan covers that - if e.g. my plan would expire today at 3.1.2 and there would be a critical bug fixed in 3.1.3, I'd still be entitled to get it. In Bitwig world point updates (e.g. 3.x) are feature addition, 2nd point updates (e.g. 3.1.x) are bug fixes and you always get them.

Now I'm not saying Bitwig's upgrade plan is ideal, because since the early days of 2.0 - 2.4 they've slowed down and many of updates don't interest me at all (like the 3.1), but in the end it's a matter of whether or not the vision that the developers have for the DAW appeal to you or not. If it does, then $129 (or less) every 12-18 months is completely a non-issue. If not, there's plenty of proverbial fish in the sea.

[anomandaris1]

That's one explanation. Other would be they were busy - and luckily got enough money - developing and selling Push 1/2 and that gave them financial safety to finally afford to rewrite the app to a more modern framework, because they've hit variety of walls with old tech (PDC problems

Is Live PDC good now?

This guy has spent time reviewing various DAWs and he rates Live's PDC as 7 and Bitwig- 8, which is only slightly better (only Cubase gets 10, which is the maximum; REAPER, PT, Cakewalk, DP, S1 get rated with 9)

https://www.admiralbumblebee.com/DAW-Chart.html

[apoclypse]

It's not a double standard. Between Live 9 and Live 10 was a 4 year cycle and in-between that cycle we got countless features and 64-bit support added to the DAW. All for a one time fee. I never had to pay yearly to get 9.0-9.7. Ableton was still updating 9.7 even after they released 10.

That's one explanation. Other would be they were busy - and luckily got enough money - developing and selling Push 1/2 and that gave them financial safety to finally afford to rewrite the app to a more modern framework, because they've hit variety of walls with old tech (PDC problems, inability to add VST3 and high-DPI screens support, shitty way to handle external sidechain for VST, etc.).

As a user though, you shouldn't care less whether they need to upgrade the framework or not - if they made wrong decision in the past you shouldn't be responsible to carry the financial burden and upgrade to 10 i 9.7 was working fine for you. The fact you're making such excuses for paid product is peculiar, to put it mildly

Like I said the issue with Bitwig is that if your upgrade license expires and you have version 2.4 any fixes in version 2.5 and up never get back ported. You have to pay to upgrade and get the fixes. With Studio One, Ableton, Logic etc I don't have to worry about that. I know that I can always upgrade to .x without having to pay for a yearly license.

Many (most) fundamental problems people have with software doesn't get fixed in point updates, though. And if it's straight up bug that prevents from doing work Bitwig's upgrade plan covers that - if e.g. my plan would expire today at 3.1.2 and there would be a critical bug fixed in 3.1.3, I'd still be entitled to get it. In Bitwig world point updates (e.g. 3.x) are feature addition, 2nd point updates (e.g. 3.1.x) are bug fixes and you always get them.

Now I'm not saying Bitwig's upgrade plan is ideal, because since the early days of 2.0 - 2.4 they've slowed down and many of updates don't interest me at all (like the 3.1), but in the end it's a matter of whether or not the vision that the developers have for the DAW appeal to you or not. If it does, then $129 (or less) every 12-18 months is completely a non-issue. If not, there's plenty of proverbial fish in the sea.

The fact that you are so hellbent on defending Bitwig that you are not even bothering to read what I'm actually writing. I don't care about Ableton. I'm not some died in wool Ableton user. I'm still on 9.7. The framework thing is a macOS issue only because of the changes in macOS. I used Ableton strictly as an example of piece of software that saw significant updates throughout the 9.0 product cycle. It could have been Studio One, or Logic, or any other piece of software that doesn't have an inane rent-seeking upgrade plan.

My issue with Bitwig is strictly the pricing, and upgrade practices. That's it. I don't like their upgrade plan and compared to the competition its no even cost effective or competitive because Bitwig while an interesting DAW is still lacking in what I consider critical areas. So why pay more for less?

The question was Why I left Bitwig? I haven't left Bitwig but I only just bought it last year and right now I'm having second thoughts about it. It's expensive, an ongoing investment and the developers seem more interested in making gadgets. I'm not interested in gadgets. I'll give it one more year.

[Biscotto]

I go back and forth between BWS and Live.
But the craziest thing is that most of those “artists” endorsing and “using” BWS on Bitwig website, last time I checked (2 months ago), 80 or 90% of them are still using (or went back?) Ableton.

[roman.i]

I go back and forth between BWS and Live.
But the craziest thing is that most of those “artists” endorsing and “using” BWS on Bitwig website, last time I checked (2 months ago), 80 or 90% of them are still using (or went back?) Ableton.

Of course they're using whatever they used before, it's just a paid promotion.
Bitwig is mostly used by modularists and other nerds that do not make any commercial music. Bitwig knows their clients that's why they prefer to release a grid and then a mircopitch device when they are missing other basic features as a DAW. I mean a single eurorack module can easily cost $400, so compared to this Bitwig is not that expensive.

[V0RT3X]

I go back and forth between BWS and Live.
But the craziest thing is that most of those “artists” endorsing and “using” BWS on Bitwig website, last time I checked (2 months ago), 80 or 90% of them are still using (or went back?) Ableton.

Of course they're using whatever they used before, it's just a paid promotion.
Bitwig is mostly used by modularists and other nerds that do not make any commercial music. Bitwig knows their clients that's why they prefer to release a grid and then a mircopitch device when they are missing other basic features as a DAW. I mean a single eurorack module can easily cost $400, so compared to this Bitwig is not that expensive.

I disagree that Bitwig is just for "modularists"

I think their paid update system is fair as well.

Btw weren't you the guy who started the first "Why you left" threads?

[machinesworking]

I go back and forth between BWS and Live.
But the craziest thing is that most of those “artists” endorsing and “using” BWS on Bitwig website, last time I checked (2 months ago), 80 or 90% of them are still using (or went back?) Ableton.

Of course they're using whatever they used before, it's just a paid promotion.
Bitwig is mostly used by modularists and other nerds that do not make any commercial music. Bitwig knows their clients that's why they prefer to release a grid and then a mircopitch device when they are missing other basic features as a DAW. I mean a single eurorack module can easily cost $400, so compared to this Bitwig is not that expensive.

I'm constantly amazed at the statements of "fact" people make about DAWs.
Most people who make commercial music use all kinds of tools to do so. The only thing I see consistent in what famous artists use, is that they mostly use whatever they want to.

[rageix]

I gave Bitwig a whirl for a couple weeks. I really like it for the most part. I kind of like the info panel on the side which is laid out much nicer than Live. I like having the track names on the left side. I love the pop up browser. I love the ability to select multiple midi clips and overlay them in a sane way as compared to Live. I liked the ability to put multiple instruments on the same track without routing multiple tracks together to use a midi instrument and a synth. I like being able to select multiple clips at once and setting fades or make other adjustments at the same time.

Ultimately I sold my copy because it just feels sort of unfinished or lacking in some areas. The instruments and effects felt meh. The automation is better in Live. I can't just select a few tracks and solo them by click the solo button, I have to go to the info side bar which was just annoying. You can have a mixer open in arrangement view but it feels kind of gimpy, like I want a full mixer not a cut down version. I had some audio spikes and glitching. Even with plugin sandboxing it seems still possible for plugins to crash the audio engine or cause other issues. I don't care about the grid. The way groove/shuffle works is... just kind of bad vs live. The way updates work is the longer I wait the less valuable my copy is and makes it harder to sell so waiting around to see what happens is not a good idea.

If they tighten things up and keep on track I think in a year or two could be just as good if not better than Live and I will revisit.

[roman.i]

Btw weren't you the guy who started the first "Why you left" threads?

Yea, that's how I became a celeb.

[rod_zero]

I remember how many pointed out how impractical will be to give maintenance updates to users stock in in between big updates once their update "plan" had run out. I remember the bitwig employees that post here promised no one will be left behind if an OS broke something.

You mean like Live 9.x users on OSX Catalina?

How many years of support Live 9 users got? how many a bitwig user gets?

Live was launched on 2013, catalina was the first OS to not be supported, so 6 years of support. Compared to 1 year of Bitwig updates.

Who is more screwed now?

[antic604]

How many years of support Live 9 users got? how many a bitwig user gets?

Live was launched on 2013, catalina was the first OS to not be supported, so 6 years of support. Compared to 1 year of Bitwig updates.

Who is more screwed now?

I'm talking about the principle, not specific versions. That was just an example that - in general - previous versions of software don't get new updates once new version is released. I'm not aware of any update to 9.x past Feb 2018 when Live 10 was released.

[Echoes in the Attic]

I think that the fact that you wouldn't get bug fixes after your year is a fair criticism. But the same happens with any paid upgrade. A .5 or full version upgrade sometimes has fixes that the previous version didn't get, so it's similar to if there was a major version every year, except that you chose your timing.

So yeah the bug fix element is a fair criticism and I'm curious how they would respond, but I don't think it would realistically affect most people and their upgrading tendencies. For example I waited a half year after my plan ended and only renewed because I wanted some of the things added to Moss's Push script. Otherwise I would have gone longer. Also, it's almost never going to be a year because they probably won't release a significant update right after your plan ends. So even if you want most updates that come out after your plan ends, there is still a good chance you'll only renew after closer to a year and half.

Despite the potential to miss out on a bugfix that you want because you don't want to buy into a new year, it still isn't a subscription.