NI have announced they will no longer activate discontinued products

[digitalboytn]

Well...I was actually being a little cynical there...

You are right though...

Those venture capitalists are nothing like the sharks that they are made are to be...

Vulture capitalists

[sayanchik]

Dear all,

also have to post here how I angry I am on NI.
Either release a last version without the need to be activated or keep a simple cloud machine working for activation.
I am heavily invested in NI, now they don't get any more money from me.
I fear that this will also happen to my current versions.

As long as companies behave like this think twice before you buy something that has to be activated.
For me this did not happen for the first time.
NI: Either change your behaviour or I am out.

Regards, T.

I was just going to get one of Komplete Kontrol keyboards (I have Komplete 12 license) but this thread makes me restrain from this purchase, especially the info about Kore (I don't really know what it is, but as far as I understood it's a hardware controller that was abandoned by NI)

[Matt_NI]

On the NI forum they have said they have heard all the feedback and are looking into a different way to do this. That's got to be a positive??

In terms of a customer friendly response, yes. The question is WHY you think NI had a change of heart..

1) Out of the goodness of their heart because, after reading all of your wonderful feedback, they understand they were wrong..
2) Because different versions of their EULA made specific legal commitments NOT to do this exact thing, thereby placing them in a position where they may be forced to reverse their actions by law.

The good news is nobody has to guess if it's 1 or 2. You will know it's number 2 if they fail to place the equivalent consumer protections back into their present EULA.

I doubt they care. They're likely getting ready to launch Native Cloud and move to a rental model anyway. Which, btw, I hope I'm wrong about.

It's the feedback and to be honest out of all the meetings I had about this topic, EULA was not mentioned once. I explained this a few times but we jumped on it pretty much the day after the announcement because we did not anticipate people were going to be that impacted by this announcement. We looked at the data, ask partners and nobody seemed to raise this as an issue. We should have handled it differently for sure but doesn't mean putting effort now comes from the fact that we realised what our EULA said ...

[Matt_NI]

Both the NI dudes in this thread have made me less likely to buy future NI products. IMO, natch,

Pretty sure it's only me on here so I suppose I'm the one putting you off

[chk071]

To be fair, it doesn't really matter what you say, a handful of people will be always put off, about everything (and threads like these are mainly driven by the handful of shouters who are discontent with everything, and want to take control over everything).

I think you handle this very professionally.

Just out of interest (I'm not really effected): Is there any news about how NI will handle this?

[revvy]

Both the NI dudes in this thread have made me less likely to buy future NI products. IMO, natch,

Pretty sure it's only me on here so I suppose I'm the one putting you off

Thanks for responding.

I was pissed off by the original NI announcement and found your attitude probably a bit more defensive than necessary. Same with ED who I know is a mod at NI.

Nothing stronger than that and in fact nothing personal at tall against either of you.

[chk071]

I was pissed off by the original NI announcement and found your attitude probably a bit more defensive than necessary. Same with ED who I know is a mod at NI.

Of course he's biased. He likes NI's products, and, AFAIK, he even makes a living by using NI's producs (think he does Kontakt scripting). He even admits he's biased. What more do you want, and what exactly is it that you're criticizing here?

Further, I really have to doubt your general motivation here. You and others made their points more than clear, and this thread has 55 pages now. There's even a NI rep here, who promised to keep people up to date with the developments in NI's HQ about this topic. So, again, what more do you want, and what exactly is it that you're criticizing here. I don't get it, to be frank. This is all about taking a dump, otherwise, 10 pages woul have been plenty.

Now flame me to death, because I'm such a evil person. I don't care.

[revvy]

Yawn.

[chk071]

Yeah, exactly, yawn. That's what I do when I take a look at this dump fest.

Actually, that's what I more and more do when I take a look at this whole forum. It's really very tiresome (not just) as of late.

This topic has a point, the way it was presented was totally unworthy.

[PAK]

It's the feedback and to be honest out of all the meetings I had about this topic, EULA was not mentioned once.

That's NOT a good thing! Good will from NI is fine. But I think many of us want to see equivalent protections placed into the present EULA, in terms of any proposed solution.

IE The EULA should state that, if NI ever do X/Y/Z, and a user can no longer authorise their purchased software as a result, NI undertake to provide the user with an independent means to activate that software, in perpetuity, on the users present and future machines, provided they meet supported specs.

Someone at NI thought it important enough that they placed this type of promise into the EULA. Then someone else yanked it out. Why? If NI want any of us to believe they are sincere in their actions, they should be happy to (once again) write these promises in clear language as the old EULA's used.

So can you please undertake to request something equivalent, which promises activation with or without NI's servers, be added back into the EULA for users? If NI gave such a clearcut promise then it would address many users (or, at least, much of my own) concerns caused by their actions on this occassion.

but doesn't mean putting effort now comes from the fact that we realised what our EULA said .

Ok, but overall it isn't relevant. What's relevant is that NI made these promises in their legal document. If NI don't place these promises back into the EULA we (users) will know they are not being sincere (I mean the company, not you personally Matt)

[Matt_NI]

To be fair, it doesn't really matter what you say, a handful of people will be always put off, about everything (and threads like these are mainly driven by the handful of shouters who are discontent with everything, and want to take control over everything).

I think you handle this very professionally.

Just out of interest (I'm not really effected): Is there any news about how NI will handle this?

Oh yeah! I wasn't super serious with my reply ...

Not going to lie, it's still a little bit chaotic at the moment but I have a new weekly sync about this so we can keep everyone informed. I'm still hoping for an update of our announcement article this week with some findings on what is being done for some of our products. I believe the team found a way to maintain some of our instruments listed and we are waiting on more technical details.

For 3rd party instruments, it might take a little more time since our team needs to reach to every partner to discuss this topic further.

[Matt_NI]

Both the NI dudes in this thread have made me less likely to buy future NI products. IMO, natch,

Pretty sure it's only me on here so I suppose I'm the one putting you off

Thanks for responding.

I was pissed off by the original NI announcement and found your attitude probably a bit more defensive than necessary. Same with ED who I know is a mod at NI.

Nothing stronger than that and in fact nothing personal at tall against either of you.

Nothing personal either but I'm happy to get constructive feedback especially on the tone.

[Matt_NI]

It's the feedback and to be honest out of all the meetings I had about this topic, EULA was not mentioned once.

That's NOT a good thing! Good will from NI is fine. But I think many of us want to see equivalent protections placed into the present EULA, in terms of any proposed solution.

IE The EULA should state that, if NI ever do X/Y/Z, and a user can no longer authorise their purchased software as a result, NI undertake to provide the user with an independent means to activate that software, in perpetuity, on the users present and future machines, provided they meet supported specs.

Someone at NI thought it important enough that they placed this type of promise into the EULA. Then someone else yanked it out. Why? If NI want any of us to believe they are sincere in their actions, they should be happy to (once again) write these promises in clear language as the old EULA's used.

So can you please undertake to request something equivalent, which promises activation with or without NI's servers, be added back into the EULA for users? If NI gave such a clearcut promise then it would address many users (or, at least, much of my own) concerns caused by their actions on this occassion.

but doesn't mean putting effort now comes from the fact that we realised what our EULA said .

Ok, but overall it isn't relevant. What's relevant is that NI made these promises in their legal document. If NI don't place these promises back into the EULA we (users) will know they are not being sincere (I mean the company, not you personally Matt)

I really can't speak on behalf of our legal team here as you can imagine.

Right now, we decided to focus on the problem at hand from a product perspective and not stay hidden behind the expertise of our legal department on this matter. I can understand that you feel this is an important topic but it's not really helping us address what customers are concerned about now which is not being able to re-activate products after May.

We can take on the EULA and involve different stakeholder after we have a better understanding on what is going to happen with the activation process.

[Russell Grand]

[nvm]

[Russell Grand]

It's the feedback and to be honest out of all the meetings I had about this topic, EULA was not mentioned once.

That's NOT a good thing! Good will from NI is fine. But I think many of us want to see equivalent protections placed into the present EULA, in terms of any proposed solution.

IE The EULA should state that, if NI ever do X/Y/Z, and a user can no longer authorise their purchased software as a result, NI undertake to provide the user with an independent means to activate that software, in perpetuity, on the users present and future machines, provided they meet supported specs.

Someone at NI thought it important enough that they placed this type of promise into the EULA. Then someone else yanked it out. Why? If NI want any of us to believe they are sincere in their actions, they should be happy to (once again) write these promises in clear language as the old EULA's used.

So can you please undertake to request something equivalent, which promises activation with or without NI's servers, be added back into the EULA for users? If NI gave such a clearcut promise then it would address many users (or, at least, much of my own) concerns caused by their actions on this occassion.

but doesn't mean putting effort now comes from the fact that we realised what our EULA said .

Ok, but overall it isn't relevant. What's relevant is that NI made these promises in their legal document. If NI don't place these promises back into the EULA we (users) will know they are not being sincere (I mean the company, not you personally Matt)

I really can't speak on behalf of our legal team here as you can imagine.

Right now, we decided to focus on the problem at hand from a product perspective and not stay hidden behind the expertise of our legal department on this matter. I can understand that you feel this is an important topic but it's not really helping us address what customers are concerned about now which is not being able to re-activate products after May.

We can take on the EULA and involve different stakeholder after we have a better understanding on what is going to happen with the activation process.

Thank you. Looking forward to updates on this topic.