Fender To Acquire PreSonus Electronics

[imrae]

These buy/merge/asset-strip moves are made by literal capitalists, recognising this when predicting outcomes is totally relevant to the topic.

Using the C-word doesn’t have to trigger irrelevant apologetics, but for some reason it often does... Nobody was arguing for a state-owned DAW.

[chk071]

These buy/merge/asset-strip moves are made by literal capitalists, recognising this when predicting outcomes is totally relevant to the topic.

Using the C-word doesn’t have to trigger irrelevant apologetics, but for some reason it often does... Nobody was arguing for a state-owned DAW.

So what is it exactly what people want? I don't get it. Especially when people say that they will move to free DAW's instead.

I wonder if people here work for free in their day job. Or feel great when their salary is axed, because their boss adheres to principles.

Which unfortunately only leads us back to HPC political talk again. People should really stick to what they're better at (hopefully). Making music. Business doesn't really seem to be anyone's forte here.

[chk071]

Oh, and I expect no change at all for Studio One in the next years. As far as I always read, it's working pretty good for Presonus. Why would there be any reason to change something?

Of course, I don't want to take people's fear of subscriptions and what not... that would be very unethical and inhuman to do.

[kylie]

Nobody was arguing for a state-owned DAW.

Wait for China to come up with one. No inappropriate music anymore...

I'm gonna try to snatch a fairly priced (final) update during Black Friday sales and live happily with it ever after. If they decide to go the subscription route I'll stick to 5.x until it dies.

[ShawnG]

Business doesn't really seem to be anyone's forte here.

This. Soooo much this.

[AdvancedFollower]

These buy/merge/asset-strip moves are made by literal capitalists, recognising this when predicting outcomes is totally relevant to the topic.

Using the C-word doesn’t have to trigger irrelevant apologetics, but for some reason it often does... Nobody was arguing for a state-owned DAW.

So what is it exactly what people want? I don't get it. Especially when people say that they will move to free DAW's instead.

I wonder if people here work for free in their day job. Or feel great when their salary is axed, because their boss adheres to principles.

Which unfortunately only leads us back to HPC political talk again. People should really stick to what they're better at (hopefully). Making music. Business doesn't really seem to be anyone's forte here.

There's no such thing as free, but there are business models that don't involve constantly extracting an ever increasing amount of money from your customers. For example, FL Studio has lifetime free updates. Does that make FL a "Socialist DAW" or does it just mean that they have figured out a better business models for themselves and their customers?

[woodsdenis]

Calling Vurt to sort this out.

[dlandis]

Oh, and I expect no change at all for Studio One in the next years. As far as I always read, it's working pretty good for Presonus. Why would there be any reason to change something?

Of course, I don't want to take people's fear of subscriptions and what not... that would be very unethical and inhuman to do.

Man, I hope for exactly what you're saying here (although, honestly, even iZotope's subscription hasn't been a thorough disaster for me, though ethically it really is questionable).

But, leaving the subscription model question undiscussed for a bit, the future problem here for Presonus may be the general insensitivity/ineptitude/corruption of the VC world to the needs, interests, and desires of the computer music-making public. Even if Fender was owned and controlled by serious guitarists, they would not most likely be able to intuit the direction(s) that Presonus had already traversed, let alone discern the best path forward. This isn't only due to the rather comparatively intense technical paradigm of the studio/computer users in their musical world, it is also due to the proprietary nature of each and every DAW as a world unto itself (and, yes, I do realize that this also is a function of the paradigm; it can also be examined as a factor in the discussion separately). When one looks at the greed and lack of humility in the zeitgeist of the world today (and especially in those engaged in VC), the opportunities and temptations to totally blow past the fact that Presonus has a good thing going are daunting and possibly irresistible: everybody seems to either want to leave their "mark" on what they've bought of just roll in the quick money and let the acquisition die a slow (or "aided") death by financial starvation.

I really hope that I'm wrong, totally wrong, but optimism at this point should at best probably be tentative.

[imrae]

These buy/merge/asset-strip moves are made by literal capitalists, recognising this when predicting outcomes is totally relevant to the topic.

Using the C-word doesn’t have to trigger irrelevant apologetics, but for some reason it often does... Nobody was arguing for a state-owned DAW.

So what is it exactly what people want? I don't get it. Especially when people say that they will move to free DAW's instead.

I want to buy from software companies with a stable future that are passionate about their products, communicate honestly and treat their customers with respect.

I wonder if people here work for free in their day job. Or feel great when their salary is axed, because their boss adheres to principles.

This is exactly what I meant by irrelevant apologetics. What does it have to do with VC buyouts?

People should really stick to what they're better at (hopefully). Making music. Business doesn't really seem to be anyone's forte here.

It would be nice, but the business world keeps messing around with our tools so we have to keep an eye out for that.

[vurt]

Calling Vurt to sort this out.

let me see what ive got ...

Screenshot_2021-11-01-00-52-44-151~3.jpg

.
did anyone have "capitalism depicted as a demon" as their suggestion?

[vurt]

let's all just try to imagine a world, where, when every individual person is born, they knew how to moonwalk.

think how different things might be.

[vurt]

still hoping for gibson lego if im honest. fingers crossed for an sg.

[vurt]

not really a strat person.
maybe if they do some of the offsets ill get one

[vurt]

you all stfu now?
good.

[apoclypse]

This is a bit worrying to say the least. Presonus has been what I thought a pretty big brand, primarily their hardware. My first good audio interface was a firebox way back when. I know our interests here are primarily with the DAW, but Presonus has always been first a foremost a hardware company in my mind. They used to have some of the best selling entry level audio interfaces, but with when Focusrite introduced the Scarlett most people moved to that. The Quantum is pretty cool but I don't know if it moved any needles in-terms of sales. Their mixers and monitors are pretty popular though. I always thought they would eventually evolve into a higher end brand at some point, but that never seemed to happen.

Anyway there is some possible corporate synergy here. Presonus has a pretty nice software team, and I'm sure Fender would love their own digital multi-effect stomp box like the Headrush etc. We can official Fender amps in Ampire etc.

I don't know if Fender has any plans for production though. This would probably be a good opportunity to have brand that concentrates on electronic musicians and I can imagine Presonus would fit in nicely if they started making more electronic musician focused gear (controllers, etc), but they can also have them concentrate on the pro-recording market and maybe transition things like their mixers into the higher end.