Is Studio 1 the only realistic alternative to Cubase ?

[xbitz]

C12, can't even login so is there any valid coupon code?

[dellboy]

can't even login so is there any valid coupon code ?

I must have got in early as I have Cubase 12 downloaded and installed using my grace period update. Are you eligible for a free upgrade?, if you are there is an eligibility check tool at the top right hand corner of the activation manager. I clicked that and they sent an email inviting to upgrade.

[syntonica]

Cubase drops VST2 for MAC due to a decision made by Apple. Cubase on Windows will still have VST2 support.

And what decision would that be?

[chk071]

Well, that new "MIDI Remote Integration" thing in Cubase 12 is a big deal IMO.

[Rommelaar]

Cubase drops VST2 for MAC due to a decision made by Apple. Cubase on Windows will still have VST2 support.

And what decision would that be?

From Steinbergs anouncement

As it stands, Steinberg hosts continue to offer VST 2 compatibility. But as Apple has transitioned its Mac line to Apple silicon, those Mac users will still be able to use their VST 2 plug-ins under Rosetta 2.

[teilo]

Cubase drops VST2 for MAC due to a decision made by Apple. Cubase on Windows will still have VST2 support.

Nonsense.

First of all, all other native DAWs that previously supported VST2, also support Apple Silicon-native VST2s. Ableton, S1, Bitwig, Reaper, FL Studio, and Waveform all support native VST2s.

Second, they did not drop VST2 support on Mac. They do not support Apple Silicon native VST2s. They support VST2s just fine in Rosetta mode.

Steinberg is trying to kill VST2. They used Apple's move to Arm as an excuse to further that goal. This is entirely on Steinberg.

I see this upgrade as only driving more people to Studio One. Steinberg is in the process of a slow act of suicide. I'm just hoping SpectraLayers survives the inevitable death of Steinberg.

[chk071]

Steinberg is trying to kill VST2. They used Apple's move to Arm as an excuse to further that goal.

I don't think so. It simply didn't make sense for them to support M1 native VST2's, when they discontinued the SDK in 2006, or whenever it was.

Let's not make this trhead yet another political one though. People who hold a grudge can surely hate on Steinberg in the respective threads (for example the threads about that super duper new CLAP plugin format). No need to spam this one with hate again.

[teilo]

I don't think so. It simply didn't make sense for them to support M1 native VST2's, when they discontinued the SDK in 2006, or whenever it was.

You make my point for me. It didn't make sense for them given their goals. Native VST2 support makes perfect sense for producers, particularly producers who would like to get full performance out of their M1 Macs, but not lose their investment in plugins no longer supported by their DAW.

VST2 support is trivial to implement if you already have the codebase. All the other DAWs prove this.

[chk071]

Nothing is trivial in software, especially when you have to do ongoing testing.

Cubase will only be the first. At some point, everyone else will phase out VST2 as well.

[pdxindy]

Cubase drops VST2 for MAC due to a decision made by Apple. Cubase on Windows will still have VST2 support.

Nonsense.

First of all, all other native DAWs that previously supported VST2, also support Apple Silicon-native VST2s. Ableton, S1, Bitwig, Reaper, FL Studio, and Waveform all support native VST2s.

Second, they did not drop VST2 support on Mac. They do not support Apple Silicon native VST2s. They support VST2s just fine in Rosetta mode.

Steinberg is trying to kill VST2. They used Apple's move to Arm as an excuse to further that goal. This is entirely on Steinberg.

Exactly... it is some sleazy bull***t by their marketing department cause they know it is an unpopular decision so they try to blame Apple instead of being responsible for their own decision. Steinberg is lying but with enough vagueness that they can deny it.

[teilo]

Cubase will only be the first. At some point, everyone else will phase out VST2 as well.

Because of Steinberg.

[chk071]

Yes, of course. They are the ones who develop VST.

[Trensharo]

Cubase drops VST2 for MAC due to a decision made by Apple. Cubase on Windows will still have VST2 support.

And what decision would that be?

To move to a different architecture again, which would require steinberg to devote unnecessarily high amounts of resources to port over and maintain equivalent stability for a legacy component. Steinberg has not been maintaining VST2 for quite a while. I think they're ready to move on. Even on Windows, the updates for Padshop, Retrologue, Groove Agent, etc. remove VST2 plug-ins from the installer.

They are not willing to maintain that, moving forwards. I can't blame them, either.

[syntonica]

Cubase drops VST2 for MAC due to a decision made by Apple. Cubase on Windows will still have VST2 support.

And what decision would that be?

To move to a different architecture again, which would require steinberg to devote unnecessarily high amounts of resources to port over and maintain equivalent stability for a legacy component. Steinberg has not been maintaining VST2 for quite a while. I think they're ready to move on. Even on Windows, the updates for Padshop, Retrologue, Groove Agent, etc. remove VST2 plug-ins from the installer.

They are not willing to maintain that, moving forwards. I can't blame them, either.

Unnecessarily high amounts of resources?

Yes, flipping that switch from Intel to ARM can be so taxing... I hope they had an ambulance on stand-by...

This is SB trying to shift blame for their decision to kill VST2 themselves since VST3 has been an utter failure at the task. There are plenty of plugin devs that have recompiled their VST2s from Apple Silicon, along with other DAWs who have recompiled to support them.

[Trensharo]

Cubase drops VST2 for MAC due to a decision made by Apple. Cubase on Windows will still have VST2 support.

And what decision would that be?

To move to a different architecture again, which would require steinberg to devote unnecessarily high amounts of resources to port over and maintain equivalent stability for a legacy component. Steinberg has not been maintaining VST2 for quite a while. I think they're ready to move on. Even on Windows, the updates for Padshop, Retrologue, Groove Agent, etc. remove VST2 plug-ins from the installer.

They are not willing to maintain that, moving forwards. I can't blame them, either.

Unnecessarily high amounts of resources?

Yes, flipping that switch from Intel to ARM can be so taxing... I hope they had an ambulance on stand-by...

This is SB trying to shift blame for their decision to kill VST2 themselves since VST3 has been an utter failure at the task. There are plenty of plugin devs that have recompiled their VST2s from Apple Silicon, along with other DAWs who have recompiled to support them.

I can tell you've never developed software.

For computationally intensive software, you can't just "flip the switch" from x86 to ARM. All that does is ensure you're going to pay even more in support costs, and develop a bad reputation as word of your incredibly buggy software port spreads across the internet like wildfire.

If that were the case, everything would have been ARM Native on Day 1. Windows on ARM would have been a smashing hit, too, as anyone with a Win32 App would have just flipped that switch and moved on. Microsoft has had ARM compilers in Visual Studio for at least 15 years, and more likely 20+ (Windows Mobile, etc.). Microsoft has generally always had production compilers available for all of the more popular industry platforms (x32/64, ARM, and others like Itanium in the past).

What you're referring to works well with hello world. It doesn't work well with software that actually has dependencies that it would need to be ported over in order to have itself ported over.

I'd be interested in seeing how other DAWs are supporting VST2, because I think the implementation details being opaque is clouding some people's view of just how complicated a task this actually is.

I am not even going to reply to this type of comment, beyond this reply. This ignorance doesn't deserve further attention.