[Fixed in 4.4] Weird bug: latest "Spectral Suite" update not included in upgrade plan

[dlandis]

If we're talking about "similar capabilities", than there is zero reason to buy Bitwig's add-ons and loads of reasons to chose the DAW independent plugin.

To be fair, I do think that Spectral Suite is fairly unique at the moment in its scope and approach. At least I am not aware of another plugin that provides spectral filtering in an equally comprehensive and flexible way. The thing is, even under normal circumstances (i.e. not feeling kind of cheated), I would not just impulse-buy this. Probably wait until there is a sale or until I have bought other plugins that are higher up on my shopping list. Oops, while I was waiting for an opportunity to buy Spectral Suite a new and equivalent Unfiltered Audio plugin shows up that I can get for 30 bucks with a PA loyalty voucher? Bad luck for Bitwig, I guess. The point is, even when something kind of unique enters the market, there is always something equivalent or better right around the corner. The audio plugin market is a shark tank, so why throw yourself in there?

Someone help me out here: is Spectral Suite actually a plug-in in the sense that it can be used in other DAWs? It doesn't seem that way from what I've read. If it was offered in CLAP, VST3, etc. perhaps there would be more of an argument for it not being, in reality, a core part of Bitwig (as it currently must be used in Bitwig, and Bitwig alone.)

FWIW, I'm not jumping ship yet. I'm watching to see how this works out, however. Do I feel "betrayed?" Perhaps I do on a business level (it is, after all, the only level I truly deal with the company; everything else is just intangible.) It is a given that this roll-out has harmed the company's reputation; whether or not one agrees with either "side" in this debate, it is clear that the company has taken a hit PR-wise. To say this was "clumsy" doesn't begin to scratch the surface. In a bigger company, someone's head would roll (not that I'm wishing this on anybody at all.)

I'm thinking as well, that, short of including the Spectral Suite with current licenses (even if the price has to go up a bit), turning the Suite into a true standard protocol plug-in to be used in other DAWs might go a long way towards helping Bitwig's contention that it is not a part of the "core" DAW. If The Grid is a part of the core DAW (and I believe that it should be considered such on all levels as it coincides with Bitwig's being characteristic as a "DAW that is also a sound design/synthesis tool"), how is it that Spectral Suite is somehow a step beyond this in ethical reasoning? Making it available as a true standard protocol plug-in would help make their point.

No, it works only within Bitwig.

Thanks, guys; that's what I thought.

Bummer, though, to know I was right.

[krazzmann]

After a lot of thinking, I start to believe that the whole idea of the upgrade plan was the wrong idea. To freely quote an ex US president: It’s the psychology, stupid.

Many people say that with buying the update plan they finance Bitwig’s development in advance and now they are pissed that Bitwig spent their money for working on add-ons. Buying an Ableton release gives you the feeling you are paying for something they have built and now you are buying it. I say in the end of the day when buying Bitwig’s upgrade plan it’s actually the same: you are paying for this what you get right now.

You can ask any economist. Virtually every bigger company funds investments like developing a new product with a credit. Even Apple does it, although they are the company with the most cash on the planet and that has to do with cashflow. When customers buy the product then you don’t pay for the development of the product, it only contributes to the cashflow. And you can believe that for Bitwig it’s the same.

See, pay-for-a-release and pay-for-an-upgrade-plan is actually the same from a cashflow perspective of a company. It’s a different thing only in the customer’s perception. What sounds like a smart idea, a middle ground between sales and subscription, actually now backfires because of this model’s psychology.

[Izoptic]

Someone help me out here: is Spectral Suite actually a plug-in in the sense that it can be used in other DAWs?

No, but it is nevertheless competing with 3rd party plugins in my view. Because why should I buy a Bitwig add-on when there is already a plugin available that does mostly the same? It is going to be pretty hard for Bitwig to consistently offer new devices with such unique functionality that there is absolutely nothing out there that compares.

Example: Knowing that there was high-quality delay and convolution devices coming to Bitwig allowed me to de-prioritize this class of products on my plugin shopping list and created an incentive to renew Bitwig instead. What if Delay+ and Convolution had been offered as add-ons for around 80 Euros? They would have faced crazy competition from countless other offerings, and I likely would not have bought the add-on.

Spectral Suite was a smart pick by Bitwig, as to my knowledge there is currently nothing out there that's completely on the same level. But spectral processing is a big hype at the moment, with a lot of new plugins coming out constantly, so this is likely to change soon.

(That's the point I was trying to make - that moving to add-ons positions Bitwig features against the entirety of the audio plugin market.)

[dlandis]

Many people say that with buying the update plan they finance Bitwig’s development in advance and now they are pissed that Bitwig spent their money for working on add-ons. Buying an Ableton release gives you the feeling you are paying for something they have built and now you are buying it. I say in the end of the day when buying Bitwig’s upgrade plan it’s actually the same: you are paying for this what you get right now.

You make an excellent point. There is only one issue with it that I can see: it doesn't seem to be the way that the business model was originally represented. The model is hard to categorize, I'll be the first one to admit this, but for some reason (and believe me, I can't exactly say from where the idea came,) the model seemed closer to what I going to call a "co-op." Maybe it was the inherent "smallness" of the company, or the way they hired "trainers" who were kind of "average joes" rather than fully on the company's payroll (though, of course, they are reimbursed.) I'm not sure why, but it felt "different."

It is possible that the company evolved and we all missed it (again, no defense being offered here, however, for the clumsiness of this roll-out; this was inexcusable.) It is entirely plausible that economic exigencies forced the company's hand in a kind of "knee-jerk" manner; I've seen that happen before as well.

The end take-away, however, is that many were left feeling that somehow Bitwig is not the company they believed them to be.

And that is unfortunate.

[Izoptic]

After a lot of thinking, I start to believe that the whole idea of the upgrade plan was the wrong idea. To freely quote an ex US president: It’s the psychology, stupid.

Edit: Actually, let me correct that. Your argument is that the license design backfires because of how it allows people to focus on these two aspects (what you call perception) - and that I fully agree with.

Original text:

The problem I see with your argument is that we are not merely talking about perception here, but actually about Bitwig's EULA and Bitwig's marketing language over several years. Yes, when you renew you buy the current version of Bitwig if you made the initial purchase (of your first Bitwig) at some point in the past. But this purchase also entitles you, as clearly stated in the Bitwig EULA, to all future versions of Bitwig for one year.

In other words, it's both, and it's not just a perception thing, it's how the license was designed. That some people placed more focus on the "buy what's there" aspect of it and others emphasized the "give me what's yet to come" part is a consequence of the flexibility built into the license, not just a psychological artifact.

[dlandis]

Someone help me out here: is Spectral Suite actually a plug-in in the sense that it can be used in other DAWs?

Spectral Suite was a smart pick by Bitwig, as to my knowledge there is currently nothing out there that's completely on the same level. But spectral processing is a big hype at the moment, with a lot of new plugins coming out constantly, so this is likely to change soon.

(That's the point I was trying to make - that moving to add-ons positions Bitwig features against the entirety of the audio plugin market.)

And it's a great point. I'm not sure that there is nothing out there that does at least some of the same jobs, however: Spectral Layers by Steinberg seems to do at least most (and maybe absolutely everything and more? I haven't seen what Spectral Suite does personally) of what the Suite does. It cannot compete price point ($299) with Spectral Suite and will not run in Bitwig without ARA.

[krankyone]

Possible scenarios:
1) Bitwig is a bunch of evil dicks. Unlikely because you probably would have seen a lot more evidence of this before now.
2) They are stupid and they never saw this coming. Unlikely. It's a small company, everybody probably knows what's going on. Stupid people can't make such an excellent product
3) It was an accident. Unlikely.
4) It was a bit of a desperate move. They didn't meet their business plan, sales are down, they need an infusion of cash for the next big thing. Maybe.
There may be other plausible explanations, but I can't think of any

[ozonepaul]

Many people say that with buying the update plan they finance Bitwig’s development in advance and now they are pissed that Bitwig spent their money for working on add-ons. Buying an Ableton release gives you the feeling you are paying for something they have built and now you are buying it. I say in the end of the day when buying Bitwig’s upgrade plan it’s actually the same: you are paying for this what you get right now.

You make an excellent point. There is only one issue with it that I can see: it doesn't seem to be the way that the business model was originally represented. The model is hard to categorize, I'll be the first one to admit this, but for some reason (and believe me, I can't exactly say from where the idea came,) the model seemed closer to what I going to call a "co-op." Maybe it was the inherent "smallness" of the company, or the way they hired "trainers" who were kind of "average joes" rather than fully on the company's payroll (though, of course, they are reimbursed.) I'm not sure why, but it felt "different."

It is possible that the company evolved and we all missed it (again, no defense being offered here, however, for the clumsiness of this roll-out; this was inexcusable.) It is entirely plausible that economic exigencies forced the company's hand in a kind of "knee-jerk" manner; I've seen that happen before as well.

The end take-away, however, is that many were left feeling that somehow, Bitwig is not the company they believed them to be.

And that is unfortunate.

I think the fact that up until now Bitwig was a 1 product company, selling 1 single product played a huge part how we perceived them.
For example when they said "Future-proof: All software updates in the following 12 months are FREE" I did not have to start thinking: what do they mean by "all"? ALL just meant all. "All" meant: everything what the company makes which is a single product: Bitwig Studio.

I think this is an important part of why loads of us trusted Bitwig and felt like buying the update plan actually really means financing Bitwig development in advance.

That's how it was up until now. And now Bitwig decided to lie in my face: "All" never really meant "All"; it's me who misunderstood it; "All" actually only means...

When Bitwig Studio was introduced, I accepted Bitwig's subscription/update plan model because it was very simple: with my hefty subscription payment I signed up as a beneficiary of ALL publicly released creative endeavours of the Bitwig team.
Now, even though it terminates today, I'm not going to renew my subscription. And the reason behind it is also very simple: I just don't have a clue what is it that I get for my money: 1% or 99% of Bitwig's creative endeavours?

upgrade plan.JPG

[pierb]

4) It was a bit of a desperate move. They didn't meet their business plan, sales are down, they need an infusion of cash for the next big thing. Maybe.

That's plausible but OTOH they just had the U-He promo which should have brought some cash.

Also, they've been working on these devices for months. Did they decide on selling those as extra add-ons at the very last minute? Seems unlikely.

Maybe v5 is coming along nicely with lots of features and they thought it was a bit too much. So they made these spectral devices an extra add-on... again, unlikely.

I don't know, nothing really makes sense.

[shutthatdaw]

After being with Bitwig since day one, I and a lot of other Bitwiggers have been royaly shafted, I will not be paying the ransom for Spectral Suite, nor will my upgrade plan be renewed once the current one has expired. It's back to Ableton and Logic for me. I will miss The Grid, but VCV Rack and Voltage Modular will gain. So bye bye greedy Bitwig.

[dlandis]

Possible scenarios:
2) They are stupid and they never saw this coming. Unlikely. It's a small company, everybody probably knows what's going on. Stupid people can't make such an excellent product
3) It was an accident. Unlikely.
4) It was a bit of a desperate move. They didn't meet their business plan, sales are down, they need an infusion of cash for the next big thing. Maybe.
There may be other plausible explanations, but I can't think of any

I'm leaving off responding to your first scenario due to its being near totally implausible (as you suggest.)

I would say your second point is indeed plausible (though I would not ever use the term "stupid" to describe anyone in the company.) The history of both electronic music and software is rife with examples of people who, while totally savvy in musical situations or development, were inept with regards to economically-based business decisions. This one ranks higher on the possibility scale for me.

Point number three seems to be able to be folded into your second point: economically seasoned people allow for the occasional downturn. Those who are inexperienced do not.

Point four is a given.

However, most likely of all is that it was a combination of these points.

[tempsperdu]

Possible scenarios:
1) Bitwig is a bunch of evil dicks. Unlikely because you probably would have seen a lot more evidence of this before now.
2) They are stupid and they never saw this coming. Unlikely. It's a small company, everybody probably knows what's going on. Stupid people can't make such an excellent product
3) It was an accident. Unlikely.
4) It was a bit of a desperate move. They didn't meet their business plan, sales are down, they need an infusion of cash for the next big thing. Maybe.
There may be other plausible explanations, but I can't think of any

It doesn't matter what is the reason. Whatever the situation, without customers you don't have a business and when those customers have treated you with that much respect that they are willing to basically trust you and fund you in advance then if you then treat them as a urinal you are pretty much beneath contempt. I'd like to know how there could be a worse handling of this, and even if in some ways, I wouldn't like them to go under, if they did, it would be their own fault.
And how would that be good in any way for anyone.

[Izoptic]

I can sort of imagine how some of these discussions might have gone:

"We're not making enough money with our license model, what are we going to do?"

"Let's just fully turn it into a subscription!"

"Nahh, everybody hates subscriptions."

"True. How about just a normal software license then, with a major release every two years or so??"

"Boring! We're too cutting edge for that and we have shown that we can deliver exciting new stuff continuously, not just for major versions."

"..."

"OK, then how about..... ADD-ONS??"

The rest is tragic history.

[krazzmann]

After a lot of thinking, I start to believe that the whole idea of the upgrade plan was the wrong idea. To freely quote an ex US president: It’s the psychology, stupid.

Edit: Actually, let me correct that. Your argument is that the license design backfires because of how it allows people to focus on these two aspects (what you call perception) - and that I fully agree with.

Original text:

The problem I see with your argument is that we are not merely talking about perception here, but actually about Bitwig's EULA and Bitwig's marketing language over several years. Yes, when you renew you buy the current version of Bitwig if you made the initial purchase (of your first Bitwig) at some point in the past. But this purchase also entitles you, as clearly stated in the Bitwig EULA, to all future versions of Bitwig for one year.

In other words, it's both, and it's not just a perception thing, it's how the license was designed. That some people placed more focus on the "buy what's there" aspect of it and others emphasized the "give me what's yet to come" part is a consequence of the flexibility built into the license, not just a psychological artifact.

True, in Bitwig’s model they are selling future updates and that is also the contract. While in Ableton’s model the contract is mostly about the past. But from the company internal perspective of the finance it makes no difference. Means, Bitwig’s chosen a troublesome model although for the cashflow it makes no difference. The only advantage is that they installed a pseudo subscription and have probably more sales because of that.

[tempsperdu]

Bitwig have had quite a lot of tie-ins with u-he, I wonder what Urs thinks of this? He's always come over as a reasonable chap to me.