Bye bye VST2

[audenso]

I've had zero issues with VST3 on my end.

Old architecture can't be supported forever. As usual, there's always that initial resistance when that old architecture is discontinued.

While it's true that VST3 may work seamlessly for some users, it's important to recognize that the decision to discontinue older architectures isn't solely based on support needs. Plugin formats, once established, typically require minimal to none ongoing support. However, the discontinuation often stems from strategic decisions by developers rather than technical necessity.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m using VST3 myself, but I don’t see anything wrong for the VST 2.4 format to be used in plugins and supported on other DAWs which aren’t developed by Steinberg.

[Urs]

Agreed with all that, but surely to expect compensation from SB is to me ridiculous.
Whenever my dear Apple brings out a new update and developers have to 'adjust' (yes I know it is not the same), does anyone expect apple to compensate them?
rsp

I don't think anyone expects compensation...

[zvenx]

Agreed with all that, but surely to expect compensation from SB is to me ridiculous.
Whenever my dear Apple brings out a new update and developers have to 'adjust' (yes I know it is not the same), does anyone expect apple to compensate them?
rsp

I don't think anyone expects compensation...

Then I misread the post (which has since been edited) I was responding too.. I thought the poster was suggesting contacting SB for same.

edit: now with the edited post I think they were being sarcastic. my bad.
rsp

[Urs]

From their vst sdk which has always been free?
That they have never charged a cent to use?

rsp

Sorry, but that does not reflect the issue at hand. The cost of removing a plug-in format that was originally licensed for lifetime is incredible. Nobody in this industry would have imagined that this could happen in such a way. Nobody had developed their products with "oh, some day we might have to remove this part of the code" in mind.

But, isn't that a thing that you always have to deal with in development?

Did you foresee that Apple will drop x86 at some point, and you have to develop an ARM, and only a ARM version, until Apple decides to switch to yet another architecture?

What about older operating system versions? What about 32-bit, and the switch to 64-bit?

I really don't think this is anything new, if you're honest about it.

It's a logical fallacy to assume that because one thing inflicts pain (but isn't the subject being talked about), that it's somehow okay for the subject to inflict pain, too. Both are shit. It's not necessary to mention all things that are bad when talking just about the one thing that is the subject of the conversation.

So if people don't mention Apple at every turn of the conversation, this does not invalidate the arguments brought about in this thread and elsewhere.

[gaggle of hermits]

But, isn't that a thing that you always have to deal with in development?

Did you foresee that Apple will drop x86 at some point, and you have to develop an ARM, and only a ARM version, until Apple decides to switch to yet another architecture?

What about older operating system versions? What about 32-bit, and the switch to 64-bit?

I really don't think this is anything new, if you're honest about it.

let us know when apple made it a contractual obligation to no longer develop and provide x86-compatible binaries, 32bit binaries or even pre-OS X binaries for that matter.

[zvenx]

Well there is an irony in that from you though Urs...
Let me try to explain.. I am an unapologetic u-he fanboi.
u-he can do stuff that I would jump on other companies for but give u-he a pass.
So part of the issue to me, is the question, is Steinberg being unfairly tarnished in ways that other companies aren't? But yeah this only a small part of the issue for me.

rsp

[chk071]

From their vst sdk which has always been free?
That they have never charged a cent to use?

rsp

Sorry, but that does not reflect the issue at hand. The cost of removing a plug-in format that was originally licensed for lifetime is incredible. Nobody in this industry would have imagined that this could happen in such a way. Nobody had developed their products with "oh, some day we might have to remove this part of the code" in mind.

But, isn't that a thing that you always have to deal with in development?

Did you foresee that Apple will drop x86 at some point, and you have to develop an ARM, and only a ARM version, until Apple decides to switch to yet another architecture?

What about older operating system versions? What about 32-bit, and the switch to 64-bit?

I really don't think this is anything new, if you're honest about it.

It's a logical fallacy to assume that because one thing inflicts pain (but isn't the subject being talked about), that it's somehow okay for the subject to inflict pain, too. Both are shit. It's not necessary to mention all things that are bad when talking just about the one thing that is the subject of the conversation.

It's a thing that you have to deal with the whole time as a developer, that was my point.

[Urs]

Well there is an irony in that from you though Urs...
Let me try to explain.. I am an unapologetic u-he fanboi.
u-he can do stuff that I would jump on other companies for but give u-he a pass.
So part of the issue to me, is Steinberg being unfairly tarnished in ways that other companies aren't.

Why? I see devs criticise other companies all the time.

I do think some of the criticism of Steinberg is over the top, but I do not think you can accuse me of that. I try to stick to the facts. The facts are dire. Steinberg had better alternatives to achieve the same, but IMHO they chose the worst possible outcome for everyone.

[chk071]

Steinberg has given ample warning every step of the way. They give developers a decade to adjust.

can you provide details of where Steinberg warned ahead of time it would use its contracts to actively prevent vst2 plugins being provided by third parties who had agreed to use the relevant sdks?

AFAIK, it's part of all such terms that they are subject to change. And, IIRC, the last VST2 SDK is from 2007. So, yeah, quite a long time that it's been going on, after Steinberg discontinued it.

[zvenx]

I wasn't accusing you personally.

I think I understand why they are doing it, but I too am not a fan of them doing it..but I didn't have a say.
rsp

[Urs]

It's a thing that you have to deal with the whole time as a developer, that was my point.

No, I never had to deal with something where a contract closed for unlimited time was retroactively cancelled by "if you want to stay in business, you have to give up that thing that we said we'd let you have forever".

[gaggle of hermits]

It's a thing that you have to deal with the whole time as a developer, that was my point.

the entire point is that this is not a conventional situation. I cannot think of a precedent in this industry.

in other industries, it invited antitrust action (iirc IBM tried this kind of stunt in the 80s - it did not go well).

[chk071]

It's a thing that you have to deal with the whole time as a developer, that was my point.

No, I never had to deal with something where a contract closed for unlimited time was retroactively cancelled by "if you want to stay in business, you have to give up that thing that we said we'd let you have forever".

Couple of things: I doubt that they threatened you that, if you want to stay in business, you have to give up something (what would that be? You don't have to develop VST2 or VST3 format at all. Where is the "threat"?). And, I'd really be interested where Steinberg promised that you can use something forever. I think you know as well as I that a promise like that doesn't exist in software development (and I really know shit about it).

See, I understand your reasons and what not, put, stating that you post facts here is quite an ambitious claim, reading your posts here. You rather twist some things the way you feel about them.

[gaggle of hermits]

Steinberg has given ample warning every step of the way. They give developers a decade to adjust.

can you provide details of where Steinberg warned ahead of time it would use its contracts to actively prevent vst2 plugins being provided by third parties who had agreed to use the relevant sdks?

AFAIK, it's part of all such terms that they are subject to change. And, IIRC, the last VST2 SDK is from 2007. So, yeah, quite a long time that it's been going on, after Steinberg discontinued it.

do you never tire of missing the point? I mean, you could have actually had a go at answering the question instead of making yet another irrelevant point.

I don't think anyone has argued that a particular format might become deprecated.

but rarely to the point that continuing to support a deprecated format comes with an implicit or explicit threat of legal action.

[Urs]

I wasn't accusing you personally.

Ok, thank you