Bye bye VST2

[jamcat]

It's like a cult of personality around a plugin format.

You don't say!
I'm half inclined to go full Jens and change my tagline to say:
"It's like a cult of personality around a plugin format." Funkybot's Evil Twin, talking about CLAP plugins

[pdxindy]

Jamcat, you're not the expert here.

He is an expert... at wasting people's time and making himself the center of attention. He's done this in thread after thread across topics.

I like Discord where if I have someone on ignore, even when people quote them, it's still hidden.

[machinesworking]

I didn't say Urs or u-he are hacks. I respect what Urs has built with u-he, actually. I just don't believe that the major audio firms that bring in $1 million+ a month are wrapping VST2 plugins in VST3 clothing. But maybe a bunch of smaller indie guys are, and maybe those are the peers that Urs surveyed?

So how much do you know about plugin development? things like why a company might use VST2 as the start and "wrap" for the other formats? Just a hunch but my guess is you know as little as I do about it, because you've said some incredibly silly things in this thread, and doubled down on them. Plus and this is big, when "threatened" by developers with contradicting evidence you've demanded proof of their observations, because they contradict your projections and assumptions.

It gets even better, making the assumption that larger companies are less likely to use a single format like VST2 to wrap other formats. Stating without proof that most companies adopted VST3 early on, ignoring that the larger instrument developing companies like IK, Arturia, NI etc. took forever because it doesn't fit your narrative.

So my question is unrelated sort of, but did you take the covid vaccine? I want to know how far up the hole of your own opinions VS experts you're willing to crawl?

[gaggle of hermits]

It's like a cult of personality around a plugin format.

You don't say!
I'm half inclined to go full Jens and change my tagline to say:
"It's like a cult of personality around a plugin format." Funkybot's Evil Twin, talking about CLAP plugins

weird flex, but ok.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

It's like a cult of personality around a plugin format.

You don't say!
I'm half inclined to go full Jens and change my tagline to say:
"It's like a cult of personality around a plugin format." Funkybot's Evil Twin, talking about CLAP plugins

The difference is I'm not telling developers CLAP is superior and they don't know their business. I'm stating that I would prefer to favor the CLAP format. And the reason is because it's an open format and should be better for the industry in the longer term than any of the little monopolies Steiny, Apple, and Avid try to create. We're not doing the same thing.

[zvenx]

........ than any of the little monopolies Steiny, Apple, and Avid try to create. We're not doing the same thing.

You know I normally agree with most of what you say on kvr generally, but this one has me scratching my head.
How are they creating little monopolies...
They have DAWS, they use a plugin format that they think works for them... For sure I know SB thinks their plugin format is the best (for them), I would assume Apple and Avid feel the same about AU and AAX...
How are they creating monopolies... who are they forcing to use those formats? I know for sure vst and au are free to use, no one is forcing developers to create plugins in that format, however if you don't you will not have customers who use Cubendo, Logic or Pro Tools as the case may be.
How is this a monopoly?
rsp

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Prior to CLAP, there was no alternative to VST2/VST3 plugins on Windows. AAX is locked to one DAW. So Steiny had full control over the Windows plugin market. And they've exercised that control by strong arming the death of VST2. That's monopolistic behavior. Without any alternative, they could do the same with VST3 years from now and release an even worse VST4. And Apple controls AU on Mac, which at least has other format options. So a bit less Monopolistic there.

CLAP presents the first real viable alternative to that Windows plugin format monopoly.

[zvenx]

Unless you are using Definition 3, which i would argue any company that protects their IP is a monopoly? including the commercial developers here.

Would you argue that any software that is not open source is therefore a monopoly?
rsp

[zvenx]

Prior to CLAP, there was no alternative to VST2/VST3 plugins on Windows. AAX is locked to one DAW. So Steiny had full control over the Windows plugin market. And they've exercised that control by strong arming the death of VST2. That's monopolistic behavior. Without any alternative, they could do the same with VST3 years from now and release an even worse VST4. And Apple controls AU on Mac, which at least has other format options. So a bit less Monopolistic there.

CLAP presents the first real viable alternative to that Windows plugin format monopoly.

But was it SB's fault there was no alternative to vst2/vst3 on windows? Have they actively or inactively tried to shut down other plugin formats on windows. That is what a monopoly does, shuts down its competition.
Developers were quite happy using vst2 at NO COST to themselves to make products they could then sell....
Naw I think you are stretching here.


rsp

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Was it Standard Oils fault there weren't more oil companies? Or Ma Bells fault there weren't more telecoms? I don't think fault really is a factor as to whether or not something is a monopoly. But once one is established, it's generally not a good thing.

[gaggle of hermits]

But was it SB's fault there was no alternative to vst2/vst3 on windows? Have they actively or inactively tried to shut down other plugin formats on windows. That is what a monopoly does, shuts down its competition.
Developers were quite happy using vst2 at NO COST to themselves to make products they could then sell....
Naw I think you are stretching here.


rsp

the use of things like submarine patents in setting standards and similar stealth ip-leverage techniques are well known across the technology industry. there is a clear argument that the competitors should have seen this one coming but that doesn't detract from the fact that Steinberg's actions have been anti-competitive and have forced something of a wakeup call.

also actively pretending vst was a standard protocol that could be used freely followed by a period of cracking down on its use and removing useful functions from its replacement to favour the vendor's own alternative (eg the issues with midi output from vst3) *are* examples of shutting down competition. or at least trying to.

focusing on one word – monopoly - isn't very helpful when looking at the situation.

[zvenx]

"The Standard Oil trust streamlined production and logistics, lowered costs, and undercut competitors. "Trust-busting" critics accused it of using aggressive pricing to destroy competitors and form a monopoly that threatened other businesses. Rockefeller ran the company as its chairman, until his retirement in 1897." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil

"Under Vail, AT&T began acquiring many of the smaller telephone companies including the Western Union Telegraph Company.[2][4]" -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System


Not at all quite the same.
rsp

[zvenx]

...
focusing on one word – monopoly - isn't very helpful when looking at the situation.

unless monopoly was the word I took umbrage to.

Do you know why vst3 came into being?

SB wasn't trying to shut down competition with vst2... vst2 came with lots of limitations but developers found hacks around those limitations which vst2 to be used in ways it way beyond its original design.. Hence came vst3, which had more features in design than vst2 and of course more restrictions so that there would be a more common standard.. and keep in line with what SB envisioned it to be.

It isn't like SB said, you know what, let us f everyone using vst2 and just willy nilly do vst3.

rsp

[zvenx]

My issue in all of this, my only issue is indeed if SB has retroactively disallowed vst2 (Ray's question if answered on their developer's forum will indeed address if this is indeed the came).

rsp

[Urs]

I genuinely wonder why they should still include the VST2 wrapper files in the latest VST SDK (v3.7.10) if they really intended to finally drop VST2 for good and changed the accompanying license agreement in a way that it would now prohibit the development and distribution of VST2 plugins or VST2 capable hosts.

Consistency is not really great here.

We went through the process of seeking clarification with a lawyer specialised on the topic, who ended up communicating with theirs. The result for us is: Signing the current license agreement puts an end to VST2 publishing. With certain upgrades to the VST3 SDK comes a new license, and in order to use that SDK you have to sign that license - our old agreement which included VST2 was therefore void for the current SDK.

Asking in their support forum is not helpful as the developers and support people there do not necessarily understand the legal background of the agreement, and have posted wrong information there before, or made promises to rectify the situation to no avail.