Upgrade to Live 9 (10) Suite for £191 OR get Bitwig for £265 (on sale)?

[thecontrolcentre]

My experience with Live is somewhat different. I upgraded my laptop in 2007 in order to run Live 7 (needed more RAM & HDD space), and when Live 9.5 dropped XP support in 2015 I upgraded my computer again. I'm hoping it'll be another 10 years before Ableton drop support for 64 bit systems.

[Daags]

I give Bitwig the benefit of the doubt there.

But hey, it's just my personal view of things and if somebody lives in dread of hypothetical future problems, that's definitely not good for the creative glands...

there's nothing hypothetical about the fact Bitwig explicitly and quite heavily marketed Bitwig Studio 1 with the assurance that version 2 would open up the modular environment. Something that they not only did in interviews at trade shows and such, but also proudly and prominently on their webstore for the entire lifecycle of version 1 ... not removing it until 2 was announced and people were angry about it, and pointing it out as a fairly massive failure to deliver on something so explicitly assured.

I don't give a company like that the benefit of the doubt. They must have known many many months in advance of the announcement of version 2 that they were absolutely not going to deliver what they were assuring people they would .... yet they kept assuring it anyway, explicitly and prominently on their webstore.

For my tastes, doing something like that whilst simultaneously telling me you are moving to a subscription model based on completely unspecified goals ........................................... no thanks.

[SLiC]

I give Bitwig the benefit of the doubt there.

But hey, it's just my personal view of things and if somebody lives in dread of hypothetical future problems, that's definitely not good for the creative glands...

there's nothing hypothetical about the fact Bitwig explicitly and quite heavily marketed Bitwig Studio 1 with the assurance that version 2 would open up the modular environment. Something that they not only did in interviews at trade shows and such, but also proudly and prominently on their webstore for the entire lifecycle of version 1 ... not removing it until 2 was announced and people were angry about it, and pointing it out as a fairly massive failure to deliver on something so explicitly assured.

I don't give a company like that the benefit of the doubt. They must have known many many months in advance of the announcement of version 2 that they were absolutely not going to deliver what they were assuring people they would .... yet they kept assuring it anyway, explicitly and prominently on their webstore.

For my tastes, doing something like that whilst simultaneously telling me you are moving to a subscription model based on completely unspecified goals ........................................... no thanks.

...of course we are still in version 2 and if they update in 0.1s as they have been doing every 4 months, we will see be in Version 2 in three years and there may be an open modular system whilst we are still in version 2....that will keep the KVR lawyers happy

I only ever buy software for what it does now, not what it promises to do in the future (I updated to V2 for what was in V2 when I demoed it, not what may come in the next year; I was already satisfied with the purchase so anything else is genuinely a bonus for me)

Of course you don't have to give Bitwig the benefit of the doubt, why should you. Just demo it, buy it if you like what it does 'now' and if you think its worth the $299 or don't buy it (but maybe keep one eye on its development)- it really is that simple.

[Daags]

^^^ good for you.

though you are completely gliding over my point, and their actions. I don't blame you, what they did was foul and indicative of a company that doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt .... so there's no real rationalising it away when facing it head on. Leaving you only one option, as a 'fan' .... to completely gloss over it with your own anecdotal purchasing habits.

[ThomasHelzle]

Well, I guess I leave you guys to your anger management then.

For me it's simple:
I found my DAW.
Some bumps in the road are to be expected with every software.
As long as nothing really bad happens or something much better or even more flexible comes out, I'll stay with it.
I like the GUI, the workflow and the people behind it, it just suits me perfectly.
I never had more fun with sound ever before, and I tried pretty much every DAW other than ProTools.

I hope you guys enjoy your choice as much as I do mine

Cheers,

Tom

[Daags]

Well, I guess I leave you guys to your anger management then.

And I will leave you with your fanboy delusions.


See how that kind of thing is not really helpful ?


Pointing out the facts in a clear manner, and citing them as a reason why Bitwig is clearly not deserving of 'the benefit of the doubt' is not 'anger' ... and certainly not so much anger that it requires 'anger management', facetious or not that's a lame reduction.

[SHall1000]

Hi Guys - Original OP here. Thanks for all the input - a lively thread - although it seems to have settled on a discussion on pros and cons Bitwigs funding model. Here is what I have learned.

Some people are very passionate about defending their choice of DAW.
Some people are very passionate about the technical capabilities of their DAW.
Some people are very passionate about the look, feel and workflow of their DAW.
Some people are very passionate about the cost of their DAW.
Some people are very passionate about knowing what the cost of their DAW is likely to be in the future and what they will get for that investment (time and money).

I think all these passions are valid and are probably determined by your personal situation, eg if you are a hobbyist or are aspiring to gain recognition or financial reward from your music and how much money you have.

On reflection of all the comments I have come to the conclusion that, as a beginner and hobbyist, choosing between Live or BW is probably not going to have a big impact on my musical journey. I probably need to concentrate on learning more music theory, trying to produce more stuff and making sure I am having fun.

I may upgrade from Live 9 Standard to Suite (10) sometime in the next month depending on how flush I am feeling but I am not going to worry about it. I know the DAW, it will keep me current and give me more toys to play with and for me the fun is important but if I don't upgrade I still have plenty of stuff to keep me entertained.

I have however enjoyed trying BW and I think I would like it. I will keep the demo installed, dip into it now and again and watch its development with interest. I might switch at some point, who knows, but luckily for me it will not be a big deal either way.

Thanks again for your help.

[SLiC]

Hey SHAll1000 - you are quite correct, it will not be a big deal either way!

Learning music theory/your instrument will make what you produce 100x better than the DAW you choose!

As ThomasHelzle said, Bitwig is 'fun' and I find it inspiring especially when using CV to my modular, but I have other DAWS including Reaper, S13, Cubase (just got 9.5 Pro) and Live 9 Suite so I can choose, I like them all but none of them has made me a better musician or producer...and I am 51 so there isn't much time left!

[pdxindy]

That remains to be seen but it is exactly the problem going forward, how much good will? how much back that good will go?

When they announced the new model they stated they weren't going to leave users behind with versions that don't work on current OS. But I think they are not really thinking how much work and overhead it is going to cost them to maintain so many versions because the model they have chooosed will cause fragmentation. Other DAW developers only have to deal with their current version.

The other problem I see is the way they are trying to sell their update model, "you don't have to pay if you don't want, just wait for the next intereting update" it sounds cool but the reality is that as others have stated many times is not about "wanting" but "needing" to update for compatibility reasons.

I think there is much unnecessary worry about the future. If this method is not working well for them 3-4-5 years down the road, they will adjust. They are smart people trying to make this work.

Yes, I think it is inevitable that someone out there will get cut off in an untimely way. Just like it also happens with the usual model that someone buys V4 shortly before V5 announcement and they miss the cutoff date for a free update by a few days then they are pissed. No methodology is perfect. My guess is that it will end up working about as well overall as the more common big update model.

The reality isn't anything yet... Nobody has had to even update once yet. The problems you see are not actual problems... but just fears of potential problems. Of course if you want to spend your time on fear based speculation, you can. But that is all it is.

[pdxindy]

there's nothing hypothetical about the fact Bitwig explicitly and quite heavily marketed Bitwig Studio 1 with the assurance that version 2 would open up the modular environment.

Something that they not only did in interviews at trade shows and such, but also proudly and prominently on their webstore for the entire lifecycle of version 1 ... not removing it until 2 was announced and people were angry about it, and pointing it out as a fairly massive failure to deliver on something so explicitly assured.

I don't give a company like that the benefit of the doubt. They must have known many many months in advance of the announcement of version 2 that they were absolutely not going to deliver what they were assuring people they would .... yet they kept assuring it anyway, explicitly and prominently on their webstore.

I have a different perspective on the subject.

Since the launch of Bitwig, the Devs have backtracked and re-written core stuff a few times. I am sure that when they made the various initial modulation devices, they did not intend to get rid of them soon after and change the core modulation system. But that is what they ended up doing for V2. They also made changes to the core system for the Remote Controls.

I would rather wait, have them take longer and have them get it right (as in a fully realized coherent system without bottlenecks), even if it means re-writing core concepts. This caused the delay to the opening of the backend modular environment. Once they open that up, they are more locked in. Given the set of circumstances, I think they made the right choice.

I appreciate that they were willing to do that in the cause of making the software what they want it to be. For sure it hurt them financially in the short term and for sure they are not as far along as they intended. I am happy to support them for putting their vision of the software first.

[xx JPRacer xx]

^

[Daags]

there's nothing hypothetical about the fact Bitwig explicitly and quite heavily marketed Bitwig Studio 1 with the assurance that version 2 would open up the modular environment.

Something that they not only did in interviews at trade shows and such, but also proudly and prominently on their webstore for the entire lifecycle of version 1 ... not removing it until 2 was announced and people were angry about it, and pointing it out as a fairly massive failure to deliver on something so explicitly assured.

I don't give a company like that the benefit of the doubt. They must have known many many months in advance of the announcement of version 2 that they were absolutely not going to deliver what they were assuring people they would .... yet they kept assuring it anyway, explicitly and prominently on their webstore.

I have a different perspective on the subject.

Since the launch of Bitwig, the Devs have backtracked and re-written core stuff a few times. I am sure that when they made the various initial modulation devices, they did not intend to get rid of them soon after and change the core modulation system. But that is what they ended up doing for V2. They also made changes to the core system for the Remote Controls.

I would rather wait, have them take longer and have them get it right (as in a fully realized coherent system without bottlenecks), even if it means re-writing core concepts. This caused the delay to the opening of the backend modular environment. Once they open that up, they are more locked in. Given the set of circumstances, I think they made the right choice.

I appreciate that they were willing to do that in the cause of making the software what they want it to be. For sure it hurt them financially in the short term and for sure they are not as far along as they intended. I am happy to support them for putting their vision of the software first.

it's almost impressive that you can quote me, and offer a reply that completely glosses over the entire point. same problem slic had ... you can either concede the point (not possible for a fanboy), or gloss right over it. as a fanboy, it simply can not be addressed head on and rationalised away. so what we get is side-steps and apologism that gloss right over this particular issue.

your apologist perspective, if it is even the real reason the modular environment was not opened up in version 2, can not account for the fact they continued to ... well, let me just repost my quote again rather than repeat myself, with added emphasis this time:

there's nothing hypothetical about the fact Bitwig explicitly and quite heavily marketed Bitwig Studio 1 with the assurance that version 2 would open up the modular environment.

Something that they not only did in interviews at trade shows and such, but also proudly and prominently on their webstore for the entire lifecycle of version 1 ... not removing it until 2 was announced and people were angry about it, and pointing it out as a fairly massive failure to deliver on something so explicitly assured.

I don't give a company like that the benefit of the doubt. They must have known many many months in advance of the announcement of version 2 that they were absolutely not going to deliver what they were assuring people they would .... yet they kept assuring it anyway, explicitly and prominently on their webstore.

so, spare me the handwringing about how they might have come to some technical hurdle or yadda yadda yadda .... that is only a small part of the problem. the big part of the problem is they kept pimping this assurance in full knowledge that it would not be delivered. THAT is why bitwig are operating on a 'benefit of the doubt' deficit, and THAT is why their trust based subscription scheme is particularly galling.

[tooneba]

I understand their past behavior is backfiring the basic idea of subscription which is working based on the credibility.

[pdxindy]

so, spare me the handwringing about how they might have come to some technical hurdle or yadda yadda yadda .... that is only a small part of the problem. the big part of the problem is they kept pimping this assurance in full knowledge that it would not be delivered. THAT is why bitwig are operating on a 'benefit of the doubt' deficit [for me], and THAT is why their trust based subscription scheme is particularly galling [to me].

I'm neither wringing my hands, nor apologizing, etc. For me there is no problem to begin with.

Obviously you are extremely angry at Bitwig. Well okay then, that's how you feel. But why attack others simply because they are not angry about what you are angry about?

Could Bitwig have handled that situation more effectively? I think so. Do I consider it something of significance? No... Am I upset about it? No... nor was I when it happened. The open modular environment will come when it is ready. I'm sure nobody wants it out more than the Bitwig guys do. In the meanwhile, I have enough musical tools to be discovering cool new sh*t with for the next two decades.

[antic604]

that is only a small part of the problem. the big part of the problem is they kept pimping this assurance in full knowledge that it would not be delivered. THAT is why bitwig are operating on a 'benefit of the doubt' deficit, and THAT is why their trust based subscription scheme is particularly galling.

I disagree. I think Bitwig realised they can go two ways: 1) further follow Ableton and offer a DAW where modulation possibilites - for regular users - are quite limited, but one that has enormous depth for nerdy types willing to dive deep in M4L, or 2) expand Bitwig's modulation system to make it more flexible and deep while still maintaining it easy to use and understandable for casual users (the modulators), while pushing the access to full modular system for later. They've chosen the latter and as a result we can do with Bitwig native devices things, that either require programming in M4L or at least using some 3rd party M4L devices of dubious quality, questionable design and shaky stability... And in DAWs other than Live or Bitwig require 3rd party plugins.

In other words, it would be 'easy' to open up the modular underbelly of Bitwig, but then it wouldn't differ from Live Suite and they can't win with them by just copying: as they've proven time & time again, they take the ideas from Live - and other DAWs - and improve upon them or put their own twist. It's the only way to gain user base on this very crowded and competitive market.