Airwindows Hull2: Free Mac/Windows/Linux/Pi AU/VST/Rack

[mothra]

Erm… Airwindows started out selling only AU plugins, for $50 a pop, not open source, for years and years. And it's for a lot of different Mac programs as it's the base CoreAudio format, with various neat qualities (for instance, the simplest form of mono AU also supports N to N so can be used on 5.1 tracks)

I think it's safe to say this: if Cubase supports the new CLAP format I'll learn how to add that for every single plugin and port it, and then every single plugin (including legacy: everything that has a VST2) will also have crossplatform CLAP, meaning that instead of manually building eight distinct builds for each plugin I'll be building 12.

That's if Cubase adds CLAP support.

Last time I asked about this, I got something about the cost of the license to build VST3 plugins (which is free). Nobody can get a straight answer it seems..

Cubase is never going to ditch their own VST for CLAP, I don't even know why people are entertaining the idea.

[glokraw]

I think Steinberg's future will be brightest if they concentrate on creating tools that work on all platforms and formats. They had a nice ride with vst2, but the future arrived, and the number of customers eager for new creations that aren't hog-tied to an old spec, dwarfs the number of customers that existed when vst2 was first released. Code for the masses. Maybe the Cubase product line sells enough to keep the Yamaha vice presidents happy. Fine by me. Success breeds success. But I don't expect developers as a whole to ignore innovations created by those outside of Steinberg's control.
Happy 2024!

[glokraw]

Cubase is never going to ditch their own VST for CLAP, I don't even know why people are entertaining the idea.

Simply put, some highly respected and skilled developers like things made possible by CLAP,
and they like that it's 'open'. Conversely, they dislike being forced to obey the whims of a
corporate entity, that has it's own priorities and pricing to deal with. Freedom and music
blend well, corporate bondage and music, not so much.

[jinxtigr]

I'm usually very good about never saying things even close to 'boycott', and I'll continue to not respond with language like that. I just see it as similar to the situation with Unity (I'm coding in Godot on recent livestreams, having once been a Unity coder, for similar reasons).

The specific thing that threw me was the period when accepting a VST3 license revoked your right to make VST2s. As an open source developer that is everything wrong with the proprietary world: that's breaking people's toys that they already bought so you can sell new ones. That said, I am also honestly angry about one point that often goes unmentioned: it's no longer legally possible to be a new VST2 developer, even if your whole concept is something like 'I do this to make plugins for the original IBM PC and those who love them'. The fact that you cannot legally be a new VST2 developer bothers me. Nobody's trying to legally stop me from being a PPC Mac developer: XCode migrates away from old computers rapidly, but Apple's not trying to legally prevent me from using old Macs and compiling PPC-ready code today. If I want to be an antiques dealer and devote myself entirely to PPC plugins, I could do that and Apple would not try to legally stop me. If I want to be a VST2 dev and code for old PCs, Steinberg has taken multiple actions to kill any such idea in its cradle, and only the legacy folks survive, because it's already sketchy trying to revoke license to do such a thing, and they're on even shakier ground if they went after me for not migrating to pad their pockets (it is clearly not because it's a threatening-sized market)

Never mind CLAP, obviously that's an attack on their ownership of PC plugin platforms.

If they rescind the decision and allow new people to be licensed to code VST2s, legally, I will port everything to VST3 provided I can still target VST2 as I target the PPC Mac.

[j wazza]

I agree that stopping vst2 licenses is shitty from steinberg. When vst2 and vst3 are both available for a plugin, I install vst2 as i never had problems with it, the vst3 versions are less stable on my system and cause crashes. I dont see the benefit of vst3. Hopefully clap will take off.

[jamcat]

I'm usually very good about never saying things even close to 'boycott', and I'll continue to not respond with language like that. I just see it as similar to the situation with Unity (I'm coding in Godot on recent livestreams, having once been a Unity coder, for similar reasons).

Obviously the ‘non-boycott’ boycott isn’t catching on, since everyone but Airwindows supports VST3.

The specific thing that threw me was the period when accepting a VST3 license revoked your right to make VST2s. As an open source developer that is everything wrong with the proprietary world: that's breaking people's toys that they already bought so you can sell new ones.

That obviously didn’t go anywhere either, since everyone who made VST2 plugins still release VST2 versions. They’ve just added support for VST3 plugins.

That said, I am also honestly angry about one point that often goes unmentioned: it's no longer legally possible to be a new VST2 developer, even if your whole concept is something like 'I do this to make plugins for the original IBM PC and those who love them'. The fact that you cannot legally be a new VST2 developer bothers me. Nobody's trying to legally stop me from being a PPC Mac developer: XCode migrates away from old computers rapidly, but Apple's not trying to legally prevent me from using old Macs and compiling PPC-ready code today. If I want to be an antiques dealer and devote myself entirely to PPC plugins, I could do that and Apple would not try to legally stop me. If I want to be a VST2 dev and code for old PCs, Steinberg has taken multiple actions to kill any such idea in its cradle, and only the legacy folks survive, because it's already sketchy trying to revoke license to do such a thing, and they're on even shakier ground if they went after me for not migrating to pad their pockets (it is clearly not because it's a threatening-sized market)

Never mind CLAP, obviously that's an attack on their ownership of PC plugin platforms.

If they rescind the decision and allow new people to be licensed to code VST2s, legally, I will port everything to VST3 provided I can still target VST2 as I target the PPC Mac.

This is the most confusing bit. I’m trying to understand the logic here. So if my reading is correct, you’re saying you won’t develop for the current, active, relevant plugin format (something that would tangibly benefit lots of people) simply because Steinberg doesn’t give out new licenses to new developers for their discontinued, deprecated format that hasn’t been supported in over a decade?

There are no new developers clamoring to write plugins for a long dead format. You are white-knighting for a demographic that simply does not exist. Ending new VST2 licenses has nothing to do with you or the end users. It doesn’t actually affect YOU at all. It’s has nothing to do with protecting your self interests. You’re just standing athwart history yelling STOP. And like everyone who has tried that, you’re going to be run over.

I think the bottom line here is simply you have enough patrons who aren’t demanding VST3 versions for now. But in time that support will soften as VST2 disappears, and with it, your stance on VST3.

[gaggle of hermits]

That obviously didn’t go anywhere either, since everyone who made VST2 plugins still releases VST2 versions. They’ve just added support for VST3 plugins.

check again.

for example: kontakt7 - no vst2
previous versions, such as Kontakt(6), yes there is.

this seems to be the problem. chris is frequently turning out new plugins, which are seemingly caught by that clause. Kontakt7 is also a "new" plugin, released since 2018.

whether Steinberg can be arsed to prosecute is another matter and it's that stipulation that's driving the change, but it's clearly inaccurate to say everyone who used to do vst2 is still doing so for their new stuff.

and your beef is with Steinberg who came up with this daft stipulation in the first place.

[jamcat]

for example: kontakt7 - no vst2
previous versions, such as Kontakt(6), yes there is.

NI dropped VST2 because it was a development cost they could eliminate. They can barely code plugins at all anymore, so it was a mercy killing.

and your beef is with Steinberg who came up with this daft stipulation in the first place.

That’s not my beef. I applaud Steinberg killing off VST2. It needs to be done. Just as they killed off the abomination known as DirectX on Windows 20 years ago.

[diroxe7660]

If a clean room, from scratch and liberally (incl. closed source & commercial applications) licensed re-implementation of the VST3 API is desired, falkTX maintains "Travesty" in his DPF repo. That one's been able to build VST3s for a couple years now.

For what it's worth, the two-clause GPL/Steinberg license applies only to the full VST3 SDK (VSTGUI, ..). Steinberg's "public_sdk" for VST3 is BSD-licensed and requires no signing of anything.

[gaggle of hermits]

for example: kontakt7 - no vst2
previous versions, such as Kontakt(6), yes there is.

NI dropped VST2 because it was a development cost they could eliminate. They can barely code plugins at all anymore, so it was a mercy killing.

you know this how? osmosis? I don't know why they killed it and I very much doubt you do either.

customers complained about the lack of vst2. go to the forums and you'll find people practically asking for their money back because k7 doesn't work with the daw they're still using.

and just minutes ago you were implying how easy it is for devs to support both vst2 and vst3 because apparently they were all shipping both. pick a lane.

[machinesworking]

NI dropped VST2 because it was a development cost they could eliminate. They can barely code plugins at all anymore, so it was a mercy killing.

Nope, they aren't the only VST3 only for new products developer, the reason is because it's legally suspect given Steinbergs stated position on this. I can't think of one new product that has a VST2 version and there's a reason for that.

[jamcat]

The vast majority continue to support VST2 while adding VST3. Some developers have chosen to stop supporting VST2, not because big bad Steinberg is forcing them to, but rather because it is redundant at this point and is just an unnecessary expenditure of time and money.

I know this is NI’s reason because they have been cutting costs and letting people go anywhere they can for the past 4 years.

[machinesworking]

Cubase is never going to ditch their own VST for CLAP, I don't even know why people are entertaining the idea.

We'll check back in 20 years on this. 20 years ago MOTU DP used to have their own format with MAS, there was Direct X on PC etc.

Just saying, if CLAP eventually wins out on both Mac and Windows, then you might see something like MOTU's MAS plugin format for Digital Performer conceding to AU when OS X introduced it. Likely though if this happens it won't be like MOTU's solution where MAS is the audio system under which plugins address DP through the MAS wrappers, and developers will use the CLAP to VST3 wrapper to 'port'.

[kidslow]

since everyone but Airwindows supports VST3.

Not in fact true, but I'm surprised at how short the list actually is. Giving devs credit if any one of their catalog is VST3, I found Black Rooster and Imaginando on my system are the only other clear laggards.

[jamcat]

At this point I just assume anyone not supporting VST3 is either abandonware or grossly incompetent. Either way, they are avoided.