Thanks! You tooLawrenceF wrote:Hey Brent, long time no see my friend.koolkeys wrote:Isn't everything we talk about just speculation? Unless you sit on the board of directors or are a developer, nobody really knows the truth. I don't think anyone is claiming to KNOW what is happening.
In the end, to users like "us", this is a pretty ridiculous limitation considering how many other hosts already have it.
Brent
It COULD be any of those. Though honestly, I think it is more towards what I said above. I know Cubase has the same limitation (which is odd since it is an extremely powerful and flexible program in most areas), so you could be onto something about it being difficult.Yes, it's all speculation and yes, on the surface it looks ridiculous. My point was two fold... A) Like you say, we don't know ... and B) Given that we don't know, maybe we shouldn't assume the worse, that they don't know any better or they didin't forsee some people saying what we are... "Man, that's not even close to what's already out there."
Like I said earlier, I tend to give developers the benefit of the doubt when something looks illogical and I don't know why it is, but I also fully recognize that the Internet doesn't really work that way, that more often than not the first impulse is to assume the worst.
See the thread title. "Silly Twats".
But yeah, my first thought was ... "Why the hell did they do that?"
If I were a betting man, my bet would be that it's currently not possible (or highly problematic, engineering wise) in the current architecture to insert any or all realtime 3rd party plugins on audio clips like everyone else doing that (same for Cubase actually that still doesn't do it) that they both have some more engineering work to do to make it possible. That's a feature that's also been on the Cubase FR list for at least a decade.
I may still lose that bet though, it might indeed be a money grab, or just raw stupidity.
My thoughts about them taking care of their HD customers and "industry" guys first is just based on my experience with Avid. I've been Pro Tools certified, I was on the Pro Tools beta testing team for a while, and I was trained and brought into the Pro Tools world by working professionals here in Nashville. And one thing I know is that Avid (and Digi before them) has always wanted to take care of their HD customers first. They want those customers to feel they have something of extra value, kind of a stroke to their ego, if you will. And you would be surprised how many professionals actually believe that the things Pro Tools does can't be done with quality without the hardware. It is a fading breed, but I've heard it many times. And once they take away all exclusivity for HD owners, those owners won't be in the Avid market for hardware, at least not all of them.
Things have changed with Pro Tools, obviously. They slowly let go of the hardware requirements as a cost of entry. So I'm guessing that in time, they will let go of this limitation as well. But not until they lure more people into subscriptions (which I am not inherently against), upgrades, etc. Heck, remember when you had to purchase the option for MP3 export? I still have the license on my iLok for it from years ago. That was clearly something they could have done in the core program. But Avid/Digi has never worked that way. They are all about exclusivity and that allure of being the 'industry standard'. Once they lose that, they will fall pretty hard. So protecting that has ALWAYS been one of their biggest priorities.
Brent