Spectrasonics license transfer fee - unkindness behavior?

[ATS]

I never said it was immoral or anything like that. Just sucks for the new buyer.

Huh...what are you talking about? Why?

That guy's getting an incredible deal!

He's getting a brand new quality instrument with full service priviledges AND an upgrade path to amazing new things....PLUS he's paying a fraction of what it would cost for him to buy it new in the store!

Show me how it "sucks" for him....I don't see that at all.

just for that fact that they don't get teh same kind if pricing as others, that's all.

[spectrum]

from http://www.spectrasonics.net/instruments/atmos_faq.html

Any license transferred versions of this software do not have all the same upgrade privileges as standard new units purchased at an authorized Spectrasonics dealer.

Thanks. That should say "upgrade pricing" instead.

"The ONLY difference is that License Transfered versions cannot be resold/transferred yet again and we will always give the best paid upgrade pricing deals to original users."

Best for original user vs. worse for (penalising) the second user. I can't see a difference.

Before a transfer you had the one user to update/upgrade. Since the transfer you're $50 (minus any admin cost) to the good and you've still got one user, but now they're not going to get the "best paid upgrade pricing deals" in some as yet unspecified and unprecedented way. Yes I do question the morality of that position.

Well, that's your perogative....but I find that accusation way overblown and harsh...especially without any details of unfair pricing practices. Everything we've ever offered our registered users has been unbelievably generous and our policies have always been very clearly spelled out. Calling someone's morality into question is a pretty major accusation and pretty uncool.

Spectrum,
Now that you're on, do you do anything that gives a studio owner a hardware synth equivalent licence so that paying studio customers are allowed to use Spectrasonics stuff in that context?

There's no way we've found to do that. Hardware and software are totally different so we don't allow straight rental use.

As I described earlier, we license to users, not facilities. If the facility owner is our end user and they are creatively involved in a project (for instance as the producer or engineer), then that kind of "working with multiple clients" use is no problem.

[spectrum]

I never said it was immoral or anything like that. Just sucks for the new buyer.

Huh...what are you talking about? Why?

That guy's getting an incredible deal!

He's getting a brand new quality instrument with full service priviledges AND an upgrade path to amazing new things....PLUS he's paying a fraction of what it would cost for him to buy it new in the store!

Show me how it "sucks" for him....I don't see that at all.

just for that fact that they don't get teh same kind if pricing as others, that's all.

OK..so give me an example of how terrible the price difference is.

[koolkeys]

Man, if anyone is so spoiled that they have a problem with the Spectrasonics license agreement, that's sad. I mean, most sample based stuff isn't even transferable. And thinking they are immoral for the license fee and restrictions for the new user? Why? The new user didn't pay full price, why should they save the same amount of money on new?

The ONLY defense to that is "well other companies do it". So what. Like I said, people get spoiled and then expect the world to be handed to them at the price they want. Sorry, but there is nothing wrong with any of this policy. If you don't like it, don't agree to it. That's how licenses work, no? If you agree to it, stop complaining. And if you don't even own their product and haven't experienced their support and all that you get, who are you to judge?

I don't have any of their products, but would LOVE to get Atmosphere some day if I can ever afford it. But I do know that Eric is top notch and very classy. I've heard nothing but good about their support, and their products are some of the best in the business.

Really, some people SEEM to be out to nitpick about every little thing they can find.

Just my opinion, of course.

Now, if anyone wants to donate their license of Atmosphere to me, I'll pay the license transfer fee!

Brent

[beej]

Well I'll weigh in and say I was on Spectrasonic's side *way* before Eric turned up

I don't have a problem with their license policies at all, and find them to consistently over-deliver on *everything* they do (they only exception being the UB updates of Atmos/Trilogy - I'm sure it's been a huge hassle for them, but it has been a huge hassle to Atmos/Tril owners as well - I think they know they need to make it up to those users who have felt abandoned and ignored over the past year or two. I'm sure the new stuff will be great, and then they can move past the messy UB transition period)

But, for the people that for some reason want to sell off their Spectrasonics instruments, I say...

[C-note]

This thread is a crackup, but completely unwaranted

I have owned all the spectrasonics VST's since they came out and have never had a problem with them. Multiple times as I've changed computers or had hard drives go down they re-authorized my installs with no problems or hassles.

Premium great sounding products across the board!



C

[FrankT]

I want Spectrasonics to continue to produce amazing instruments - for a ridicolous price if you consider what you get! For this, they need certain business policies. Business policies which are far, far from being anything like unethical etc. In fact, it is totally distorted to call it like that! I would like to thank Eric for taking the time for posting in this thread. And now I'd like him to continue to work on the new product launches...

I never said it was immoral or anything like that. Just sucks for the new buyer.

Huh...what are you talking about? Why?

That guy's getting an incredible deal!

He's getting a brand new quality instrument with full service priviledges AND an upgrade path to amazing new things....PLUS he's paying a fraction of what it would cost for him to buy it new in the store!

Show me how it "sucks" for him....I don't see that at all.

just for that fact that they don't get teh same kind if pricing as others, that's all.

[ATS]

Well I'll weigh in and say I was on Spectrasonic's side *way* before Eric turned up

I don't have a problem with their license policies at all, and find them to consistently over-deliver on *everything* they do (they only exception being the UB updates of Atmos/Trilogy - I'm sure it's been a huge hassle for them, but it has been a huge hassle to Atmos/Tril owners as well - I think they know they need to make it up to those users who have felt abandoned and ignored over the past year or two. I'm sure the new stuff will be great, and then they can move past the messy UB transition period)

But, for the people that for some reason want to sell off their Spectrasonics instruments, I say...

i'm not selling mine but my only point is I think if you pay $50 for the transfer (or even if you don't) you should get exactly the same as any other buyer 1st or 2nd hand. I think if you treat new potential customers just as good in all respects that would be good for business. But in a way you are saying, you are a second class citizen. I am through going back and fourth on this. It is getting tiresome.

[cleverr1]

Calling someone's morality into question is a pretty major accusation and pretty uncool.

Hang on there! To be clear I'll re-iterate what I said here - I find the presence of a clause that retains the right to but fails to specify how it could or will distinguish between first and second users of your product in an upgrade scenario to be of questionable morality. I stand by that. However, this is in no way questioning your personal morality, or the general morality of Spectrasonics. It's pretty uncool to suggest that was what I was saying.

O.T. story by way of example:
I once bought a flat leasehold with a clause in the contract stating that my property had to be repainted every three years or the freehold owner could take possesion. I consider that clause to be immoral, yet ironically I was also a director of the company that held the freehold. That is not suggesting that the freehold company (including me) itself was immoral, just that specific bit of the contract.

At the end of the day I'm just a customer who expressed an opinion on some aspects of the useage of your products who appreciates you taking the time to respond to the points raised.

[z15]

As far as I can see, some part of the discussion is kind of running around in circles.

I guess the point most people who are skeptical are trying to make is not that Spectrasonics and Eric would be downright evil ... and while I don't personally own their products, I've witnessed 2nd hand that both the products and the support totally rock.

The problem is that the wording about how only the first / original user is eligible for the best deals is kind of nondescriptive and ambiguous and feels kind of odd. I mean... What kind of best deals? How? When? Why? It isn't really explained anywhere and it just gives kind of air of "we would really very much prefer you don't buy our stuff second hand but if you do, you should know that you will miss out on cool deals so your choice" even though I guess it isn't meant like that, at least not exactly like that.

It might be that the second user gets exact same prices for updates to a great product and there is no big difference, but the wording leaves lots of room for interpretation for people who don't know what kinds of deals Spectrasonics have offered or might offer... it could be like "second hand copy owners pay 100 bucks for this free update and furthermore miss the great 50% off introductory offer of our new product" or like "well, we might have some cool little crossgrade deals coming on in a few years, maybe, and we'll probably just give the option to original owners, sorry".

I don't have anything to complain myself, but somehow I have a feeling this is the point some of you might want to get across. Might be wrong, too, wouldn't be the first time.

edit: cleverr said this better already, I guess I just took too much time to write this.

[spectrum]

OK, we can agree to disagree.

• I don't think that making a policy choice for keeping a difference between what "New" means and what "Used" means is evil.

• I also don't think that giving better upgrade pricing to someone who paid much more for their product is wrong. In fact, I think that's the "moral" and ethically right thing to do.

The notion that the above two policies is somehow "treating some people like second-class citizens" is a bit funny.

[koolkeys]

I think part of the problem though is that the new products and upgrades aren't OUT yet. So they likely don't have prices to give yet, no? Maybe I'm wrong and I just haven't seen the announcements.

Brent

[beej]

As an example - I bought Stylus new. I then got Styls RMX *free*. Totally free, for a brand new, highly upgraded instrument. I actually felt guilty about that - I would have though paying *at least* a £20-50 upgrade fee would have been totally fair. But in case, I got it free.

If I had purchased Stylus second-hand, even if the original owner had bought Stylus recently, I'm pretty sure I would not have been given Stylus RMX for free.

That's the kind of "deals" and "offers" that Eric is talking about.

[spectrum]

The problem is that the wording about how only the first / original user is eligible for the best deals is kind of nondescriptive and ambiguous and feels kind of odd. I mean... What kind of best deals? How? When? Why? It isn't really explained anywhere and it just gives kind of air of "we would really very much prefer you don't buy our stuff second hand but if you do, you should know that you will miss out on cool deals so your choice" even though I guess it isn't meant like that, at least not exactly like that.

Actually, that is what we are trying to get across.

2nd hand sales and license transfers are not something we want to encourage. We do them to solve problems and because its a kind of necessity in our business. But even with the transfer fee, it's a huge drain on our time and an overall loss for us.

It might be that the second user gets exact same prices for updates to a great product and there is no big difference, but the wording leaves lots of room for interpretation for people who don't know what kinds of deals Spectrasonics have offered or might offer

I understand, but that's intentional. We do want people to know that there's a difference between a new sale and a used sale. Encouraging used sales would not be a good thing for our company or our dealers...so there has to be a difference (even though it is a minor difference). Otherwise, we really couldn't do license transfers at all.

... it could be like "second hand copy owners pay 100 bucks for this free update and furthermore miss the great 50% off introductory offer of our new product" or like "well, we might have some cool little crossgrade deals coming on in a few years, maybe, and we'll probably just give the option to original owners, sorry".

I don't have anything to complain myself, but somehow I have a feeling this is the point some of you might want to get across. Might be wrong, too, wouldn't be the first time.

Conjecture and speculation.

All I ask is this: Judge us by what we have done, not by what you think we might do.

We've been in business for 14 years now, so we've got a long track record to be judged on and lots of customers to ask if they've been treated fairly by our practices. I think you'll find that we've been extremely generous with our users.

Best,

spectrum

[spectrum]

I think part of the problem though is that the new products and upgrades aren't OUT yet. So they likely don't have prices to give yet, no?

CORRECT!!

Save the firing line for later guys....