Behringer DAW

[cel4145]

... there will be a free and paid version.

You're probably stuck to the principle, "Just what costs a lot is also good."
This principle is sometimes true, but it is often wrong.

No. I'm not.

My point was that Behringer might want to recover some of their costs by providing a paid version as well. And in fact, it's very common for corporations to put out a free version of a product. And then once it is popular, put out an enhanced version that is paid.

Behringer has already stated they will have both free and paid synth VSTs, so we know they are thinking about how to monetize this.

Behringer says that it’s upcoming free DAW software will include a range of VST plug-ins, including software synthesizers. Accompanied by a picture of a UB-Xa plug-in in the making, the company announced both free and paid plug-ins, which will be available once the DAW is ready.

https://www.gearnews.com/behringer-free ... aw-studio/

At the beginning of the noughties, the little flame of "Free Cultural Movement"
flickered: A lot of software came up that was "open source" - or that
could be freely used by anyone after GNU or CC. LINUX in particular
was the pioneer here (though much earlier already). In the music
sector, it was common in the noughties that almost all VST plugins
were free.

The background was that the wallet should no longer be relevant
in order to have access to cultural techniques. According to
Lawrence Lessig, ideas and software should be freely exchangeable.

Today we have a world divided into two: A monetized world in
DAWs and VSTs and a "free world" in DAWs and VSTs. In the
free world, no revenue is generated with the software, i.e. it is not
directly about profit. It's more about indirect effects, for example
by amplifying the DAW world, getting more musicians to deal with
DAWs at all. Because these musicians also need hardware, and
that in turn can be sold.

It's great that musicians have access to free VSTs. But most of that is not open source. And so free plugins and DAWs from commercial vendors that are not open source is not what Lessig meant by "free culture."

I know it can be confusing, because open source software was originally referred to as "free software." Free as in beer vs free as in speech (a concept originally put forth by GNU GPL creator, Richard Stallman) are not the same thing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre

In fact, the confusion that the term "free software" created is one reason why the term "open source" was created (I would also argue that they were trying to distance themselves from Stallman, but that's another conversation):

https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coi ... e-software

And for a music example of free culture, songs people put up on Soundcloud are not typically part of "free culture." To do that, one would have to also license them under a Creative Commons license. Here is Lessig talking about Creative Commons https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMdsLGmmVkU

Anyway, it's worth learning more about Lessig's concept of free culture. I was involved in open source development for a short time, and I'm a big fan of Lessig's. I have read several of his books and seen him speak in person a couple of times. His talks are very good. You might look for some of them on YouTube. He also talks about remix culture in some of his lectures, and he makes good points about why our copyright system and its requirement of sample licensing inhibits creativity.

And if you want to talk about free culture more, I would suggest starting a new thread as it could take this one way off topic for many posts. I would be glad to participate if you do. Just shoot me a PM

[sQeetz]

Man, forgot that I also had a BCR and BCF that I bought and sold because of how shitty they were.
Sorry about that.
That poor soul that bought it from me... sorry

[jens]

It's not a weather forecast. It's a statement put out by their marketing / public relations people. LMAO

You should stick to music making.

It's painfully obvious that your linguistic skills are not at all up to the task of having conversations such as these. That was a metaphor. I could post a link to an explanation of what that is,

That was an analogy (and a poor one, which was my point). You seem confused about the difference between the two, so I'll give you the link

https://prowritingaid.com/analogy-vs-metaphor

nah... it was rather meant to be a (rudimentary) allegory, which is a special kind of metaphor (a kind of extended metaphor) - it uses a story in an attempt to illustrate a complex and/or abstract idea, concept or thought (in this case the fact that a statement can implicitly mean something without it being explicitly stated)

[vurt]

twas a fable, like aesop.

[sQeetz]

[ahh]

[enroe]

Anyway, it's worth learning more about Lessig's concept of free culture. I was involved in open source development for a short time, and I'm a big fan of Lessig's. I have read several of his books and seen him speak in person a couple of times. His talks are very good.

Ok, ok, I didn't know that you are so familiar with Lessig's ideas.

For me he is a visionary for what the future could look like - in
a positive sense.

And I think the Creative Commons licensing is really good - both for
software and for your own songs: You can choose exactly what
you want to allow and what not. But that is indeed off-topic here.

But back to Ulli Behringer: You can of course speculate about
anything. But I believe that he will position his DAW as a competitor
to the - very good - DAW "cakewalk".

[benzene]

I just drafted a long post wondering what the effects of a free DAW would have on companies like Ableton, wondering if they could get squeezed out of business. Then I remembered Reaper is already free (effectively) and felt a bit silly

Maybe it's still worth pondering, as Behringer have a strong brand presence and cash flow, so other DAW makers could feel the squeeze?

I think there'll always be room for choice. One DAW is not like another. I don't hear many people saying they don't care what DAW they use, and it comes more to individual workflow preferences, even if at cost.

[vertibration]

No DAW maker will feel any squeeze from Behringer at all whatsoever. Its Behringer......jeeze man

[Urs]

It's entirely possible that the DAW can be free and still recoup its development cost. As the mantra of the season is "platforming", there are numerous models to do so: In-app purchases and in-app subscriptions come to mind, as well as dedicated hardware to get the most of it, maybe unlocking features otherwise unavailable. Even, if unlikely, someone might eventually explore charging plug-in developers to be part of the hosting ecosystem, thus monetising indirectly (if someone wanted to depress me, I'd be unhappy to learn that examples for such schemes exist).

It might as well be trivial, e.g. the development cost might be recouped by not having to license someone else's stuff that comes with certain products.

[cel4145]

It's entirely possible that the DAW can be free and still recoup its development cost. As the mantra of the season is "platforming", there are numerous models to do so: In-app purchases and in-app subscriptions come to mind, as well as dedicated hardware to get the most of it, maybe unlocking features otherwise unavailable. Even, if unlikely, someone might eventually explore charging plug-in developers to be part of the hosting ecosystem, thus monetising indirectly (if someone wanted to depress me, I'd be unhappy to learn that examples for such schemes exist).

It might as well be trivial, e.g. the development cost might be recouped by not having to license someone else's stuff that comes with certain products.

Music Tribe I understand is worth at least a couple billion dollars. So they could also afford to buy one of the smaller, cheaper plug-in manufacturers. Reskin the plugins, put the Behringer logo on them, and charge for plugins. Either individually or as a bundle.

[ghettosynth]

I just drafted a long post wondering what the effects of a free DAW would have on companies like Ableton, wondering if they could get squeezed out of business. Then I remembered Reaper is already free (effectively) and felt a bit silly

Maybe it's still worth pondering, as Behringer have a strong brand presence and cash flow, so other DAW makers could feel the squeeze?

I think there'll always be room for choice. One DAW is not like another. I don't hear many people saying they don't care what DAW they use, and it comes more to individual workflow preferences, even if at cost.

Reaper does not really compete with Live though. I'm really glad Reaper exists. It's less about the workflow as a DAW and more about the attitude of the dev. That attitude translates to new features that I care about. It's things like supporting LV2 plugins, working on Linux, and almost certainly supporting CLAP sooner rather than later. It's working great on Linux over here. It's funny how just one small change can accelerate a transition. I decided to splurge on new monitors for my work-desk, which always runs Linux, really, I'm just picky about computer speakers so I bought some expensive computer speakers. They're just plug and play though, so for certain stuff that I do, that doesn't require controllers, I can sit at my work desk and do some audio stuff in Linux. I digress, but, I welcome Behringer, especially if they are going to support Linux.

[Biome_Digital]

I just drafted a long post wondering what the effects of a free DAW would have on companies like Ableton, wondering if they could get squeezed out of business. Then I remembered Reaper is already free (effectively) and felt a bit silly

Maybe it's still worth pondering, as Behringer have a strong brand presence and cash flow, so other DAW makers could feel the squeeze?

I think there'll always be room for choice. One DAW is not like another. I don't hear many people saying they don't care what DAW they use, and it comes more to individual workflow preferences, even if at cost.

I'm really glad Reaper exists. It's less about the workflow as a DAW and more about the attitude of the dev.

Same.

[jules99]

deleted

[jens]

they will have a tough time finding a permanent spot in this crowded market.

lol...


You are talking like an expert here about a product you haven't even seen a glimpse of yet and basically know nothing about. Can it get more absurd than that?

[chk071]

I'm really glad Reaper exists. It's less about the workflow as a DAW and more about the attitude of the dev.

We're all different in that regard, I guess. I couldn't care less about the attitude of the people behind a DAW. For me, it's what the final product is about and how well it suits my needs and wishes.

Caring about the attitude behind a software or its developers almost translates to religious belief for me. Like with most Linux users. Well, I guess it's no coincidence that they call Reaper the Linux of DAW's.