It's about time UAD copped on

[Kevin Nolan]

It's about time that UAD copped onto itself and released it's plugins in VST/AU/RTAS format.

I accept that they are a hardware company, but even TC Electronics realised when the writing was on the wall for Powercore. WIth Macbooks hosting 4 cores, surely it's time for UAD to wake up to the 21st century and provide their wear in various options.

They are a smart company, but they need to cop on to the fact that binding their software to external DSP is an outmoded paradigm. Jazzmutant didn't realise this in time so the iPad wiped them out; so unless UAD develop a software only strategy that works for them, they'll find themselves unable to adapt when, very shortly, external DSP becomes totally unacceptable. They have a decreasing window of opportunity to find the software-only business model that users will accept. Even AVID realise this is the way forward.

Kevin.

[. . . Delete This User . . .]

i disagree...

hardware DSP is the only model that solidly protects them from piracy...

and UAD are simply better at development and support than TC ever were.

I also understand they've already said they'll be doing a thunderbolt (lightpeak) equipped version as well....

so moving on, and keeping pace with technology, seems to be their ethos...

[Mixedup]

Hi Kevin,

It's about time that UAD copped onto itself and released it's plugins in VST/AU/RTAS format.

They already do all of the above. I take it you meant native plug-ins

even TC Electronics realised when the writing was on the wall for Powercore.

But why did they realise that? Is it because computers are powerful, or because they saw that UAD was their main competitor and that companies were increasingly looking to UA to do uncrackable software models of their gear — so there was little room for expansion of powercore sales? I suspect that UAD sales and plug-in sales are far greater than those for the powercore.

WIth Macbooks hosting 4 cores, surely it's time for UAD to wake up to the 21st century and provide their wear in various options.

Well... they have just released a version with FW which makes it usable with laptops.

They are a smart company, but they need to cop on to the fact that binding their software to external DSP is an outmoded paradigm.

I don't agree. I'd love them to go native, but I don't think they 'need' to. In fact, it's quite a risky approach from their point of view when you consider the issues of piracy and the potential impact of that on Avid, Lexicon, SSL and others who have recently opted to go fully native. Convenience for the consumer cannot be the *only* factor. Business continuity is important if we want them to continue to have a profit motive for making all those damned fine plug-ins we enjoy!

Jazzmutant didn't realise this in time so the iPad wiped them out

IIRC, it did nothing of the sort. They spotted a niche in the market and had a commercial product that filled that niche. As the consumer market matured with the iPad (and all those other touch-tablet devices, for that matter) the JazzMutant guys have taken their knowledge and expertise into other arenas. That's them being strategic and adapting their business model; not them being wiped out.

so unless UAD develop a software only strategy that works for them, they'll find themselves unable to adapt when, very shortly, external DSP becomes totally unacceptable. They have a decreasing window of opportunity to find the software-only business model that users will accept. Even AVID realise this is the way forward.

I'm not quite sure the DSP model will become 'unacceptable' that quickly while it supports unique plug-ins, and provides protection to the official software versions of gear from third-party manufacturers. I do agree that UA will eventually need to find a software only way of doing things, but I suspect they have rather longer to find that way — which I imagine would mean finding an ultra-secure way of protecting them. iLok and eLicenser don't appear to be fool proof. And bear in mind UA already have quite a large captive market who own their hardware to which they can sell newly developed plug-ins.
You might as well ask "isn't it about time that Apple realised they'll have to sell their PCs for a reasonable price?" OK, that's a little tongue-in-cheek, and I don't intend to start a Mac/PC flame war... but it's illustrating a point: Apple don't have to do anything of the sort, because people are happy to pay through the nose for their particular brand of processing power and the unique software that runs on it. There's still a healthy market for their computers, and unless people decide not to buy them ,they'll continue with that model. That's not all that different to what UA are doing.

...from a selfish point of view, of course, I'd love to see native versions

[muzines]

They won't go native.

*If* the DSP card market dies, then they'll have to make some strategic business decisions, but all the info I've seen says UAD2 cards are selling very healthily.

UAD going native threads have been done to death and all the arguments have been said many a time: eg: http://www.studionu.com/uadforums/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=14839

And might as well:

[steve355]

IF they decided to simply go native and offer the plugins for a similar price to the UAD2 plugin price (which is probably what the market would bear)... then I think in the near term at least they'd have some pretty miffed loyal customers who have invested so much in their DSP cards. I spent c. £1.4K on my UAD2 quad.

But I don't think they will. They go from strength to strength and are not really cutting prices much these days. And the cards are a great revenue stream, psychologically lock users into their brand, and as said are a great dongle.

[Shreddie]

There's also a few other considertaions...

DSPs are far better at the kind of processing needed for audio work than CPUs are and they can be carefully optimised for peak performance despite running under very heavy load.

It's always better to run this kind of stuff on dedicated hardware (even if it does run inside a computer) for a whole load of practical reasons.

Although I don't (and probably never will) own any UAD stuff, I do admire them for sticking to their way of doing things.

[Steve Hill]

We've had this debate a dozen time. Right now, UAD are crack free and piracy free, and long may it continue so they can continue to invest in great products, unlike rivals who have sunk without trace.

Jazzmutant was a one-trick pony, an advanced but high priced product which enjoyed no popular market following whatsoever. There is no comparison.

When UAD want a new CEO to develop a major strategic shift for them, I'm sure they'll give you a call.

[Kevin Nolan]

It's irrelevant how many times you've had this discussion. The point is valid, even more so at this juncture, what with the launch of an Apple quad core laptop, and subsequent to AVID realising the validity of this argument only recently.

Many do not share your comfort with proprietary DSP for plugins that can run native. Grand if that's your outlook, the points made in the original post are completely valid and completely worthy or repeated discussion as technology develops.

Oh and yes – it’s not your forum. Other member frequent it less than you do, and new member come along all the time – and we’re all equal to you and entitled to start any new discussion worthy of the forum title.

[muzines]

The UAD is a hardware platform with a software front end. It is not, nor has it ever been, a native software platform, and like all hardware platforms, it has resource limits you need to work within - this is true whether it's an SPX90, Eventide Orville, or Powercore or Duende system.

If you do not want a hardware platform or DSP, then don't invest in a UAD system - there are plenty of native alternatives. The UAD system is what it is, and I can't see it being anything else, especially while at the moment cards are selling, plugins are selling, the products are desirable and still selling at a premium, they are getting exclusive licensing deals that otherwise would not happen (eg Manley, Studer etc), all of their customers are paying ones and to a certain extent locked in to the platform, they are not affected by piracy, and because of all that they are still significantly investing in developing both software and new DSP hardware products within the UAD platform.

None of those are business reasons to shelve DSP and go native. I understand some consumers would like it and find it convenient, but that's not a business reason to do so (I'd quite like it and find it convenient if Ferrari's were fifty quid ).

Most of the other companies who have taken DSP systems and gone native have largely done so because their platform died (for all kinds of different reasons) and desperation forced them to do *something* to try and pull back some revenue - none of which applies to UA, at least in 2011, and for the last decade or more.

And yep, as was mentioned above, everyone seems to think they know how to run UA's business as if UA are somehow incompetent to do so - and yet their business is doing just fine, and there are plenty of smart people over there perfectly capable of developing a viable product strategy. If you don't like their products or design choices, then perhaps your money would work for you better by being spent elsewhere... :shrugs:

[narcoman]

It's irrelevant how many times you've had this discussion. The point is valid, even more so at this juncture, what with the launch of an Apple quad core laptop, and subsequent to AVID realising the validity of this argument only recently.

Many do not share your comfort with proprietary DSP for plugins that can run native. Grand if that's your outlook, the points made in the original post are completely valid and completely worthy or repeated discussion as technology develops.

Oh and yes – it’s not your forum. Other member frequent it less than you do, and new member come along all the time – and we’re all equal to you and entitled to start any new discussion worthy of the forum title.

UAs reasons for producing a DSP platform have absolutely nothing to do with "power" or "maths".... despite what they may claim!!

It has absolutely everything to do with creating a more secure market for themselves - and good for them. They've created a successful set of plugins, bought by many, not cracked. They'd be crazy to even consider going native. They've managed to achieve what very few other s/w companies have - a desire for their product, and one not replaceable with cracks.

There is no debate to be had - no point in saying "they should do this , tech is ready".... just not important. They have a product, people want the product. Economics rules ALL business's, they have a solid economic reason to do exactly NOT what you'd like!! The power of machines has been their since the days of the G5 to run decent plugins natively....

Good for them, no matter how much I may resent it!!

[Bob Bickerton]

It's irrelevant how many times you've had this discussion. The point is valid, even more so at this juncture, what with the launch of an Apple quad core laptop, and subsequent to AVID realising the validity of this argument only recently.

Many do not share your comfort with proprietary DSP for plugins that can run native. Grand if that's your outlook, the points made in the original post are completely valid and completely worthy or repeated discussion as technology develops.

Oh and yes – it’s not your forum. Other member frequent it less than you do, and new member come along all the time – and we’re all equal to you and entitled to start any new discussion worthy of the forum title.

As you point out it's not anyone's forum, but nevertheless it can be tedious discussing the same issues over again, so fair comment from Steve to point out the obvious.

Now I may well be wrong, but what I observe in threads on this topic, is that established users of UAD are happy with the current set-up and are loyal to the brand. It's the wannabes who can't understand the argument that UAD's policy provides a secure environment for them to further invest in development of their very good products.

As a committed user I am very happy to invest in this company, I'm happy to pay a higher price for a superior product, and don't much care if that is conditional on me buying a rather lavish security dongle/DSP, call it what you will.

You, as a consumer, have a choice. You can buy currently available native plug-ins, or invest in some up-market ones that have a secure future and excellent track record of continued development.

Espousing what you think the company should do is tiresome. Are you a UAD user by the way?

Bob

[axeman_ukl]

it would be nice if you needed more power than the card you have in your machine that it would allow you to run them off the cpu as well,but it would have to be a machine with one or multiple dsp cards in it authorised by uad.

[narcoman]

No UAD here (two other chaps here have them) but I totally get why they stick to what they have!! I'd do exactly the same!!

[CPU toast]

Evolution always moves away from hardware, which takes up space, consumes energy, introduces noise, introduces latency, is hard to upgrade, is another potential point of failure, is expensive, uses up natural resources, causes pollution, and has audio quality that is increasingly indistinguishable from native apps.
Also, functionality ends up being a higher priority than anti-piracy robustness.

I bet my seemingly excellent CLA Vintage Compressor plugs would not sound very much better on a super-duper Sharc chip, at least for my needs. I guarantee, also, that the end consumer could give a rat's butt. Spiffy hardware doesn't make dodgy content much better anyway -not enough to justify lining the pockets of a harware manufacturer.

How many peole want to go back to relying on a hardware-crammed million dollar studio?
All that circus is now just about crammed into an off-the shelf personal PC.

Evolution means less hardware.

[Steve Hill]

There is no debate to be had - no point in saying "they should do this , tech is ready".... just not important. They have a product, people want the product. Economics rules ALL business's, they have a solid economic reason to do exactly NOT what you'd like!! The power of machines has been their since the days of the G5 to run decent plugins natively....

Quite. I'm typing this on a 6 year old G5. My main studio computer is an 8-core MacPro, and even that's 2.5 years old. UAD have had nearly a decade to go native if they wanted to (with the less-hungry UAD1 platform).

Other member frequent it less than you do, and new member come along all the time – and we’re all equal to you and entitled to start any new discussion worthy of the forum title.

It's not "my" forum, but I am a moderator. We have a search function and it is courteous to other members (1 million unique visitors a month) to use it occasionally. You can always resurrect an existing topic if you've got something to say.

You might also find that phrasing the question in neutral terms like "Why don't UAD go native?" rather than "It's about time UAD copped on" gets a warmer response. The latter is not a question; it's a rant that claims you know better than they do.

It's your choice if you want to go down that route, but if so there are some seriously knowledgeable people hereabouts who will not hesitate to tell you if you're wrong.

[narcoman]

Evolution always moves away from hardware, which takes up space, consumes energy, introduces noise, introduces latency, is hard to upgrade, is another potential point of failure, is expensive, uses up natural resources, causes pollution, and has audio quality that is increasingly indistinguishable from native apps.
Also, functionality ends up being a higher priority than anti-piracy robustness.

I bet my seemingly excellent CLA Vintage Compressor plugs would not sound very much better on a super-duper Sharc chip, at least for my needs. I guarantee, also, that the end consumer could give a rat's butt. Spiffy hardware doesn't make dodgy content much better anyway -not enough to justify lining the pockets of a harware manufacturer.

How many peole want to go back to relying on a hardware-crammed million dollar studio?
All that circus is now just about crammed into an off-the shelf personal PC.

Evolution means less hardware.

hahahahr! you wish!

Why do you think there are so many £15k plugin based project studios with people looking for work. The work (although there is less of it) comes to the places with the stuff the everyman CAN'T get..... New tech is great - it has allowed the single user to make great music and realise his artistic expression like never before - but it hasn't opened the doors for high end work.... ho ho ho no!

[Dave B]

Another thing when talking about going native is to consider the alternatives. Waves produce high quality plugins that run natively on the host. Fine. But there's no Waves products chez moi :

- I don't like their pricing
- I don't like their update policy
- I don't like their fascist bully attitude towards piracy
and
- I quite _like_ the idea of a dedicated DSP box... I have two! I was planning to get at least one more!

(OK, Waves is pretty much top of the 'Evil' scale, but the point is still valid)

But fundamentally, I have a choice - I can choose to go down the native route, or to go DSP. I _like_ having a choice! SSL have just hacked me off because they have taken away that choice - I was on the verge of going hardware Duende when the ditched it. So there's no benefit to me in buying their software alone - a card will allow my (already ageing quad core Mac) to continue for a goodly long time running the same channels of processing. All it takes is one update to one plug to get hungry and I'm stuffed.

Sorry Kev, but I really do hope that UAD doesn't listen to your advice.

[Kevin Nolan]

Stephen, I normally don't get involved in tit-for-tat debates in forums and always want to stay technical and on topic; but I have to say in this instance that you really are overstepping your bounds.

This is a forum for discussion - and I wanted to make a point and read 'on topic' reactions (which I find very interesting and are shifting/amending my stand point).

I have to say that I find it unacceptable that you're telling me how to behave on this forum on the basis that you find the topic tedious. In this instance, as in about now, I genuinely do feel it is time there is UAD choice across software-only and hardware, feel this point is worth repeating and purposely made the subject header a bit edgy to prompt reaction. It's not offensive but it's edgy - that was the point. So again with respect - I think you need to re-examine your role as moderator and exercise a little more judgment before ticking people off.

Back on topic - while I accept the points to UAD hardware being a valid medium and for it to continue so, UADs portable option for laptops is, IMO, inadequate. At a minimum, I believe it would server their future, as well as musicians who use laptop, macbook and iMac platforms, to have a native UAD plugin option too. Let them charge a lot for the native version as do Lexicon, so as not to reduce revenues but, IMO, what with the current crop of more portable computers being so powerful, UAD native plugins would be massively desirable to a large cohort of potential users, and surely a step in the right direction for UAD also?

IMO, UAD are locked into designing hardware for historical reasons and to me this is probably one of the main reasons why they are still committed to hardware. The plugins sell because they are extraordinarily good, but I believe that native only versions would sell just as well, and probably in multiples of numbers. But the migration of a company from hardware to software is not an easy one – and I genuinely fear from the future of this company or part of Universal Audio unless the figure out how to transition to software-only – I personally believe they have no choice but to go in that direction sooner rather than later.

Having said all of that - it is very interesting (and informative) to hear how many people like the DSP option - I've always steered clear of considering DSP cards but it sounds like UAD hardware works very well and that's useful - thanks.

Kevin.

[. . . Delete This User . . .]

i've no idea why you are trying to deliberately pick a fight with Steve

. but it really doesn't do your argument any favours...

all he did was comment that we've had this discussion before.... not imply in any way that we should not have it again.... or that you were out of line /...

one could even simply have taken it as a pointer that there may be useful material already extant that you maybe had not read or allowed for in your original premise
rather than getting aggressively confrontational about it....

as to your argument.

frankly, there are already multiple UAD solutions for Mobile and non PCI equipped machines, with more in the pipeline....
both PCIexpress card , and firewire.... with Thunderbolt coming...

that covers most of the Macs suitable for audio any how....

so... there are no really valid grounds for insisting they have to go native to be of use....

the only reason i can really grasp for people putting forward the move to native processing, is secretly hoping someone can crack the native ones so they don;t have to pay for them.

which rather colours my view ....

any how...

any software security that does not essentially affect the ability to process data, is circumventable....
iLOk is leaking like a sieve, and was always to some extent vulnerable... syncrosoft has always been so.... even the logic key was not infallible....

serial numbers are easily obtained, and challenge response systems are straight forward to break....

and then there's the possibility of simply editing the core code to remove the security coding altogether...

only running the core processing on dedicated DSP is realistically secure.... as it requires that you actually physically have the DSP....

frankly, i think more companies should follow the UAD route.... and that TC are simply chickening out... or lacking the expertise required, given their protracted inability to deliver a stable and fully functional release on snow leopard....

i'd be quite happy to have more hardware.....

(arguably, in the extreme sense, it is possible to model the DSP CPU and architecture, but it is always far slower, and less efficient , and much harder to do.... for an example, witness how relatively inefficient Virtual PC was when running on older PPC Macs.. and AFAIK, this has never been successfully done to a DSP processing device... )

[muzines]

I genuinely do feel it is time there is UAD choice across software-only and hardware, feel this point is worth repeating and purposely made the subject header a bit edgy to prompt reaction.

Most of these threads are like this though. If they were "Oh, I really wish I could use my UAD plugins natively" that's one thing - but they are mostly along the lines of "UAD are incompetent and have a clearly antiquated and dead platform and they are obviously idiots for not going native" - which is why they are so tiresome because those arguments are clearly false. That's why it gets the backs up of the people who have been around for a while and lived through these arguments hundreds of times.

It's like the PC/Mac thing. It doesn't prove anything, and doesn't get anywhere. Largely it just seems to be a bunch of people venting. And posting threads with provocative content to "get a reaction" is called trolling - so please respect the other users of the forum by engaging in sensible discussion - no-one should be provoking anyone else with their personal agendas, thanks.

Back on topic - while I accept the points to UAD hardware being a valid medium and for it to continue so, UADs portable option for laptops is, IMO, inadequate.

Baby steps. At first there was no solution for laptops. Then came the Expander, which begat the UAD2 Solo/Laptop. Now we are moving into the Satellite range which can let laptop users (and iMac users) put a Quad on their system.

Come Light Peak, laptop users will be able to put enough quads on their system to keep them busy for some time. And that's without increasing the ability of the cards with new, more powerful DSP chips.

At a minimum, I believe it would server their future, as well as musicians who use laptop, macbook and iMac platforms, to have a native UAD plugin option too. Let them charge a lot for the native version as do Lexicon, so as not to reduce revenues but, IMO, what with the current crop of more portable computers being so powerful, UAD native plugins would be massively desirable to a large cohort of potential users, and surely a step in the right direction for UAD also?

Do you not think that the fact that they haven't done this in over a decade of people moaning about native solutions *proves* that they do not at all feel this way? If native would be a good, successfull business model to them, *they would have done it already*.

As Narc says, the UAD platform hasn't been about power since the first few years of the UAD1. Those that keep coming back to the "But I get more power on my computer" argument are just not getting it - whether it's true or not, it's *irrelevant* to UA's business model.

The plugins sell because they are extraordinarily good, but I believe that native only versions would sell just as well, and probably in multiples of numbers.

This is a simplistic argument. The fact that the plugins would be "available" to everybody, means that now people have a path to using them that requires neither purchasing a UAD2 card, *or* the plugins. Many people now that want them buy them *because that's the only way they can get them* - and they wouldn't if they didn't have to. Also, the fact that everybody *can't* have them helps keep the product desirable, and thus sustains it's fairly premium pricing - lose that, and UA join the race to the bottom that other software has to content with.

Seriously - if you really look at the facts without the tinted glasses of your personal wishes, you'll see that UA have a good business model that *works* for them - and any company would be *crazy* to change a working business model into a unproven, risky one unless there was a massive strategic need for it - which I don't see is the case.

But the migration of a company from hardware to software is not an easy one – and I genuinely fear from the future of this company or part of Universal Audio unless the figure out how to transition to software-only

And here we go again - this fairly common "I fear for UA" claptrap. UA are doing just fine, and are being run by smart guys. If there comes a time where they have to change direction, they will no doubt do that. That time is not in the near future imo - fives years on, who knows, but certainly for now, your "fear" is a projection of your feelings that UA are somehow incompetent, out of touch with the needs of their users, and slowly dying. You may think that, but it doesn't necessary have any bearing on reality.

Would I like native UAD plugins? Sure. Would there be some consumer advantages to having them? Absolutely. Do I moan that the DSP system I bought isn't something other than what I bought into? No. Do I think UA are making the wrong decision for their business by sticking to DSP and not going native, at least at this time? Absolutely not.

[Neil C]

Having said all of that - it is very interesting (and informative) to hear how many people like the DSP option - I've always steered clear of considering DSP cards but it sounds like UAD hardware works very well and that's useful - thanks.

As people have pointed out, it's nothing to do with liking DSP cards.
As UAD I would never ditch an uncrackable system for one that will be cracked and all over the internet within days (or sooner).
If people 'like' UAD's cards it's because they know it means the company have an assured finance stream that will enable them to continue to develop quality plug ins.
I would guess that no great increase in sales would result in going native. I would predict that a not insignificant number of the people who currently buy into the system would no longer pay for new plugs. Any call for them to go native has to be all about demonstrating why you think UAD's income would increase in the context of the product being 'freely' available.
I'm no business guru but I think UAD would be crazy to go native.

I think UAD are fully copped and always have been.

[Mixedup]

As I've said, I can see the reason for the DSP solution. It prevents piracy, pure and simple. It also means that they have only one driver to write for the various platforms, as they can guarantee each plug-in runs on their own platform.

What *would* be interesting is:

(1) having scalable DSP system, whereby you can add/upgrade processors/memory, without having to buy a full, expensive card. Eg. if it prevented the piracy, I'd happily have a networked 1U computer with a bespoke UA operating system if it gave me more power to run the plug-ins. I do resent just a wee bit having to have multiple cards if I want the freedom to experiment with ridiculously over the top systems (eg a console made of Massive Passive, 33609 and Studer on every channel) — when the host machine has enough power to spare. More so when that host machine can be assembled for half the cost of purchasing a UA Quad. The Quad has plenty of grunt right now, though it's still possible to run out and require more, and each new plug-in seems to be getting thirstier.

and/or...

(2) if UA were to release a limited bundle of plug-ins as a native demo. Currently the DSP system means you either have to know someone running UAD stuff, or to take the plunge before you can even tell what they might sound like. Pretty much all native stuff can be demoed with no hardware, or at most an iLok, which isn't several hundred quid. I mean, if you decide you don't like it (unlikely, I'll admit), you've splashed a hell of a lot of cash to find out.

[hugol]

Audio guys are a funny lot by and large, there is definitely a romanticism associated with hardware - even computer hardware like DSP that doesn't make the blindest difference to quality.

If you have a bang-up-to-date PC it's frustrating to shell out very significant amounts on DSP that serves little purpose other than to get you to pay twice to run a handful of plug-ins.

That said the plug-ins are very good and they are very stable and reliable and they look very pretty. People are clearly still buying them and the DSP - and UAD have excellent marketing.

Actually I'm convinced lots of people love the fact it's an expensive club to join. It gives the whole thing an exclusivity factor. And I can't blame them for sticking with an uncrakable platform. The premium for a few crappy Sharc DSPs does seem a lot, but they're still obviously selling well as they'd be surely dropping the price otherwise.

If UAD did go native the potential market for their products would obviously be larger, but they'd be loosing out those probably significant DSP profits and there's the almost certain warez issue. It's not a clear cut winning formula - certainly whilst audio guys are still enjoying investing in hardware (or software that requires hardware to emulate other hardware).

[Guest]

Just to add my two bob to this.

A few years ago we moved from Logic to Reaper, because we are on the PC and needed to upgrade to XP to run a new firewire interface and Logic wouldn't work properly on XP etc. Anyhoo, no problem, hohum...

I'd got right into plug-ins using Logic, but when i transfered old projects to Reaper, no setting went with the tunes obv, and i became fustrated trying to emulate the mixes i had going with Logic plug-ins etc... So i said "oh bollocks" and just put a compressor on the master and plumbed in a hardware reverb and that's been pretty much that ever since.

And i get great CPU performance with lots of spare for the drum sampler.

So, in short, pug-ins? Pita, can't be bothered with them.

[Folderol]

One thing that stands out for me, as a part-time (non-audio) hardware developer, is that I have never found a situation where a general purpose machine comes anywhere near the performance and reliability of dedicated hardware - of the same class.

On top of that, if you write software that has to talk to the hardware, this becomes dramatically more reliable as well as simpler if there is only one (or a severely limited) set of hardware that need to be handled.

Obviously this pushes up the price even without any vendor lock-in considerations so, as someone still struggling to manage what I have, I don't see myself selling the car and rushing out to buy the kit. I can certainly see that a studio would find it very attractive though.