Abbey Road Poos on Customers- Plugins Discontinued - No Further Development, No 64 bit

[Guest]

Hi Folks,

Seems that after much waiting, Abbey Road have decided to poo on its customers. Yes, as of October 2013 they have discontinued the TG12413 Limiter, TG Mastering Pack and RS124 Compressor.

So rather than the much awaited for Update to 64 bit they just give us all two fingers.

It would not be a bad idea if others frustrated purchasers got together and give them a right bit of stick over this move.

A cross-grade to plugins from another supplier would be better than just abandoned.

http://www.abbeyroadplugins.com/downloads.aspx

Regards,
Brian.

[ConcertinaChap]

As somebody who got caught by TC over Powercore in much the same way I can offer sympathy but not much hope.

CC

[Mixedup]

Not surprised; it cant exactly be lucrative with piracy. FWIW, I'm happily using TC and Abbey Rd plugins in a 64 bit environment here! You can us a bit bridge in most DAWs, or a wrapping plugin like DDMF Metaplugin, I think, in PT11.

[SafeandSound Mastering]

That is annoying. I use them here amongst many others. Thats software for you, you have to buy software plugins with it in mind that anything can happen. It's a volatile market/product area. Fortunately I did not pay full wack for them and purchased when they had a special going on.

SafeandSound Mastering
masteringmastering.co.uk

[Studio Support Gnome]

Not surprised; it cant exactly be lucrative with piracy. FWIW, I'm happily using TC and Abbey Rd plugins in a 64 bit environment here! You can us a bit bridge in most DAWs, or a wrapping plugin like DDMF Metaplugin, I think, in PT11.

well exactly.... it's not like they stop working just because development ceased,

frankly, i foresee this being the story for the majority of developers.. there is basically no money in it.... and it doesn't matter how cool a product is, the people making it need to pay mortgages and eat food.

[Zukan]

Have to agree. We've lost too many good 'uns thanks to thieving dikheads.

In fact, right at this moment, my team are discussing what is the best way to protect my latest plugin and almost all of the safety methods available none of them are infallible.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Seems that after much waiting, Abbey Road have decided to poo on its customers. Yes, as of October 2013 they have discontinued the TG12413 Limiter, TG Mastering Pack and RS124 Compressor.

It seems to me that emotion is clouding common sense here. First, you bought 32 bit plugs, You've still got 32 bit plugs, and you can still use 32 bit plugs. So you got what you paid for. Your contract with Abbey Road was satisfied.

So rather than the much awaited for Update to 64 bit they just give us all two fingers.

It's always nice when businesses support their customers over the long term, but at the end of the day a business is only a business if it stays in business. It seems in this case that Abbey Road decided it couldn't generate workable profits from developing the product further, and that's their prerogative.

It would not be a bad idea if others frustrated purchasers got together and give them a right bit of stick over this move.

Won't make any difference once a decision has been made, and seems pointlessly vindictive to me...

A cross-grade to plugins from another supplier would be better than just abandoned.

For you maybe, but not for Abbey Road. If they can't make the finances of developing a 64 bit plugin suite work, why would they want to spend more money for no return? What board of directors would ever think that was a good idea?

H

[The Elf]

frankly, i foresee this being the story for the majority of developers.. there is basically no money in it.... and it doesn't matter how cool a product is, the people making it need to pay mortgages and eat food.

I suspect we might be seeing this already. Has anyone else had the feeling that the tidal wave of new plug-ins has slowed to a trickle over the past 12 months?

Between rampant piracy and much improved DAW-bundled plug-ins I suspect that the third-party plug-in business is in serious trouble.

I know my own purchases of plug-ins has all but dried up this year - I'm happy with the Cubase bundle and have no need of anything new.

[Jack Ruston]

Wasn't it sold after the plug ins were developed? So it's not as if they've just casually abandoned the product. They've been told they're not doing it I expect.

J

[Zukan]

frankly, i foresee this being the story for the majority of developers.. there is basically no money in it.... and it doesn't matter how cool a product is, the people making it need to pay mortgages and eat food.

I suspect we might be seeing this already. Has anyone else had the feeling that the tidal wave of new plug-ins has slowed to a trickle over the past 12 months?

Between rampant piracy and much improved DAW-bundled plug-ins I suspect that the third-party plug-in business is in serious trouble.

I know my own purchases of plug-ins has all but dried up this year - I'm happy with the Cubase bundle and have no need of anything new.

I think if a developer is trying to simply create another common dynamic or effect then they will be struggling. If they create a unique product based on a different slant to common processes then they will have a better chance of success.
I agree that Cubase's plugins have leaped light years compared to what they were, and are far superior IMO to Logic 9's plugins that have stayed the same for years with no discernible improvements, but when it comes to very specific 'colour' effect/dynamics then we need to go elsewhere.

[Mixedup]

of the safety methods available none of them are infallible.

I guess that's inevitable too. Though I don't think Cubase/Nuendo have been successfully cracked in several versions now. Perhaps the eLicenser is a good plan. And then there's UAD...

[Zukan]

True. But the best protection involves some kind of dongle or core system. The former putting a lot of people off and the latter costing a small fortune.

[Guest]

RE: "It seems to me that emotion is clouding common sense here. First, you bought 32 bit plugs, You've still got 32 bit plugs, and you can still use 32 bit plugs. So you got what you paid for. Your contract with Abbey Road was satisfied."
----------------------------------------
I propose that expecting a developer of plugins to continue development of their product to ensure compatibility with future systems is fairly reasonable. I mean look at the number of developers poring their plugins over to new AAX format. So to me common sense would suggest that it is likely that the developer would continue to develop.

When Abbey Road released these plugins, would you honestly have figured that it was highly "unlikely" that they would, develop the product further to ensure compatibility with the emerging development of 64 bit processing?

I would have happily have paid for an update. Can you understand my point of view if I am a little bit annoyed?

Yes the 32 bit plugins could be bridged, and I have bought a bridge, but find that the GUI does not work as well as a native version.

RE: "It's always nice when businesses support their customers over the long term, but at the end of the day a business is only a business if it stays in business. It seems in this case that Abbey Road decided it couldn't generate workable profits from developing the product further, and that's their prerogative."
----------------------------------------
Yes that is their prerogative. Would you agree that its also my prerogative to express annoyance about the fact that the product is discontinued?

RE: "Won't make any difference once a decision has been made, and seems pointlessly vindictive to me... "
----------------------------------------
I merely meant that if several of their customers were annoyed that perhaps they would try to offer a concession such as a cross grade to an alternative plugin. This is a model that has worked for some companies in the past. I think that you may have mis judged my intention as vindictive. Is that possible?

RE: "For you maybe, but not for Abbey Road. If they can't make the finances of developing a 64 bit plugin suite work, why would they want to spend more money for no return? What board of directors would ever think that was a good idea?"
----------------------------------------

Well apparently the board of directors at Abbey Road think that this type of thing is a good idea.

From Abbey Road website:
The Brilliance Pack is not being discontinued and will be upgraded to 64 bit and the AAX format by Softube, the original plugin developer, who will also take on all distribution and support for the plugin moving forwards. The Brilliance Pack has been temporarily withdrawn from sale while it is updated. We expect this update to be available by the end of 2013. Further information regarding how to register for the free update will be sent to all Brilliance Pack customers via email.
http://abbeyroad.com/Service/90/Discontinued-Products

Having read that, would you agree that at least one board of directors thinks that this type of move is viable and that therefore my suggestion of asking for something similar for owners of the mastering pack “may” also be a practicable proposition.

Zukan and Mixed up have both mentioned that Piracy can be a problem for developers and I do not doubt that they are right. Perhaps this is a reason why updating and maintaing products for paying customers is more important than ever. If developing a single product in the companies catalogue is no longer viable, then offering a cross grade or even a discount on one of their other products may help keep everyone happier. Would you agree?

[Hugh Robjohns]

I propose that expecting a developer of plugins to continue development of their product to ensure compatibility with future systems is fairly reasonable.

Sorry, I disagree. If something isn't profitable no manufacturer will continue production. Annoying and frustrating it may be, but it's also the real commercial world. At the end of the day, we're the business' customers, not its managers. We're not privy to the facts that shape the business decisions.

When Abbey Road released these plugins, would you honestly have figured that it was highly "unlikely" that they would, develop the product further to ensure compatibility with the emerging development of 64 bit processing?

Abbey Road isn't a long established plug-in developer, so there's no track record of support to inform an opinion. Essentially the company lent their trademark to another company on a licensing deal. For whatever reason, they decided not to continue with that arrangement. Their trademark, their call.

Can you understand my point of view if I am a little bit annoyed?

Of course I can. I'm just trying to shine some light on the other side of the story.

. Would you agree that its also my prerogative to express annoyance about the fact that the product is discontinued?

Absolutely... And of others to draw form their own impressions.

H

[Sam Inglis]

The RS124 plug-in and the other discontinued plug-ins were not developed by Softube, but by a company called Cool Stuff Labs. As far as I can tell none of the plug-ins developed by CSL has been ported to 64-bit yet, so possibly the issue lies at least partly with them rather than Abbey Road.

It's a shame if RS124 is abandoned, that was quite a unique compressor.

[billyt]

I think Kush Audio's UBK-1 has just gone 64 bit Sam...
Cool Stuff Labs did the 32 bit version but not sure if they did the 64 bit though.

[Mattyy]

I personally think that the business of music software is dubious at best.
Standards are necessary - full stop.
If you sell a product that still needs developing/is buggy, that's criminal in the hardware world but acceptable in virtual reality.
Once I own a piece of gear it's mine - not so with a program.
Code is infinitely recyclable - electronics really aren't.
All current software should be a hell of a lot cheaper than it is!
When we finally have a decent business model in place, then maybe the prices will seem fair.
Until then, pirating is just another part of the current model - steal from me - I steal from you.
Solutions? I liked the old cartridge system. Small 1 cm chips - external board maybe.
Software only solutions should be beta or consumer - not good enough for the pro market.
All my opinion of course.

[Scramble]

>Standards are necessary - full stop.

Too vague.

>If you sell a product that still needs developing/is buggy, that's criminal in the hardware world but acceptable in virtual reality.

No, it's not criminal in the hardware world (unless the product is really faulty).

>Once I own a piece of gear it's mine - not so with a program.

Depends on the program. But anyway, so what?

>Code is infinitely recyclable - electronics really aren't.

Even if what you said was true (which it isn't, really), why is this an issue?

>All current software should be a hell of a lot cheaper than it is!

Let's see you make high quality software and sell it for peanuts.

>When we finally have a decent business model in place, then maybe the prices will seem fair.

Bluster.

>Until then, pirating is just another part of the current model - steal from me - I steal from you.

BS.

>Software only solutions should be beta or consumer - not good enough for the pro market.

Then why do so many pros beg to differ?

>All my opinion of course.

Certainly nobody else's opinion.

[Mattyy]

LOL!!! So funny

>Too vague.

Oxford dictionary

>No, it's not criminal in the hardware world (unless the product is really faulty).

Really faulty.. he he.

>Depends on the program. But anyway, so what?

Who cares if you just bought it and the upgrade to 64 bit has rendered it redundant... But you can buy another piece of software to fix this software to... whew!

>Even if what you said was true (which it isn't, really), why is this an issue?

Because...

>Let's see you make high quality software and sell it for peanuts.

AND he answers his own question Alex!..

>Bluster. >BS.

PoppycoCk!!! :O LOL!

>Then why do so many pros beg to differ? >Certainly nobody else's opinion.

Ladies and gentlemen - no need to respond. Scramble has your opinion for you. Your opinion is irrelevant. The consummate "pro" has spoken LMAO!!!

*Dying of laughter*
Thanks.

[Scramble]

>Too vague.

Oxford dictionary

It isn't the word 'standards' that was vague. It was your assertion that 'standards are necessary' that was. Perhaps you were too busy LOLing all over the floor to see that.

Really faulty.. he he.

Yes, a really faulty piece of hardware can see you up in court. A piece of hardware that has a few problems but basically does the job won't. Same as software.

>Depends on the program. But anyway, so what?

Who cares if you just bought it and the upgrade to 64 bit has rendered it redundant... But you can buy 1another piece of software to fix this software to... whew!

You didn't buy future compatibility. Yes, it's a pain in the arse when it happens. But hardware units fail, and you have to pay money for them to be fixed, or throw them away.

Ladies and gentlemen - no need to respond. Scramble has your opinion for you. Your opinion is irrelevant. The consummate "pro" has spoken LMAO!!!

Typical pub bore tactics. You crash in, loudly announce your opinions, then resort to hamminess and extravagant drunken winks when anyone questions you.

[Mattyy]

Pub bore tactics or pub boar tactics? Maybe a bit of both no?
It's all very funny. If your arguments were anything but irrelevant and less than thought out then I might be inclined to discuss but since everything you say contradicts itself, then I'm left here laughing aren't I...
Like a boar in a pub I suppose.
Close-mindedness is boring me thinks.

[Folderol]

Is this a troll?

Oh well, I'll try anyway.

I've done both software and hardware development for industrial kit. In almost every case the software has taken far longer to develop than the hardware it supports, yet I frequently hear customers complain about the hours billed for software development, with nary a squeak for the hardware time.

Hours spent is hours spent regardless of what part of a project it is on. I rather think I should get paid for it either way. My boss agrees.

In brief: A piece of hardware might have 8 digital inputs and 8 outputs. It takes 16 tests to prove these all work. The software would have 16777216 interaction possibilities, and that doesn't take into account sequencing/timing.

[muzines]

All current software should be a hell of a lot cheaper than it is!

Out of interest, do you understand what it takes to develop, market, support and update software to a paying client base, all while paying yourself in order to make some kind of living from it?

[damoore]

None of this is fun for the developers either - basically the fact that they are not doing a 64 bit version means they did not sell enough copies of the software that offering an upgrade is worthwhile. So one or more developers spent some part of their lives working real hard to produce something interesting, and their reward is to have to go out and get day jobs.

Been there, done that (though not in plugins) and I think it's very probable that they are more upset about the situation than you are.

[Mattyy]

Troll

"...upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages..."

Maybe we should add, "...by posting intelligent discourse thus exposing inconvenient truth..."
Because, quite frankly, I don't recall typing anything inflammatory, extraneous or off topic at all.
I am guilty of, however, interrupting yet another piss and moan session with actual solutions. Sorry. Moderator - better kick me out for actually thinking :S

I have zero problems with those who write code for a living. In fact, after doing a little myself (BASIC, pascal, C, MS-DOS, HTML, etc...) I have nothing but respect and admiration.

In truth, I am a bit of a fanboy and tend to marvel at the new ground that has been broken by those who work in the field of music software.

But I don't sample this software blindly. I'm well aware of the power of ctrlC and ctrlV.

My issue isn't with the coding team at all. It's with the snake oil salesmen who are ruining it for the visionary designer and the end user.
Software is NOT like hardware. In all possibility, you could cut and paste a processor together. You could slap a fancy GUI on it. You could host it on a website and you may make some money.

With hardware, you need to manufacture the product and figure out a way to distribute it. This all costs. Lots!

And. It doesn't end there. If I ever want to resell my piece of hardware, I can get money for it. I do this often. I take good care of my gear. I usually get half cost at least. On vintage stuff, I make money. I own some pretty awesome software; some of it sitting in a drawer, obsolete and collecting dust. I will never get a cent for any of it.

Just because the powers that be want to sell us the right to listen to a terrible sounding mp3 and charge us more for it, it doesn't mean that we have to support that. And if we make money off of that crooked paradigm, then we are part of the problem no?

SOLUTIONS (again):
1. Set some standards. Establish a committee(s). Prove to the GP that if a piece of software promises to tune your vocal track without any side effects or artifacts, it will.
2. Improve distribution for pro level software. Maybe read only chips. I don't know. DSP seems to be popular. Maybe that is the solution.
3. Charge less for consumer/beta/upstart stuff. iOS seems to be leaning that way anyhow so maybe this is a moot point?
4. Figure out a way to offer legacy support. Open up a second hand market.
These solutions are discussion fodder at best, I know.

Cloud storage, invasive licensing strategies and forcing us online are just plain aggressive and bad for business in my honest opinion.
All my opinion. All my ideas.
Yours?