commercial templates bad for the community?

[m127]

Hahaha, sure, no prob and no further comments at least on this side.
A bit of an irony though, isn't it?: The legal whiny-whines and the army of lawyers (!! ) that magically popped up... Wasn't that the worst evil sin before?

Peace out.

[jbgeluid]

this m127 guy is "not very polite" to say the least...Feeling ashamed while reading this thread. Doesn't listen to arguments, attacks AB without any prooven argument, should have been banned I think. I certainly hope not everybody on this forum is like him.

[m127]

Pff. Never attacked AB. On the contrary. I am one of his FRIENDS since the JM days.

Nonetheless we are trying to just drop it on the attacks, same goes to you.

I am willing to collaborate.

Two way street though (includes lawyers and volunteer legal interns).


So let me reiterate: peace out.

[jbgeluid]

Shure.

[Rtech]

As far as making a better community, well designed software will raise the standard of things. And usually if it's well designed, it should be paid rather than free. Good software shows possibilities, and hopefully creates goals for others to strive towards, and eventually be rewarded for. There are thousands of free devices, but most are just minor deviations from a core theme. Nothing new. The same function with a different look. At the other end are things like Hadron, Ircamax, or Razor, skanner etc. Something worth paying for that pushes the boundaries of the platform.

[Macciza]

Hi
This discussion is not necessarily about whether things are free or not - but the potential effect it may have on the community which so far has had a largely 'open-source' ethic . . .

There is plenty of extremely well-designed, well-implemented, free content - and now the potential that some of it will be re-packaged with minor deviations as 'commercial' offerings . . .

From memory Hadron is not only free but also open-source ( though there may be additional paid content available), as is CSound upon which it is built - Not the best example for your argument but supportive of the opposite view . . .
I know there is a free version of Skanner, (not sure about Razor), as well as a paid XT (extended?) version - and they are both by NI, a very large company that sells most of it's synths any way . . .
IrcaMax similarly has free versions, and plenty of other excellent high-level free content - you only pay for the bits that contains objects they have invested a hell of lot in (millions?) and which were/are otherwise only available by subscription . . .

I think level of pricing is also something that deserves to be discussed/questioned, the Lemur app is $50 and contains most of the time/work that enables 'paid' content to exist.
If a 'commercial' project is half the Lemur price, have they really done half of the work? Or even a third if you use the compound price? Would the project be as attractive/justified at $75 as a standalone app?
Perhaps developers selling paid content should pay Liine a percentage of their sale price, or buy a substantially priced Commercial Developers License from Liine, or maybe Liine should create a suitably priced Developers Edition . . .

Just because something is free does not mean it is poor quality, nor does something being paid for mean that it is a quality original non-copyright infringing product . . .
I think the main point of this discussion is more to do with whether the majority of open-source providers on this forum should risk having their work appropriated for someone elses gain . . .

[Traxus]

Perhaps developers selling paid content should pay Liine a percentage of their sale price, or buy a substantially priced Commercial Developers License from Liine, or maybe Liine should create a suitably priced Developers Edition . . .

I'd give them a cut in exchange for a distribution network that also prevented piracy. Distribution is the last thing any of us want to handle. I'd also pay extra for a Developers Edition, presuming the editor didn't have so many quirky crashes and a more definite direction as far as where they intend to take the language. With the latter one though, the market share discussion comes back up, show me the potential for ROI and I'll make the investment. Maybe drop the price of the app to increase market share, re-code and sell the editor to make up the costs? Lemur at $5 a copy will soak up the dying (sorry hexler ) TouchOSC market, at which point the user gets access to the library, default package, and paid premium content from liine and third party devs? Interesting direction, on paper at least.

[Rtech]

I think level of pricing is also something that deserves to be discussed/questioned, the Lemur app is $50 and contains most of the time/work that enables 'paid' content to exist.
If a 'commercial' project is half the Lemur price, have they really done half of the work? Or even a third if you use the compound price? Would the project be as attractive/justified at $75 as a standalone app?
Perhaps developers selling paid content should pay Liine a percentage of their sale price, or buy a substantially priced Commercial Developers License from Liine, or maybe Liine should create a suitably priced Developers Edition . . .

I think two versions of lemur would be better. The current one and a free or low cost player. I think this same model is part of the success of NAtive instruments with their reaktor and kontakt players. Ableton seems to be moving this way too with M4L now included in the suite version.

Right now the commercial arguments over someone else's gain etc. seem more theoretical than actual reality when it comes to Lemur templates. There's not a big enough market so no lemur template maker needs to worry about much money-wise since there's none to be made. Added to this, every potential customer has the means and some knowledge on how to build the same product themselves. Just doesn't seem like an ideal situation for the long term. Having two versions of software would clear at least some of this up, make roles more clearly defined, etc.

[Softcore]

Im not sure Im following the logic here....Lemur is, up to now, marketed and sold as a "control surface designing" application.....I wouldnt have bought it if it was only a "extended library of control surfaces" application....What I wanted was to design the thing myself.....

Of course I understand that many people may just want to have the "extended library" without designing, and this would be the selling point of the "player" but frankly I think it messes up with the current perception of what Lemur is.....well at least according to my own personal opinion.....

Also, M4L is indeed included now in Ableton Live suite, but its not a "locked player" - it still has its dedicated editor - regardless if people will be usign it or not.....

For other comments, Macciza has said everything I was thinking!

[Macciza]

Damn it !! i just did it again - Lost a couple of hundred words and a whole heap of late night when I should be asleep trying to deal with this issue . . .
Anybody want want to compensate me for all the time and energy that I have put into this issue? Will try and write it all up again tomorrow . . .
Goodnight/morning .. . . . .
MM