A friendly Hello to all,

I read the whole thread because I have ordered 4 Horizon products last year, two of them in October/November 2007. Since I also was happy to get the Special Edition with its comfort, too, I only registered the Horizon products, but indeed never used them. For me it was an investment, like a savings plan for the future. I don´t want to complain at all, but I write this so that everyone can see that it´s also concerning me and my following proposal is not only a purely altruistic one ;-)  Of course I don´t know all the problems which have to be solved when installing a new upgrade path - also for further products in future -, but maybe it´s worth to think about a bit. I try to write plain though my english isn´t practiced very often.

If I see it right, the problem is that the new upgrade path is not compatible with the old one. Ok. This should be accepted.

I also think that no one seriously can expect that VSL holds up the whole development and adjustment of prices and upgrade possibilities which come necessarily with new products only because some users of the old products (me among them) haven´t upgraded yet and will not do it until July or October 2008. Equal if the reasons are a matter of financial problems or others.

But on the other hand I think that the promised upgrade path has a value which gets lost after the dead line ends.

The moral aspect in this discussion is in my opinion stressed a bit too much. I think only users who purchased licenses during the last year have a right to complain. But owning licenses for a distinctly longer time and then complaining about the existance of a dead line is imho a bit exaggerated because I´m very sure that VSL has no prophets among the crew who could forecast the actual situation. But this is only my point of view. Let´s go on thinking about a possible solution. The situation is:

There are already new products, download products, and there will come more new products, as Herb posted. We already know there will be licenses for separate instruments e.g.

I think it´s not necessary to make one big upgrade path which implements the old products fully. This is not possible, too. It was a work for Hercules only to make the old discount calculator. ;-)

Maybe it´s a solution to divide it into two paths as proposed in postings above. But how to construct it? At first - keep the old upgrade path very restricted. Not to all possible VIs which have a little portion of the old samples, but only to one or two accordant VIs. The people who have the license for the Pro Library can for instance keep discounts only for the purchase of the existing Symphonic cube or separate VIs of the Cube. But not for separate instruments, not for download products, not for Special Edition or others (which all didn´t exist in 2005 anyway). The users of the Horizon products can be also limited to few accordant VIs. For instance the woodwind ensemble: A limited upgrade path to Woodwind I and II is enough. Nothing else. French Oboe - only necessary is one upgrade path to woodwind I - or maybe even better the download solo instrument when it can be purchased in future. Or for Opus Users only one upgrade path to Special Edition and nothing else.

To make it compatible with the new upgrade concept there can be a strictly separation: If a customer uses the new upgrade possibilities then the old products (First / Pro / Horizon) should be completely ignored. If the user wants to realize the upgrade value of his old product he/she has first to use the separated "restricted" upgrade path as descripted above to get a "modern" product. So the User still can make up his mind and at least don´t completely lose the possibility to upgrade.

Maybe this thought seems like the quadrature of a circle but maybe it´s worth to think a bit more in this direction. If there finally isn´t a workable solution with upgrade-algorithms, I will accept this but would hope that VSL could make some goodwill discounts for users who want to upgrade after the ending of the dead line. Thank you for reading so much.

Best

Rainer

@cm said:

Errikos, the *respective standard library* in your case is the Chamber Strings I Standard Library - the license of the Chamber Strings I Extended Library depends on an existing license for them.

the excerpt of the Chamber Stings included in the Special Edition Extended Library can originate from 2 paths: the Special Edition DVD product or the Orchestra Strings Extended Library - both licenses cannot be upgraded to the Chamber Strings Full Library, because a lot of samples from the Chamber Strings (DVD) Standard Library will be missing.

such an upgrade path (Special Edition -> VI Chamber Strings or Orchestra Chamber Strings -> VI Chamber Strings)) can only be realized offering a discount on the product, not just issuing an upgrade license.

Pingu, based on this little example - are you already suspecting why combining or a side-by-side option would lead into a minefield?

add Horizon Chamber Strings and the upcoming Orchestra Chamber Strings to the calculation and try to find out which combination should entitle for which discount ... (and chamber is a relatively simple example, since they are neither included in opus nor in the first or pro edition)

christian

Two things baed on Christian's reply to me and Pingu:

1) As I suspected. through the Special Edition I cannot upgrade to anything decent except other buffet offerings unless I pay real money, and I don't expect to.

2) Even if I believe for a minute that a tally of the disparate upgrades is hard for the company to arrange, do the following:

Offer Pro Edition users one upgrade path only, the one that was promised - to the Cube. Do not combine that path with anything else, and keep it separate.

None of us I suspect can or will complain about that. Now how hard can that be really? Once we have upgraded to the Cube (if that product is still on offer), then we can join the rest with the other varieties of convoluted upgrade paths.

 Sincerely,

Errikos 

Well I too feel quite gipped by VSL!

I bought the Horizon Saxophones Vol 1 within days of it coming out.

Then they renegged on releasing Vol 2 in GIGA (my preferred format at the time), and told me that I would need to buy the Vol 2 in their VSL player format.

Fair enough, I could swallow that... but they didn't want to offer a Saxophones Vol 2.

Instead they decided to FORCE me to re-purchase the VI Saxes all over again in order to get the additional Volume 2 content.

Their supposed "generous" discount was to offer a discount if I purchase the extended library, but I only get the discount if I REPURCHASE the same samples I already have (and please don't argue the semantics about the 24-bit samples being different from the 16-bit versions).

Now imagine my disgust to find that they are now holding a gun to my head to FORCE me to buy the VI version now in order to make use their upgrade path. Especially when this was originally promised as an upgrade path with NO TIMEFRAME attached.

To put it bluntly I am very ticked that VSL have broken their word regarding the "not having to purchase the same samples twice" promise and ALSO RENEGGED on their upgrade option.

And now that they are trying to FORCE me into a purchase... they have LOST ME permanently as a customer with their DISPICABLE behaviour and APPAULING TREATMENT as a customer. 

@RainerL said:

To make it compatible with the new upgrade concept there can be a strictly separation: If a customer uses the new upgrade possibilities then the old products (First / Pro / Horizon) should be completely ignored. If the user wants to realize the upgrade value of his old product he/she has first to use the separated "restricted" upgrade path as descripted above to get a "modern" product. So the User still can make up his mind and at least don´t completely lose the possibility to upgrade.

See that sounds logical to me. I don't fully understand the current range of products, nor those to come. I don't understand, for instance, whether there are SE instruments which containt articulations found nowhere else, or whether everything VSL do is a subset of the main VI collections. If the former is true then I can see how the situation could be really complicated. Also, if the number of articulations continues to expand, whilst the collections are broken down into individual instruments, then I can see some users upgrading to the Symphonic Cube, but then wanting to get hold of the articulations they don't have in the super-duper utterly extended individual downloadable oboe.

Presumably, though, that particular upgrade path is eventually going to have to be created anyway, for those who currently own the symphonic cube. So the idea of restricting the upgrade potential of the Giga editions to just the symphonic cube, and only then allowing us to continue on the upgrade path to whatever is coming, seems to make perfect sense.

@cm said:

Pingu, based on this little example - are you already suspecting why combining or a side-by-side option would lead into a minefield?

add Horizon Chamber Strings and the upcoming Orchestra Chamber Strings to the calculation and try to find out which combination should entitle for which discount ... (and chamber is a relatively simple example, since they are neither included in opus nor in the first or pro edition)

 

christian

@Errikos said:

Offer Pro Edition users one upgrade path only, the one that was promised - to the Cube.

@steff3 said:

however I would clearly welcome in upgrade to the isolated instrument packs that are announced - as from french oboe to a french oboe VI it is a much more reasonable upgrade path than to the Woodwinds I VI .... but that is maybe only my opinion.

If VSL plans to offer each separate instrument or ensemble as a download product then I have no doubt that almost all users of the Horizon products will welcome an upgrade path restricted only to the accordant download instruments. If they don´t upgrade till October they will also wait another year until all download instruments are  available.  This could function as it already does with the guitars.

Best

Rainer

 PaulR:

What you say appears to imply that, in your view, as long as a decision is made by a company, it is, by definition, a good decision and that those adversely affected by it or concerned that it might adversely affect the future of the company should mind their manners and avoid registering their upset or suggesting reconsideration of a decision they think to be wrong or unfair.  

As you have repeatedly stated, you are not upset or angry. You certainly have every right to express your contentment. But, the fact that you are content, does not mean that all those who do not share in your contentment are ignorant, stupid or ill-mannered. I would submit that any reasonably objective observer of this thread would note that it evidences quite a great deal of upset and anger on the part of a good number of people - -both those affected by the change in policy and those, like myself, who are not personally affected by it. Why is that? You seem to suggest that people are motivated only by petty self-interest.  Yet that doesn’t explain why there are people like myself who have no immediate practical stake in this argument take the time to comment upon it. Could it be that some perceive this decision as a mistake that may have a long-term negative impact on VSL’s business? Could it be that some have enormous respect for VSL, its products, its level of service and its uniquely collaborative culture and want its business to thrive, but fear that a wrong-headed policy may threaten all that it has achieved and could achieve?

You have said that you find these expressions of upset  “shameful.” Yet, they are simply a response to what many perceive as a breach of promises that VSL repeatedly made, in its advertising, and, as noted by an earlier poster, by Herb himself on these forums. The most casual observer of the human condition and of history can’t help but conclude that, in every form of relationship, personal, business or diplomatic, breaches of promise arouse strong feelings and may have large consequences - - and are recognized as a serious matter in the law. Hence, in every country, there is a large body of contract law and there is also international law regarding agreements made between nations.

What would you say if, taking their cue from VSL regarding the finite nature of promises, those who purchased licenses for the Pro Edition or Horizon series, argued that they should no longer be bound by the terms of the license originally agreed to and decided - - using some version of the “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” argument - - that it was now OK to sell their libraries? (Of course, I, explicitly and strongly, advise against this course of action.) I have no doubt that you would think that people who made this argument were wrong because they were breaking the terms of a contract to which they had agreed. You might argue that the promises made and implied by VSL in its advertising and by Herb on these forums do not have same force as the clickwrap licenses that accompany the VSL libraries. But, if you argue that a company has the right to breach promises when it finds them inconvenient to keep, how would you argue that its customers do not have a similar right? Is it that, in your view, companies have rights regarding contracts, explicit or implied, that individuals do not have? VSL says that unforeseen changes in circumstance have compelled it to revise its update policies. However, the revision of these policies creates a changed circumstance for VSL's customers. If one party to a contract abrogates part of that contract, is the other party to the contract still bound by it? How, exactly, would you resolve this? 

As I noted in an earlier posting, Microsoft enabled the labeling of some computers as “Vista capable” when, in fact they were arguably not so capable and this questionable labeling has become the subject a class action lawsuit against Microsoft in the United States Federal courts. In other words the court has held that merely labeling a computer as “Vista capable,” may have the force of a contractual agreement. Should you want to familiarize yourself with the basics of contract law in the U.S., visit:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/bul03.htm

The answer to all this lies, I think, neither in wasteful and destructive lawsuits, nor in irate customers taking it upon themselves to breach their contractual obligations to VSL,  but in working out some kind of mutually satisfactory compromise. As to whether VSL would appear “weak,” if it reconsidered its decision, I think you are mistaken. When Apple lowered the price of the iPhone by $200 only 68 days after the initial release of the iPhone, there was a major outcry from early adopters (including Apple’s co-found Steve Wozniak). Eventually, Apple recognized that it had made a mistake and offered a rebate program. Although there was no explicit or implied contract regarding price stability between Apple and early adopters of the iPhone, it appears that Apple decided it would not be in its long-term interest to alienate a significant group of loyal customers. In the view of most observers, Apple did not appear, “weak,” on the contrary, it appeared intelligent enough and “strong” enough to recognize a mistake and correct it before it did serious harm to its business.

You keep citing the Gettysburg address as if it were some peroration of extraordinary length and this leads me to suspect that you are not entirely familiar with it - - since it consists of only 279 words. You can find it at:

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm

Best,
Stephen

@steff3 said:

LOL, great suggestion - so you have Horizon Overdrive (which was 200 € or so) and can now upgrade to the whole cube (which is more then 10 000€) - very reasonable. 😊

I think Errikos meant to the relevant parts of the Symphonic Cube - i.e. if I have the Pro-Edition Strings then I could keep my upgrade to the Strings I+II VIs.

I get the impression that some of the difficulty is that VSL intend to split things very differently, so that, for instance the individual violins package might include some of the violin articulations from Strings I, but also some from Appassionata, and Chamber. I don't know, but I can see how that would present a problem. Nevertheless, I still maintain that there is no problem if FE users are told that their upgrade route is only to the complete collections that are currently in the cube.

@Errikos said:

Offer Pro Edition users one upgrade path only, the one that was promised - to the Cube.

Also thanks to Stevesong for at last someone addressed the issue of the Gettysburg "long-windedness"

Dear community

I’d like to add some final words regarding the upgrade pricing calculations, hopefully this is helpful for a better understanding of the whole situation.

The discussion is always based on the statement of “not paying twice for the same samples”.
“Same samples” means samples which are used a second time in a upgrade product, where we didn’t invest any additional manpower to produce these samples for the new product.

This worked very well going from First Edition to Pro Edition on the same platforms.
The already existing sample base was more or less copy & pasted for the new products.
But it never worked changing to Vienna Instruments.

We didn’t have to record the existing samples once again, but most of the database was completely reedited, especially the complex database of the performance samples (legatos and repetitions).
You have to know that the editing manpower  is 10 times higher that the recording manpower.
That means, for 1 hour recording audiodata you have to invest 10 hours and sometimes much more to get the samples ready.
Other additional costs  are the software developement, all the mapping doing from scretch, and quality testing, which was an enormous task for the VIs.

Finally you get a calculation of costs about the value of each sample in a certain product,
and the result was, only 10% of the developement costs of Pro Edition and Horizon products could be added into the producing costs of the Symphonic Cube.

In other words the correct mercandile calculation “of the same samples “ in the Symphonic Cube is only 900 Euros for Pro Edition user (including all relevant Horizon products).

That’s  terrifying less, and I expected that our user base would have been very annoyed if we have offered only 900 Euros discount (instead of 4000 – 5000 Euros)

So we decided to give as much discount as possible as long as possible, even this is heavely divergent to the correct commercial calculation.

Now you could argue, that VSL is so expensive, that this fact shouldn’t matter.
Generally the production costs of any library depends on the volume of the library, how much manpower ist invested to produce it. If you compare the sample price ration of our products to other companies products you will see, that our calculation is very, very tight.
There is not much margin, especially considering and adding these large discounts.

When we decided to discontinue the Sample Library products, it was clear that the “wrong” discount system has to be discontinued also sometimes in the future. One solution could have been to lower the discounts step by step (which I didn’t prefer) or to keep the discounts to a certain point of time and offering a grace period with some extra bonus.

best
Herb

Thanks Herb. Few company bosses would bother to provide such a detailed explanation. I sympathise with the complainants, but would say in VSL's defence that at least they've given a few month's notice on their new upgrade policy. At the end of the day, the interests of the customer and those of the seller are not identical, and the issues raised here illustrate that very well. Can I also congratulate most posters on the civilised tone and consideration for others' points of view they've managed to achieve even while radically disagreeing with each other!

@Fred Story said:

Herb, A detailed, thoughtful response. Thank you for taking time to make the explanation. I wouldn't begin to question your calculations. (Even if I thought it was appropriate, I wouldn't know how.) But given the relative cost of the product, and the fact that your customer base isn't exactly a wealthy lot, I still think some more time would be in order. If you had announced this a year ago, and given us 12 months - I doubt you would have received this kind of reaction. While I'm still not thrilled that you've essentially changed the deal after my purchase (technical arguments to the contrary notwithstanding), it's mostly the suddenness of the move which has taken me aback. I REALLY want to do the upgrade. I just don't think I can do it within the next six months. Given the circumstances, I don't think 12 months is an unreasonable extension. So I'll ask straight out - would you consider extending the current upgrade offer to 12 months?

Our sales departement will contact you.

best

Herb

@Mobius said:

[quote=Marsdy]

Apart from the fact that this VSL ad does say that the VIP offer will last a "lifetime", I also note that it uses the word "investment" (which some on this board have suggested is incorrect!).

Contact Fred and not the rest of us?????

Also, allow me to point out that Herb's response does conflict with the initial explanations that were offered regarding this change, and further, I am sure we all sympathize with all the brainstorming and development that has gone into these fine instruments and engines, however, what about the work that we have put into generating the initial €5000 in order to purchase the original product? And the other €5000 to upgrade?... Is our work and money less important?

And please read the poster! Since when crossgrading (because that is what we are talking about and that is what Herb implied) costs as much as buying the product from scratch?..

Please answer Fred and myself here, or please advise me that your sales department will also get in touch with me.

Thank you for your consideration,

Sincerely,

Errikos. 

Herb, maybe we can consider it "water under the bridge" if you give us back 30% of our "investmnent"?