The number and intensity of comments on this thread are evidence of how problematic VSL's change of policy is. As I have said several times in earlier posts, this policy change does not affect me personally. I never purchased the First or Pro Edition - - I have licenses for the standard part of the Symphonic Cube, the Bösendorfer, and the complete (standard and extended) solo string library. So, however I might question the wisdom of this decision, I have no personal stake in the outcome.
My attitude towards the folks at VSL is that of a friend. I am deeply respectful of the quality, intellectual brilliance and commitment to excellence that VSL's products demonstrate. If I am critical of VSL's recent policy decision, my criticism is that of a friend suggesting to his friend that an announced course of action may not be in my friend's long-term interest.
That said, one has to analyze why a company might make a decsion that even a novice could predict would be a public relations disaster. What this decision suggests is that VSL is under financial pressure. The problem may be that the market for the kind of excellence demonstrated by VSL products is relatively small. In this context selling and reselling the same samples to the same audience might become a matter of economic survival. I have no doubt, given the idealistic nature of the entire project in which VSL has engaged, that they meant what they said about the VIP upgrade path when they originally announced it. But, it would seem, circumstances have changed. If this speculation is correct, then the question is what is the best way to deal with the change in circumstances. Is it, for example, wise to risk alienating a significant part of the customer base and to risk, further, the loss of trust that this recent policy change engenders among committed professional customers? If a promise made so explicitly - - and so recently - - can be breached, what certainty can customers have that any new promises will be kept?
At the same time, one has to recognize that economic survival has to be the first aim of any company - - no matter how idealistic its intentions. Look, for example, at music notation software. The worldwide demand for sophisticated music notation software is such that it has been able to support the ongoing development of only two applications, both produced, until recently, by small, financially shaky corporations. (Sibelius was recently acquired by Avid, a far larger, more financially secure company.) Anyone who works with Finale can perceive that, although it is probably the most flexible notational software, it is saddled with many layers of legacy code. I am sure that the folks at MakeMusic (Finale's parent company) would love to remedy this situation and do a complete rewrite so that the program would not exhibit anomalies such as huge consumption of CPU power for simple MIDI playback, but the problem is, most likely, that they cannot afford to hire the programming talent to accomplish this and that, to survive, they must come up with a new version of the program every single year.
Perhaps it would be better for VSL to take its customers into confidence and state the facts of the situation rather than to provide lame cover stories. I suspect that many customers would feel more positively, if VSL simply stated that they could not afford to continue their original upgrade policy and that, to provide support for ongoing development, they have, very regretfully, been forced to break the promises they originally made. Being frank about the facts of the situation might go a long way to renew the culture of trust and collaboration that has, hitherto, existed between VSL and its customers. After all, we are musicians, so most of us know something about the conflict between ideals and economic reality.