I agree, too. It's 16-bit, can't be used with the new software, and is not "proprietary" in the sense that they are just WAV files that can be edited, etc.
You know, after a few days of watching the announcement and our reactions to it, I'm beginning to realize what sort of strategy the VSL is taking from a business perspective. This probably has to do with the incredible cost of innovating on a product that has a very, very small market. (There will never be, say, a million VSL users, given that a, it's orchestral music, b, it's complex, and c, it costs a lot of money).
The VSL as a company, therefore, is forced by economic reality to take the route of a luxury goods maker. This runs counter to almost every trend in software and computing today, so it is quite risky.
The point I'm trying to make is that current users of VSL are being targeted as the primary customers for the new VI cube because, well, there probably aren't a whole lot of new customers out there (or at least not enough of them to justify, say, not requiring purchase of the new cube in order to upgrade).
Given this economic situation, VSL's actions make a lot of sense. In fact, they should be offering new products at substantially higher prices ... and with proprietary formats and tools, that will be very much easier to do in the future. It's called "lock in." Lock in makes it harder for the user to switch.
If all this seems to leave a bad taste in one's mouth, just remember that the innovation has a cost, and that the company must make money. If the market size were huge, the company could spend millions on innovation and sell the end product for a few hundred dollars, making a lot of profit in the process. But since that's not the case, attempting to be the best, and behave as though it has a monopoly, in a luxury-goods company way, seems to be the only viable option here.
The one driving force, outside of VSLs control, is that other companies will also innovate. Prior to now, they could play nicely with VSL products and the consumer benefitted. Henceforth, however, with proprietary formats involved, users will be more dependent on VSL ... or have to ultimately face the question of switching (with high "switching costs").
So, we're at a cross-roads, I believe. Should we throw our weight behind VSL and risk painting ourselves into a corner (but have the most advanced, greatest orchestral instrument avaiable now)? Or should we "wait and see" what sort of innovation will come from elsewhere? Personally, I will take the former (because of something called "Net Present Value"), but I can understand why some will choose to wait and see, too.
In the end, if you can afford VSL products, there is no good reason not to use them now, if your goal is to make the best possible digital orchestral performance you can.
- Paul
You know, after a few days of watching the announcement and our reactions to it, I'm beginning to realize what sort of strategy the VSL is taking from a business perspective. This probably has to do with the incredible cost of innovating on a product that has a very, very small market. (There will never be, say, a million VSL users, given that a, it's orchestral music, b, it's complex, and c, it costs a lot of money).
The VSL as a company, therefore, is forced by economic reality to take the route of a luxury goods maker. This runs counter to almost every trend in software and computing today, so it is quite risky.
The point I'm trying to make is that current users of VSL are being targeted as the primary customers for the new VI cube because, well, there probably aren't a whole lot of new customers out there (or at least not enough of them to justify, say, not requiring purchase of the new cube in order to upgrade).
Given this economic situation, VSL's actions make a lot of sense. In fact, they should be offering new products at substantially higher prices ... and with proprietary formats and tools, that will be very much easier to do in the future. It's called "lock in." Lock in makes it harder for the user to switch.
If all this seems to leave a bad taste in one's mouth, just remember that the innovation has a cost, and that the company must make money. If the market size were huge, the company could spend millions on innovation and sell the end product for a few hundred dollars, making a lot of profit in the process. But since that's not the case, attempting to be the best, and behave as though it has a monopoly, in a luxury-goods company way, seems to be the only viable option here.
The one driving force, outside of VSLs control, is that other companies will also innovate. Prior to now, they could play nicely with VSL products and the consumer benefitted. Henceforth, however, with proprietary formats involved, users will be more dependent on VSL ... or have to ultimately face the question of switching (with high "switching costs").
So, we're at a cross-roads, I believe. Should we throw our weight behind VSL and risk painting ourselves into a corner (but have the most advanced, greatest orchestral instrument avaiable now)? Or should we "wait and see" what sort of innovation will come from elsewhere? Personally, I will take the former (because of something called "Net Present Value"), but I can understand why some will choose to wait and see, too.
In the end, if you can afford VSL products, there is no good reason not to use them now, if your goal is to make the best possible digital orchestral performance you can.
- Paul
