Search found 6 matches

Return

Appealing to Steinberg to keep the CMC current viable?

Do threads which express the desire to keep something such as the CMC series viable have any chance of making a difference? I hesitate to make this such a thread because if only 10 or twenty people give the thumbs up, that would probably kill any opportunity for continued product support.....


Oh well, thumbs up here at least...........
by electrow
Thu Mar 27, 2014 3:33 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Appealing to Steinberg to keep the CMC current worthless

I should reconsider (and change) your Thread title! Use "viable" instead of "worthless" as in your text. ;)

Good catch! I forgot the almighty comma, but think your title is better thanks!

I'm trying to generate at least discussion,if not action (petition). If we just acquiesce we know what happens. The CMC controllers are great gear with a lot of potential. One of the biggest frustrations is the amount of time I've spent setting up the function keys, and getting a fluid working rhythmic method of use.
Sometimes the software - hardware "integration" which companies offer is a perpetual trap.
One can continue to use the hardware with whatever software versions support it. But at some version the hardware no longer functions. I'm not saying anything new I know. The investment in not just money but time,seems like water down the drain. Maybe we have to think of the hardware integration as short cycle monetary loss.

Any thoughts on this?
by electrow
Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:13 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Appealing to Steinberg to keep the CMC current viable?

I started this topic with the hope it would stimulate, not only people expressing their desire for the continuation of CMC products but all potentially viable Steinberg Hardware products. I was thinking about the history of hardware support vs software support from the same company (in this case Steinberg).

First of all I, personally think that Steinberg develops darn good hardware for their software, better than anyone else. I've been a faithful Cubase user since the Atari days. I feel I made the right chioce for the long run. I was one of the "Houston" faithfuls until I realized it's demise was real. I will stay focused an Steinberg products but will mention, as most know other software companies which put out hardware support products, also end up with short life spans - the hardware that is.

From a users stand point we feel that "viable" means as long as the hardware can be improved through software updates, Steinberg should "want" to do so. Was the Houston a failure in terms of hardware design? Was there any indication of this? Or was it a matter of marginal economic loss or gain?

Those of you who are much more technically astute than I am can educate me on this, but it seems to me what is lacking with hardware long term viability is the same as what we actually, as consumers are willing to do for the software : pay for improvement updates. I know this point is debatable, please don't make this an "all improvements should be free" thing.

If we are willing to pay for software improvements, shouldn't we also, perhaps even more be willing to pay for hardware updates? Strictly my opinion, but I would gladly do that. Not only for the hardware but the software as well.

Those of you with more technical knowledge have mentioned desired improvements to the CMC series. I would like to see the AI knob, one example, respond to whatever the mouse points to. There are software companies ( one in particular) which offer annual subscription rates so that improvements/enhancements are made.

I, for one, would gladly pay, to know my hardware remains viable to the extent of the hardware's capabilities as the software evolves. If you agree, let it be known....

The following is my biased opinion: I don't want new softsynths, effects, as incitements to keep Cubase profitable. How many have fully, really fully explored what they already have? I don't want the next "great thing" which replaces the CMC series, (or the MR816, or CC121) any more than an acoustic instrument player would want to replace their instrument simply because it wasn't the latest model.

It would be wonderful if someone from Steinberg could chime in here, without being criticized for their opinion, but maybe from a business policy standpoint that isn't possible.

So what is your opinion regarding monetary support for improvements to Steinberg's hardware?
by electrow
Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:14 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Appealing to Steinberg to keep the CMC current viable?

Theyre not going to. Its not in their business interests to disclose the profitability expressly

However the fact remains that if these controllers would not be discontinued an in fact in active development they'd be here screaming it out loud.

The only statement from SB is of the "as far as I know" variety so...

Having Steinberg comment is beside the point I'm trying to make,which is: how many of us Steinberg consumers would be willing to pay for hardware updates? One way or another we do it for the software. I don't expect Steinberg to ask us to do this,but if enough interest was expressed from the user side to pay to keep hardware viable, maybe these devices would have a longer life span than previous track records indicate.

As I indicated I for one would be willing to pay,say a subscription fee for instance, rather than having the hardware support diminish then end after a comparably short cycle of use.
by electrow
Sat Mar 29, 2014 8:11 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Appealing to Steinberg to keep the CMC current viable?

What you're asking will never happen at least in that form. SB business model is more straightforward and is not based on separate support revenue. Support is there to shift the new or current units not to create a revenue stream on legacy ones. When the units no longer shift or sourcing becomes an issue, it's bye bye time

SB does not do apple care

Thanks for adding to the conversation, and the helpful point of view. I don't know anything about Steinberg's business model. I have no reason to doubt anything you mentioned.

So the CMC series, assuming the series will be discontinued -HOPEFULLY THIS IS FALSE - the life cycle has been less than 2 1/2 years since product announcement. Perhaps there may be some kind of "support" for another year? I think what's becoming clear to me, is that investment in hardware from a software company is only viable to the consumer as long as the software does not advance beyond the hardware's capability. Perhaps the answers lies with getting off the upgrade merry-go-round and living with the limitations, not the promise, of either the hardware or software.
by electrow
Sun Mar 30, 2014 3:09 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Please, please, please update the CC121 driver

BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP

OR

bUmP BuMp buMP BUmp
by electrow
Thu Mar 06, 2014 9:50 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic
cron