Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Recording Studio' started by Masoo2, Feb 27, 2018.
Crap. Figured it might be too good to be true...man a software profile loader would have kicked ASS
Well shit son. My better senses tell me we have been meme'd.
From a consumer's standpoint I would still like to believe, but from a business standpoint I fully understand staying strictly physical. Online release means less people buy the toasters and a vast amount of potential VST buyers simply wait for someone like R2R to crack it. Even if they went hardcore with shit like the iLok and security this and anti-piracy that, in the long runs losing money is almost inevitable.
It's all about the code.
The Helix, AxeFx and Kemper use off the shelf hardware components. Nothing particularly special about the guts of any of them.
With the ubiquity of powerful personal computers, I don't see a VST being a problem on the physical side.
It's just damn risky as a business decision.
Would think that profit would be stellar as a VST; crackers aside, it’s not a hardware unit you have to build or maintain or even ship. The profit margins for VSTs are higher than physical units.
If they do this and sell 1,000 copies at $500 apiece or whatever and they’re getting guys like me that have no use for the physical unit that’s bank.
Would think that they’d realize there’s a market for this, especially since Native...most of us pay for VSTs...you’re always gonna have the lamer that uses cracked software but pretty much everyone I know or have talked to uses licensed versions.
Guys on the KPA forumz say its fake.
I can see it bringing in more revenue, but I'm not totally sold on the notion of significantly greater profit.
Besides the upfront cost of porting the KPA software and algorithms into consumer computers, which can be quite expensive and time consuming in itself, they're then going to have to release updates and patches and deal with a much wider range of customers, things that all have certain amounts of overhead.
Then you have to consider loss of sales of the hardware units. The lunchbox and rack units aren't too expensive to make. The components internally are off the shelf and the housings aren't made out of precious metals or anything. You'd be surprised how much of a margin that stuff can have. It's fairly well known you're really paying for the programming within the unit.
I read somewhere where someone from Line6 said that they were working to consolidate code releases between Helix HW and Native, so that all code was converged. I assume Kemper would take the same approach, so not sure the overhead would increase all that much if you were running a single set of binaries between hardware and VST. I would expect QA cycles to go up significantly, but most every other internal function should have benefit from the organizational efficiency of sharing binaries between 2 supported platforms.
I also think internally product like cannibalization would be minimal. Most people want HW for a different purpose than SW (live, running through outboard pre/comp/eq, etc.). So there may be some that would forgo the HW to buy the software, but I think that would be fully negated by their ability to take business away from Native, or to capture people that like to acquire a lot of different software platforms to test drive and use.