Login / Register
 
Omnisphere's licence policy?
New Reply
Subscribe
mikefennel
Thread Starter
#91
8th February 2012
Old 8th February 2012
  #91
Gear Head
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 34

Thread Starter
mikefennel is offline
there is a lot of talk about keyboards cost vs software costs....just curious i wonder which really makes more money.
roland who has to manufacture a workstation keyboard with all the components and software and assembly, all lic free in the end....
or
software, programmed, sounds compiled and DVD's printed lic limited....

be nice to know the profit margin on both...it might justify the lic policy? or make it really obvious that it should be open like hardware...
just a thought...
#92
8th February 2012
Old 8th February 2012
  #92
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 23,822

chrisso is offline
People don't carry hardware synths around much.
Just remember, with your user license you can take something like Omnisphere anywhere you work. Even program parts on a train, or plane, or in a hotel room.
I think the pricing is reasonable given the amount of content, plus the flexibility and portability.
__________________
Chris Whitten
mikefennel
Thread Starter
#93
8th February 2012
Old 8th February 2012
  #93
Gear Head
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 34

Thread Starter
mikefennel is offline
ahh your dodging the question.....
still would like a comparison of the two cost wise....
if you dont have an answer thats fine...
#94
8th February 2012
Old 8th February 2012
  #94
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 23,822

chrisso is offline
Every software instrument is different, but I have a handle on software instrument development costs.
I've never made a hardware instrument.
I'm sure hardware is very, very expensive, unless you are a mega corp making money from home organs and fake pianos, which would subsidize high end synths. Without the very varied product catalog of a Roland or Yamaha, look at the price tag on an SCI Polyevolver or Moog Voyager.
The software instrument scene is extremely competitive (many makers, some of whom have day jobs and can deliver a softsynth for very little money), so I don't think virtual instrument companies are gouging customers and thereby making huge profits. If someone could make an instrument like Omnisphere, charge $199 and allow anyone and everyone to use it with one license, there's nothing to stop them from doing it. So has anyone?
mikefennel
Thread Starter
#95
8th February 2012
Old 8th February 2012
  #95
Gear Head
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 34

Thread Starter
mikefennel is offline
not accusing spectrosonics of anything i just asked for a comparison of hardware vs software.
the comparison of hardware vs software should be something that both have the same near capabilities.

im not sure where you got 199.00 for ominisphere....or are you referring to something else.
last time we paid for it was around 480.00

i think that the companies should make as much money as possible...if they can get a 100% profit more power to them....they do make it a point that their costs justify there licensing so i asked for the comparison....simple
#96
8th February 2012
Old 8th February 2012
  #96
Lives for gear
 
Animus's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Location: Durham, NC USA
Posts: 9,571

Send a message via AIM to Animus
Animus is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
But they wont, because it costs a lot of money to create a sound library like the Omnisphere one, and that is why the equivalent Roland synths cost a minimum of $1499.
The problem with our on off relationship is you refuse to accept it costs a lot of money to record and edit huge sound libraries. You keep saying a killer one that costs nothing is about to come along, but it still hasn't, it never will.



Well you'd be insane, because the Omnisphere license doesn't stop you from doing that.
You can use the product even if you aren't the person playing the sound. You just can't buy it for a studio and let anyone and everyone use it while you are at home in bed.

To be fair while Omni does have true synth capabilities mostly I hear people use the rom aspect of it which ironically seems to be sound designed recordings of other real synth such as Rolands, Obenheims, Prophets etc. If those original synth makers had the same policies as Spectrasonics you could say they were pirates. :-) I've messed with the synth aspect of Omni before and it's nothing special above other virtual synths, definitely not my Powercore Virus.
#97
8th February 2012
Old 8th February 2012
  #97
Lives for gear
 
Nahuel's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,689

Nahuel is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikefennel View Post
there is a lot of talk about keyboards cost vs software costs....just curious i wonder which really makes more money.
roland who has to manufacture a workstation keyboard with all the components and software and assembly, all lic free in the end....
or
software, programmed, sounds compiled and DVD's printed lic limited....

be nice to know the profit margin on both...it might justify the lic policy? or make it really obvious that it should be open like hardware...
just a thought...
My guess is that each compagny sell its products at the right price point that is a balance between dev/build/profit/competitiveness.

Licenses policies should be there to protect the compagny from pirating/files sharing... The no rental/no lending policy cant be justified by any pricing...It's just a choice made by some compagnies to limit their customers freedom and buisness perspectives. That's it.

Personally I think that the marging is probably higher on sofware products since hardware ones have fixed building costs. That said Hardware products cant be bootleged.
__________________
SoundCloud
#98
8th February 2012
Old 8th February 2012
  #98
Lives for gear
 
zvenx's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Location: Kingston, Jamaica
Posts: 1,271

zvenx is offline
so.... out of curiousity Nathuel, how would you view...'lending' a friend my software discs so he can install it on his computer, provided that he only uses the software after he calls me and finds out if I am running it at that same moment in time....... or better yet, how about if I lend him my laptop with all my software to work for a month to finish his album. would you consider that acceptable use?
rsp
#99
8th February 2012
Old 8th February 2012
  #99
Lives for gear
 
Nahuel's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,689

Nahuel is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by zvenx View Post
so.... out of curiousity Nathuel, how would you view...'lending' a friend my software discs so he can install it on his computer, provided that he only uses the software after he calls me and finds out if I am running it at that same moment in time....... or better yet, how about if I lend him my laptop with all my software to work for a month to finish his album. would you consider that acceptable use?
rsp
How should it work to me?

Pretty simple:

you cant lend or rent your install CDs (that one was obvious, I dont understand where you've seen that I was saying that such behaviour should be acceptable).

You can install your software on 2 computers that must have the OS registered to the same owner (the one that bought the software btw) and that should not be used at the same time (obviousely).

The owner is allowed to do lend/rent his rig. Ex: I can let my friend use my studio while I'm on vacations, I can rent my room to my freelance engineers clients without me being there or having to ask them to buy whatever product that I choosed for my room.

Pretty easy, pretty obvious, nothing out of this world or abusive.
#100
8th February 2012
Old 8th February 2012
  #100
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 23,822

chrisso is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikefennel View Post
im not sure where you got 199.00 for ominisphere....or are you referring to something else.
last time we paid for it was around 480.00
Yes, I already said it was around $500.
If people are going to compare software instruments with hardware you have to look at the prices charged. Omnisphere is under $500, but there is obviously a restriction on the amount of installs and the number of people allowed to use that purchased product. Hardware products with similar levels of content and flexibility, with no restriction on who uses it and where, are at a minimum $1500, often $2k to $3k to buy.
Anyone who claims Spectrasonics are acting unreasonably should also understand how easy it is to market a soft synth. We see new products every day at Gearslutz. So why is no one selling a similar product to Omnisphere, at a lower price point and offering to let anyone use the one purchase at anytime?
Because all new synth companies are also acting unfairly, or because it's utterly uneconomical?
#101
8th February 2012
Old 8th February 2012
  #101
Lives for gear
 
zvenx's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Location: Kingston, Jamaica
Posts: 1,271

zvenx is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nahuel View Post
How should it work to me?

Pretty simple:

you cant lend or rent your install CDs (that one was obvious, I dont understand where you've seen that I was saying that such behaviour should be acceptable).

You can install your software on 2 computers that must have the OS registered to the same owner (the one that bought the software btw) and that should not be used at the same time (obviousely).

The owner is allowed to do lend/rent his rig. Ex: I can let my friend use my studio while I'm on vacations, I can rent my room to my freelance engineers clients without me being there or having to ask them to buy whatever product that I choosed for my room.

Pretty easy, pretty obvious, nothing out of this world or abusive.

I didnt' see or imply " I dont understand where you've seen that I was saying that such behaviour should be acceptable" that you said that... but since we have completely different views on the subject I was just putting some 'what if' scenarios to see where your thoughts lie....
we can agree to disagree amicable.



rsp
#102
8th February 2012
Old 8th February 2012
  #102
Lives for gear
 
zvenx's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Location: Kingston, Jamaica
Posts: 1,271

zvenx is offline
So how about if I go away on tour with my laptop, and let my friend use my studio?
is that acceptable license use for you? (clearly in this scenario we can both be using it at the same time)
rsp
#103
8th February 2012
Old 8th February 2012
  #103
Lives for gear
 
Nahuel's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,689

Nahuel is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by zvenx View Post
So how about if I go away on tour with my laptop, and let my friend use my studio?
is that acceptable license use for you? (clearly in this scenario we can both be using it at the same time)
rsp
This should not be acceptable of course since, as I told you, the laptop can be used only if the desktop is off, only one install of the software should be used at any given time, it's a classic policy and seems pretty fair to me.

If you want to go away on tour and use your soft from your laptop you should not be lending/renting you desktop unless you uninstall the soft. Simple.
#104
8th February 2012
Old 8th February 2012
  #104
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 23,822

chrisso is offline
There is no way to police the above policy. Actually there is no way to police multiple people using Omnisphere in your studio, only your honesty in sticking to the user agreement. So the discussion is somewhat moot.
I would only say, if software instruments have unfair user agreements, and hardware do not..... use hardware instead. I imagine most people wont because hardware is more expensive, less flexible and a lot less portable.
#105
8th February 2012
Old 8th February 2012
  #105
Lives for gear
 
Nahuel's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,689

Nahuel is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
There is no way to police the above policy. Actually there is no way to police multiple people using Omnisphere in your studio, only your honesty in sticking to the user agreement. So the discussion is somewhat moot.
I would only say, if software instruments have unfair user agreements, and hardware do not..... use hardware instead. I imagine most people wont because hardware is more expensive, less flexible and a lot less portable.
actually a lot of software product use the policy I described, most DAW/plugins have more or less that type of policies.

About Hardware...Well I do use hardware...I use both hw and sw in fact, I even own some products that have that no lending/no renting policy (NI komplete/maschine) that I find totally unfair.
#106
8th February 2012
Old 8th February 2012
  #106
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 23,822

chrisso is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nahuel View Post
actually a lot of software product use the policy I described, most DAW/plugins have more or less that type of policies.
DAW/plug-ins.... but how many software instruments and virtual samplers?
#107
8th February 2012
Old 8th February 2012
  #107
Lives for gear
 
Nahuel's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,689

Nahuel is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
DAW/plug-ins.... but how many software instruments and virtual samplers?
Honestly I dont know, it seems pretty random, Uhe is a great brand and their policies are nice to me, from my ACE license:

"...use it, after you registered/bought this software according to actual conditions of registration (see 4.), for any private, commercial or otherwise professional use that doesn't conflict with any other terms of this agreement..."

Just an example of a sensible policy in my opinion.
#108
9th February 2012
Old 9th February 2012
  #108
Lives for gear
 
s_sibs's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2006
Location: Bernardston, MA
Posts: 511

s_sibs is offline
AFAIK uh-e makes synths and don't use any sampling in their instruments.

I think you'll find that all companies that make sample based virtual instruments have the same, single user-no rent policy (I don't know one that doesn't).
__________________
Scott Sibley
Technical Advisor - Toontrack Music
Owner•Engineer•Producer
Rainbow Sounds Recording
www.rainbowsounds.com

#109
9th February 2012
Old 9th February 2012
  #109
Lives for gear
 
Nahuel's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,689

Nahuel is offline
Maybe, I still dont think it's right.

BTW I do own a virtual instrument based on sampling that can be rented: My Roland G6, ok it's hardware aswell but it has a vst plugin editor.

I'm also a Cinesamples "CineOrch" owner and I cant find the license for it...I was able to find their licenses for other products online but it seems that there is absolutely no policy for that particular product...

I own some imperfect samples products awell, their policies are no really clear about renting, it says "This sampled Library and its contents are for the authorized use of the purchaser only. Unauthorized duplication of this sampleset or any of its contents is prohibited. You may use this piano library in commercial work." To my understanding this product cant be lended but renting the computer that have the product installed could fall under "authorized use of the purchaser only... in commercial work.", Maybe the word "only" exclude that type of use but it's not clear.

*ok Chrisso, I'm saying it's not clearly stated, in NI or Spectrasonics policies it's clear as daylight, in this case, I'm sorry but not so much.
#110
9th February 2012
Old 9th February 2012
  #110
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 23,822

chrisso is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nahuel View Post
"This sampled Library and its contents are for the authorized use of the purchaser only.
Single use license only. Same as Omnisphere.
Pretty obvious.
#111
10th February 2012
Old 10th February 2012
  #111
Lives for gear
 
mirrorboy's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 1,287

mirrorboy is offline
Read some of the posts here (two pages or so...) and found this thread kind of interesting.

I recall one person saying something to the effect of, "How would they know if you used Omni....they can't listen to every song, etc...." Well, you'd be surprised (see below).

And I agree, of course they can't. But something interesting did happen to me. My last single was on the air pretty heavily late 2010-2011, as well as American Idol, etc.....

I was contacted by Spectrasonics. They told me Eric heard the track and knew Omni was used in it. I was blown away that he could tell. Main reason being the strings I used from Omni were blended with strings from another sample set. The guy has got some CRAZY golden ears!!!!! They didn't ask me about my licence or anything....just wanted to do a featured artist sorta deal.

Also, they don't do endorsements for anyone....which I actually thought was kinda cool in a way.

Anyways, just thought I'd share....I think the company is great and have always had great experiences with the support.

I'm a HEAVY Omni user. :-)

Scott
__________________
Play what serves the song, not yourself.
__________________
www.thrivingivory.com
www.facebook.com/thrivingivory
www.facebook.com/scottleejason
#112
15th February 2012
Old 15th February 2012
  #112
Lives for gear
 
metrosonus's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 758

metrosonus is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Animus View Post
Kind of ironic since Omnisynth sampled other synths from what I understand. Imagine if you bought a Korg Triton for your studio and then Korg tried to tell you none of your clients could use it, only you. Stupid greedy sample industry policy.
That was always my issue way back in the 90's. granted part of the issue is they don't want someone doing a simple rip and repackage as a sound font or kontakt preset or something, which I can understand.

However, they're trying to push per seat software licensing on something that's essentially a hardware synthesizer. I can understand one DAW / one laptop licensing like most do, but per user? It's not like it's getting used in a computer lab like photoshop or something.

And piracy? Why hurt honest users with more restrictions when pirates will circumvent them anyway?

It's greed on this one. I can't see it any other way. They should set a higher price for professional studios than trying to bring the hammer down on them by saying that each client should have their own license. Of course, back up that Pro price with free discs, upper level support etc.

Stupid, plain and simple.

Quote:
The guy has got some CRAZY golden ears!!!!!
I've always had nothing but respect for Eric, but the licensing thing and the way they break balls over it is just weird. He obviously puts out a high quality, in demand product, but it all feels a bit "were too big to need you" sort of feeling. Rather than outstretch a hand to their bread and butter, they're getting out the tweezers to get the thorn out of their side.
__________________
ComputerMusicGuide.com
#113
15th February 2012
Old 15th February 2012
  #113
Lives for gear
 
zvenx's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Location: Kingston, Jamaica
Posts: 1,271

zvenx is offline
as I am sure everyone knows, when you purchase hardware you own it, when you purchase software you have licensed use of it..... huge difference.....not to mention huge difference in cost associated between the two purchases... I see it as simply if you don't' like the licensing agreement, then don't but it, simple.

rsp
#114
15th February 2012
Old 15th February 2012
  #114
Lives for gear
 
metrosonus's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 758

metrosonus is offline
that's exactly why I don't own it.

i'm also my own sound developer, but that doesnt change anything
#115
15th February 2012
Old 15th February 2012
  #115
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 23,822

chrisso is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by metrosonus View Post
It's greed on this one. I can't see it any other way.
Until you build and offer for sale a similar product yourself, you'll never know.
It's a very flexible and portable virtual instrument with a huge library, almost all of which has been added to with large upgrades at no cost to the user. Purchase price is less that $500.
Anything remotely similar in hardware starts at $1499 and usually between $2k and $4k.
'Greed' is absolutely not the way I would describe the license agreement.
#116
15th February 2012
Old 15th February 2012
  #116
Lives for gear
 
Nahuel's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,689

Nahuel is offline
That's you opinion Chrisso, apparently some think otherwise...

BTW I dont think it's a Spectrasonics issue, it seems like the whole "sample based software instrument" industry took the very wrong habbit of using, I say it again, that stupid and greedy policy.

It's so wrong:

-because it's limiting the freedom and buisness perspectives of their clients

-because I'm pretty sure quite a few honest paying customers are breaking these stupid rules without even knowing puting themeselves in a situation where their buisness could get sued by some crazy "samplist compagny" or their paid licenses (with hard earned money) suspended and whatnot...

-because if ppl really knew about these stupid rules their sales would decrease.

These policies are simply abusive and should be illegal.
#117
16th February 2012
Old 16th February 2012
  #117
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 23,822

chrisso is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nahuel View Post
That's you opinion Chrisso, apparently some think otherwise...
OK.
Have you ever created a large sample library and sold it in a competitive market?
I have.
I say they are pretty much great value for money.
If you say they aren't and represent 'greed', then you and others are going to have to come up with some compelling evidence to justify that.
Just saying they are greedy and abusive is not enough. In fact it's pretty rude.
#118
16th February 2012
Old 16th February 2012
  #118
Lives for gear
 
Nahuel's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,689

Nahuel is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
OK.
Have you ever created a large sample library and sold it in a competitive market?
I have.
I say they are pretty much great value for money.
If you say they aren't and represent 'greed', then you and others are going to have to come up with some compelling evidence to justify that.
Just saying they are greedy and abusive is not enough. In fact it's pretty rude.
Not as rude as how these compagnies treat their paying customers by suspending their licenses over these policies.

And to answer you question yes, yes I created 4 sample packs for an english compagny, I didnt sell these products myslef, I was simply hired as a sound designer. That said the products sold by that compagny (called Prime Loops) are not sound modules or multisamples. These are "loop packs", and in this case, as well as "sample CD's" the personnal license makes sense.

I personally understand the single user policy for sample packs (royalty free musical phrases to be used in your productions).
On the contrary sample based virtual instruments and multisamples for kontakt, mach5, etc, are instruments, not royalty free musical phrases and the policy should be the same as the example I gave from uhe.

Btw you are asking for more arguments/evidences about the abusive character of these policies, maybe you should read my entire posts instead of consistently editing out and dodging all the obvious points that you cant deny.
#119
16th February 2012
Old 16th February 2012
  #119
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 23,822

chrisso is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nahuel View Post
On the contrary sample based virtual instruments and multisamples for kontakt, mach5, etc, are instruments, not royalty free musical phrases and the policy should be the same as the example I gave from uhe.
The difference is the cost involved in multi-sampling a symphony orchestra, compared to coding a softsynth.
By the way, I'm reading all your posts. I just don't agree with what you are saying.
I quote short passages so as not to repeat all of your post multiple ti,es. It's not 'editing out', it's very, very normal forum behaviour.
#120
16th February 2012
Old 16th February 2012
  #120
Lives for gear
 
Nahuel's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,689

Nahuel is offline
But the cost of such productions justify the cost of the product itself, not that policy. Code based virtual synths are cheaper than sample based soft instruments. And hardware rompler are probably even more expensive to develop.

What happend is that editors use a policy that comes from the sample cd industry where it was justified in the case of royalty free musical phrases but that shouldnt be applied to instruments.

If you sell instruments, sample based or not, you should be using standard instruments policies, not royalty free loops policies.

Sent from my GT-I5800 using Gearslutz.com App
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Izzi / Product Alerts older than 2 months
155
mizzle / So much gear, so little time!
3
madhermit / Music Computers
9
drumkideric / So much gear, so little time!
0

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.