Creamware Insolvency announcement - Chapter 11

Havoc · Post by **Havoc** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 2:45 pm

Since they don't give about customers, why should customers care about them? I'm still waiting for a reply to an email request, more than 1 year, still no answer.

Wondered what took them so long. Keeping ancient technology afloat takes more resources than going along.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 4:48 pm

On 2003-06-11 18:31, mythalethe wrote:
If they had made NOAH able to run regular SFP devices and effects like AMPER and third party SFP synths, I think they would have sold many more units.

I agree on that and it's exactly what they announced between the lines ...NOAH will integrate with future versions of SFP...
It's not an isolated product, but you're just demanding too much in too less time. Remember how difficult it was to arrange SFP as a working system and that's based on the same hardware and OSes as it's predecessors.
Have a look inside your SFP folders how much controlling software is necessary to drive that thing.
I'm shure this is exactly what's planned for the future and to get this off NOAH is a first step. It's well equipped for a live synth with 'chips and potatoes' stuff plus enough space for more experimental sounds.

cheers, Tom

Post by **hubird** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 5:43 pm

bassdude · Post by **bassdude** » Fri Jun 13, 2003 2:57 am

On 2003-06-12 15:45, Havoc wrote:
Since they don't give about customers, why should customers care about them? I'm still waiting for a reply to an email request, more than 1 year, still no answer.

Wondered what took them so long. Keeping ancient technology afloat takes more resources than going along.

Yawn......

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Sun Jun 29, 2003 10:32 am

I plan to buy the Flexor because it's a great value.

Creamware seems to think to make money they need to charge more. Nothing can be further from the truth. I contend that the less they charge the more money they will make but unfortunately it doesn't look like this theory will be tested.

The Luna went way up in price since it was originally released. In my area of Washington DC there is one store which sells CW cards and they informed me that they will no longer carry Luna cards after the current stock is gone because "Luna cards don't sell well". They are currently having a sale to get rid of the remaining stock at washington music center ($250). They will have one Noah. I consider the sales performance of CW in my area to be a dismal failure.

Putting all their eggs in the Noah basket is a very risky move. It is a small consolation to me that other areas of CW such as the radio gear turns a profit. This can only mean that less attention will be devoted to the SFP platform.

[ This Message was edited by: braincell on 2003-06-29 11:34 ]

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sun Jun 29, 2003 5:28 pm

Braincell, in my area it's almost the same with the shops, with the difference that not a single one's left.
But it's related to shop owners mentality - not at all to CW's product strategy.
The shop I got my Pulsar from sold quite some boards (afaik) and they really cared for their customers and didn't suggest the system to everyone. Most shop owners just want to sell, sell, sell, no matter what it is. Add the mail order competition and you'll have exactly the situation you describe.
I prefer to pay a little more in a local store who knows what I'm doing and suggests one or the other product that might fit my needs - and let me return the stuff if it doesn't.
Unfortunately I seem to be a minority - and those shops as well

Frank pointed out that CW's other activities are actually what keeps the audio part going.
I'd rather suspect their industry activities far more profitable than the radio stuff.
The CW system is a real bargain in that field. Give me one hour and I'll suggest you a dozen projects you could realize on a Pulsar in medicine or industry measurement and data analysis.
Anyone neglecting this fact would be a complete idiot - if you're unfamiliar with the medical market, well, it beats ANY soap opera - you'd never call Scope SP expensive again and even a full blown ProTools with all the latest bells and whistles just qualifies as 'budget equipment' compared to usual prices in that market

We'll all benefit from the experience with the radio software (hopefully soon) - it 's very important to have some customers who take a part of the financial load of developement.
And with all that great third party stuff recently, I'm rather optimistic

cheers, Tom

alfonso · Post by **alfonso** » Sun Jun 29, 2003 6:03 pm

And don't forget that the radio standards are in terms of reliability of the system and hardware "broadcast" specs a high peformance field, and this is good for all the technology involved in our cards.

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:18 am

I would like to know why with the Luna, CW went from using the ADAT i/o to a proprietary system forcing users to buy a more expensive breakout box. That was an evil move IMHO. I would be buying another Luna today if not for that and a lot of other customers would have bought Lunas for the same reason. Companies can make more money by not being geedy. That is all I am saying.

huffcw · Post by **huffcw** » Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:36 am

I don't think the decision to use the z-link on the Luna was about being greedy. They probably looked at it as a feature, since it allowed a full 8 in/out at 96khz (which ADAT does not).

Also, if you prefer ADAT, I believe Creamware does offer an ADAT option for the Luna via an expansion bracket.

Post by **garyb** » Mon Jun 30, 2003 12:05 pm

also the price on the luna box is very competitive,specs-wise.there's no conspiracy there.

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Mon Jun 30, 2003 1:43 pm

With the Luna they don't include the most common type of multiple audio channel interface. The *only* logical reason is they want to sell their box and not let you buy it from someone else, also it would be nice to plug the Luna from my old computer into the ADAT in my new computer. I can't do that because of the LUNA-TIC audio interface. I wish I could use the Luna with the A16. I can't do that. I would love to hear CW's explaination of why they decided to go with a proprietary format.

huffcw · Post by **huffcw** » Mon Jun 30, 2003 2:37 pm

Again, they offer ADAT for the Luna through an optional expansion bracket - so you are not stuck with just the proprietary Z-Link with the Luna. You have the option to get the ADAT in/out.

Also, the newer A16 Ultra has Z-Link, so you can use that with Luna without the optional ADAT expansion - plus with the option of full 8 channels at 96khz operation (not available with ADAT).

Many other cards in the Luna price range either use a proprietary cable that runs to a break-out box, or just analog in/outs on the card itself. So, I don't think the Luna is unusual. In fact, they could have provided the Luna with just analog in/out and no option to expand (like most other cards). Instead, you have the option to expand, plus have the Z-Link built in (not to mention, you have DSP power that you can't get with other audio cards).

If they wanted, I am sure they could have offered several versions of the Luna card like they do for the Pulsar (e.g., ADAT, Z-Link, balanced analog in/out, etc.) - so everyone could be happy and get the exact in/out combination they would like - but, remember, this is their low-end card. I am sure they decided to offer a basic level of in/out plus some basic options to expand, but reserve all the different possibilities available for their more expensive systems.

The reasoning is probably that at the level of the Luna card, they wouldn't expect as much of a need for all the options. Plus, I am sure they also had to consider the cost of production (one design vs. several designs).

[ This Message was edited by: huffcw on 2003-06-30 16:25 ]

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Tue Jul 01, 2003 8:27 am

Maybe the 96 KHZ is an advantage but does anyone really use this? Other than that there is no advantage to the firewire and an enourmous disadvantage. No matter how competative you claim the firewire box to be, it is expensive to have to buy one when you already own an ADAT box or an ADAT card, also the Luna can not be connected to a Luna in another computer because the Firewire is different on one end. It was a bad move to use firewire. The very least they could have done to compensate for not having ADAT would have been to make the firewire compatable with other firewire devices but no they didn't bother to do that. I guess some people think Creamware can do no harm so there is no sense in me arguing over. The company might survive but it should be obvious to each and every one of you that this is not the best run company in the world.

[ This Message was edited by: braincell on 2003-07-01 09:28 ]

valis · Post by **valis** » Tue Jul 01, 2003 9:04 am

What *IS* the best run company in the world? Microsoft?

Seriously tho there are MANY products that use proprietary interfaces, even a few based on firewire (Hammerfall & MLan). The fact that Creamware has *2* external boxes that use the Z-link, and as others have stated you have the option to fit an adat expansion to the Luna as well so you're hardly losing anything.

If you ask me their decision to go with the Z-link is probably because 96khz is becoming increasingly common and having multiple versions of the same card available with different i/o is confusing, which isn't something you necessarily want on the low-end of your product line. Also, I believe that they've switched from fitting the i/o brackets at the dealer to at their manufacturing plant so they have more control over testing their products for reliability. Offering only 1 type of connection with the others on an alternate bracket simplifies inventory a great deal.

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Tue Jul 01, 2003 12:37 pm

This kind of thing is common. I remember reading recently that the promised optional ADAT interface for the Novation Supernova2 was shelved. Also, how and why should a company offer every possible configuration that people might conceivably need? Check out Emagic - they make 2 8in/out interfaces with AMT protocol (a timestamping system for MIDI to make it tighter) but their smaller MT4 (4in/out) doesn't have this feature. You could go concocting all kinds of conspiracy theories about why this is the case but at the end of the day, it's not going to change the harsh reality that you can't always get what you want.

peace

jabney · Post by **jabney** » Thu Jul 03, 2003 12:29 pm

Creamware's biggest mistake by far? No contest, it was the decision to release the Luna card at an affordable price.That opened a flood-gate of hate-filled messages all of which had this underlying theme: "I actually spent money on the Luna card so why doesn't it do everything the Scope/Pulsar II/Pulsar I cards do?"I would venture to say that if it were possible to somehow retroactively purge postings from Luna-only owners, Creamware's sales would have been significantly greater.This is not meant as an attack on the Luna; I have one myself (Luna II) with two Pulsar I cards. I also know that my mixed system's performance is not as good as that of people who have all generation II cards. I suppose I could pout like some of the Luna-only owners, but that's not going to make my system any faster. Buying (a new concept to some posters - at least when it comes to software) a couple of Pulsar IIs or better will.Of course it's cheaper to complain about Creamware than to actually fix the problem. Unfortunately, a lot of people who might have found a Creamware solution to their music-production needs, instead turned to other choices because of the vile things some people said about Creamware.Then again, maybe a lot of the hatred is due to Creamware's tight protection scheme. Remember, a lot of these 'poor babies' have never paid for a piece of software in their lives (and they're not using Linux nor BSD).

[ This Message was edited by: jabney on 2003-07-03 13:31 ]

inDSP Frank · Post by **inDSP Frank** » Thu Jul 03, 2003 2:38 pm

Braincell, if we were just greedy and your logic was right we would have chosen ADAT, correct? Really, 8 in and out in 24/96 plus power thru one cable is kind of cool we thought. And get real: many companies provide their own interfaces: Motu, RME, etc etc

Frank

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Fri Jul 04, 2003 8:06 am

Imagine if there was no midi standard. As sucky as midi is we all use it. The ADAT standard is the only standard for multiple audio i/o. I already own an original A16 and a Pulsar I. Personally I'm not happy with your choice to change to a different i/o which is not even compatible with equipment your own company made a few years ago.

at0m · Post by **at0m** » Fri Jul 04, 2003 8:23 am

Braincell, a new A16 has both ADAT & Firewire. You can get any of those in any mix on your I/O board too. I'm very happy with my mixed ADAT/Z-Link I/O board, connecting Luna2496 and some day anything optical if I feel like.
What more do you want? Maybe you bought the wrong I/O board?

Immanuel · Post by **Immanuel** » Fri Jul 04, 2003 2:16 pm

It reminds me - does anyone need some EDO-RAM?. My girlfriend is ditching her old 486 (anyone need a CPU?) PC. And the EDO does not fit into my TUSL2-c. I will mail it anywhere in the world for free.