valis wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 6:54 am
To me, Scope is like my other hardware, it sits alongside both my Macs and my "PeeCees" and does what it does just fine. Oh, it runs with a dedicated computer that can ALSO host software as well (for which I use bidule). In other words, the way I would run Scope alongside an M1 would be to keep my Scope machine, and buy an M1. Currently I have 3 RME devices and a NI interface on my Macbook Pro all clocked to, and communicating with Scope. This is excessive for my needs, and really for most anyone's
Exact. That is what I have been referring to from the beginning. I've said it several times. The majority of those present in this forum and the majority of Scope users use Scope as if it were an external multi-effects, or as if it were an external digital mixer, or as if it were an external synth, or as all those things together will be ... but all of them external.
It is clear that Scope has that possibility and that it is the only way it can be integrated into any modern studio today.
But, I repeat, Scope does not sell a multi-effects, mixer, synth ... external. Sold as a complete audio interface. It is sold as a complete virtual studio that runs inside our main computer.
It is assumed that precisely this characteristic exempts from the obligation to be used only as an external device. Scope, up to 4.5, has always worked perfectly within our machines as the only interface and using only its driver.
Now it is also possible with Windows 10 and Scope 7 ... yes ... but with software deficiencies in an interface of more than € 3,000.
According to your exposition, by that rule of three, why have you programmed a 64-bit driver? What is Windows 10 support for? If total is going to be used within a secondary computer, it does not matter if it has Win7 or XP. It is a secondary PC. It does not matter.
Like Scope, ProTools TDM can be used. But a TDM is not sold to you on the manufacturer's website as current new equipment. That's what the HDX is working for on any type of platform.
What if. A professional thinks about amortizing his investment and is not updating his software every year. You can't say that about Scope precisely, since Scope is updated every 10 years. The pity is that the Scope updates are updates that cover the odd broken, but leave many others unrepaired. And encountering that every 10 years is disappointing.
valis wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 6:54 am
Which brings us back to the point here, it seems as if you're suggesting on one hand that the M1 offers an opportunity to 'get in early' on a new & expanding market for Mac users. Macs are only going up from here! And yet Apple has gone through these 'shifts' several times, including losing marketshare and "Pro" users who didn't like the "new way" or cost of retooling everytime they make a platform or generational shift. I recall as I was there and knew those guys.
I don't think we are in the same situation that we encountered with the move to Intel with OsX. It has absolutely nothing to do. At that time Apple was forced to trade architecture for the cutting edge and dominance of Intel. Not to be left behind.
These days, the move to ARM architecture is very different. The development is entirely led by Apple and its software-hardware synergy is leading it to the forefront of desktop computing. M1 is just the beginning. With M1 they only showed the paw and it was enough to stir the whole henhouse.
No. It is not the same as in previous architecture changes. Not much less. The previous ones were not to be left behind, and the one now is to be placed directly at the head.
valis wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 6:54 am
And btw, all of the Apple devs I know had to buy Mac Mini dev kits many months ago to get up to speed and be ready, and M1's were also delivered in Macbook form to them all. So I'd say Scope would be starting rather late to hop on that train, it's already leaving the station.
Development for M1 has been going on for months to release M1 with some software support behind it. But there is still a long way to go. Apple has given itself 2-3 years (as minimum) to migrate all of its products to ARM. That means no, it's not too late, the train is still waiting at the station for all developers to migrate their applications to ARM. Among them are the manufacturers of audio interfaces, whose drivers are programmed for x86 / x64.
The train is still going to be at the station for quite a prudent time.
valis wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 6:54 am
Could holger do it? I don't see why not, if resources were dedicated. But again, what's the utility here?
The utility is the same as that of supporting 64 bits. If you find 64-bit support useful ... why not support MacOS when MacOS is also the most widespread platform in the world of audio production?
I see incongruous that if you want to use Xite only as external equipment you need a 64-bit driver. That if it has support for it, it is perfect, but that it is not necessary.
Well, the same can be said with MacOS.
valis wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 6:54 am
One of the larger issues I think the Scope userbase faces is the fact that our PCI cards are aging. Now, it might follow that these users will then want an Xite, but it's equally likely that they might just shed all their legacy cruft for a shiny M1 as you suggest. So there might be some merit to what you're posting, but it's a bit wrong-way-around. Why? Because only somel % of our uses will choose the Xite to begin with based on cost, obviously. Ok so a lesser device made to be compatible with the latest & greatest shurely would have more 'market penetration' and lead to these 'sustainable' models you suggest. Except, that's exactly NOT the business model that SonicCore wound up focusing on.
I have also mentioned that myself. It doesn't have to be a Xite device. It could be another device. Similar or not to Xite-1 or Xite-D could be based on "savings in I+D". The only thing that should be changed are some I / O (remove Z-Link for God's sake) and provide a more portable and future-proof communication interface.
More investment? Yes ... but also more return of it (and with more guarantees than if it were only in Xite).
valis wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 6:54 am
We have Noah, ASB's and many other attempts to expand their business model to look at. Maybe those were the 'wrong' way to 'expand' and you know hte 'right' way, well more on that below.
I know a little about the current demand. Currently home studios proliferate to the detriment of larger and more expensive studios. Tracking is being used more and more, few channels but one of the good ones. Likewise, mixing, remixing, mastering, broadcasting, streaming works proliferate. Jobs that can be done with few good quality I / O and all ITB.
Scope has a lot of potential to be the center of any of these types of studies, equal to or better than an Apollo can. But for that it has to expand its development and update its I / O offer as well as the interface for connecting to the computer.
More and more music is being streamed and less is being listened to live music. This is a fact. The approach has to enhance that line in my opinion. I am not saying to abandon the idea of a device for a live show, but to be more empowered where there is more niche in the market.
valis wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 6:54 am
Since I can see the web traffic this tiny forum generates, I *know* Holger has a userbase that's big enough to continue to generate an income. That's what I mean when I saw he has a niche. Most of the posters here are established members for years, with a breadth of knowledge newcomers lack. We have less than 1% of our visitors posting, in fact far less. So my take is there are many users who come here to read & learn but don't actually post for many years, if ever. Either that means they're happily using Scope, or they don't use Scope at all and come here to read...???
It does not seem that the revenue due to loyal users is enough to lift the platform as it deserves.
Since the thread has started I have been told several times that the real problem is financial. With more money it is clear that you can increase the number of developers and therefore accelerate development and take it further.
The niche seems to be just enough for the niche. It seems that the old users do not want the platform to grow from what I read. It's strange. As the platform grows, former users can continue to use Scope as they please. They do not lose. The only losers are potential Scope consumers.
Perhaps many of the PlanetZ users that you say enter from time to time and do not participate, are users who are curious about the course Scope is taking in the present and its future project. Perhaps many of those users who enter from time to time and who do not participate are former Scope users, those who left the platform for not supporting OsX (I know a good handful of them only in my country). I know for good fact that some of them look askance at Scope and long for the platform ... yes ... but they love OsX and they don't want to use 2 computers and 2 audio interfaces because they want to have a simple set that does not limit them (all ITB, but everything "Inside ONE Box", not everything "Inside TWO Boxes"). And there are many users with such sights.
valis wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 6:54 am
Let's say we've duly noted that the M1 is a thing, and that people can now tour using the same chip in their phone, an iPad or a larger format with a built in keyboard. Should holger have worried about making iPhone interfaces or 'be lost in the dusts of time'? Because that's sustainability, right? In any case, noone is here saying 'you can't get what you want', just that what you want may not be what Holger & other Scope users want.
That's the problem. That what Scope users want is not at odds with what most users demand.
Perhaps Holger will find it easier not to complicate his life and continue as before. That is very respectable. But that Scope users are not interested? ... What are you saying? ... Current Scope users were not going to be affected at all that there was support for MacOS ARM (for example), or that it was born another SonicCore audio / MIDI interface more adapted to today's times. That in no way prevents them from continuing with their lives as they have been up to now.
Moreover, from what you say, I risk thinking that some of the current Scope users do not want more Scope users because they do not want their niche to grow. They want their niche to be just theirs and just for them. That would be very selfish reasoning. I hope I am wrong and that it is not that way. It would be somewhat retrograde.
valis wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 6:54 am
Since you see an opportunity, I suggest you start your business plan now and find the funding and make it happen. Looking at our larger political situation the last year, one wonders who long that might be possible so get crackin! I'm mostly jesting of course, but there's no reason you can't do this aside from, well facing many of the hurdles that SonicCore already overcame. So you could set out and learn what they are yourself...
I am a user, not a businessman. If I were a businessman I would not be commenting on this forum. I would go straight to talk to Holger and ask him 2 things:
1- What aspirations do you have with Scope?
2- what does he need to achieve these goals?
About the rest (negotiation and conditions) I do not comment on anything because I have already said that I am NOT a businessman. I'm just a user.
valis wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 6:54 am
Ah, or you can just ask GaryB for all that lucrative insider information and THEN start your competing product. Again, I jest, but the allegation that GaryB is somehow 'covering up' some dire situation or nasty secret seems to be the peak on this hill we've climbed in this thread. I would suggest we climb back down to base camp and figure out what we all have in common. Which I should hope is making music at the end of the day, rather than showing off our latest shiny gadgets (we do that too!)
Obviously my intention was not to accuse Gary of covering up any desperate situation. Not much less. I have simply invited him to make me see the light in those matters that he says he knows very well and that I (according to him) do not know.
Maybe I expressed myself badly and he misinterpreted my words. I repeat that it was not my intention to accuse anyone. If this has been understood, I apologize to Gary and to the people who have read me and have been equally offended.
And of course, above all, the first thing is to make music. Good music. I think that is what brings us all here and I always keep it in mind.
A greeting.