Live's database is just plain bad.

Discussion of music production, audio, equipment and any related topics, either with or without Ableton Live
Post Reply
kitekrazy
Posts: 731
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 7:16 pm

Live's database is just plain bad.

Post by kitekrazy » Sun Dec 23, 2018 12:45 am

Why did they do this after Live 8. The database folder adds to OS drive space. It is slow after you reset it. I had to reset since it was showing files no longer on my system and probably imported that from my Live 9.
When I buy samples they go to my downloads folder. They get unzipped and auditioned then they go to other drives. All of my DAWs have the download folder listed. I can open up any DAW but Live and I can see the new sample pack in a DAW's directory.

I fail to understand why they have this database like this. Most complained about it when Live 9 came out.


jlgrimes
Posts: 1277
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:55 am
Location: Atlanta, Ga

Re: Live's database is just plain bad.

Post by jlgrimes » Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:16 pm

kitekrazy wrote:Why did they do this after Live 8. The database folder adds to OS drive space. It is slow after you reset it. I had to reset since it was showing files no longer on my system and probably imported that from my Live 9.
When I buy samples they go to my downloads folder. They get unzipped and auditioned then they go to other drives. All of my DAWs have the download folder listed. I can open up any DAW but Live and I can see the new sample pack in a DAW's directory.

I fail to understand why they have this database like this. Most complained about it when Live 9 came out.
They actually improved it some.

Not as bad as it was when 9 came out but yeah they can make it better.

granted
Posts: 157
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:18 pm

Re: Live's database is just plain bad.

Post by granted » Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:04 pm

All the companies in the music production industrial complex are dealing with this issue. How many companies have become content management companies? Abelton, Native Instruments, Steinberg, Arturia, to name just a few. All of these companies not only create music software but also create content. To get that content to the user and add value they must create software that will market and sell the content, sort the content, and make the content usable. No companies want to use the Windows or macOS internal content management systems because they have no control over the data (lost profits).

Yes, Windows File Explorer and macOS Finder would be great: fast, built in search, and we all know how to use it. But companies cannot profit on that. So we are all stuck with countless versions of content management systems that suck. Why? Because you cannot create music software, content, and content management systems and have them all be great at the same time. It's a pick two situation. Ableton is going to pick music software and content. Content management is an afterthought because the user is locked in - you already bought the content, right? Ableton's content manager is for Push and Packs. It's not for you, the user, it's for their bank account.

Think of all the different content management systems you come in contact with during the day. Not just in music production but IRL. It's staggering. All those different interfaces, database styles and philosophies, ratings systems. But for IP issues all slightly different to avoid lawsuits. Think of all the wasted time quickly learning a new content management system. Over and over again.

Post Reply