Ableton Acquires Cycling '74

[Machinesworking]

Well, we can obviously only comment on what we experienced in the past and that is neglect of Live for the benefit of the not so smooth integration of M4L.

Maybe the future will bring all of what you wrote, you seem to be very sure of it. I guess you must have special insider knowledge since your view is not supported by past experience.
Since we are already dreaming, maybe I finally get a pony too, yay

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. Given the obvious tragectory of Ableton all these years, this can only mean things get better or remain the same. You and others in this thread are addressing the possibility of tighter integration between Max and Live as if it's a bad thing which in and of itself is patently insane. Like I previously mentioned M4L isn't going anywhere, so you either accept that or move on, there are other DAWs, there's no reason to be unhappy.

I use more than one DAW because I don't see the point of being a complainer when a company makes a decision I don't like. All of you petitioning for less Max focus in Live are blatantly ignoring Ableton's obvious tragectory. I'm not saying don't petition for a native LFO or at least a higher functioning LFO, I'm saying complaining about stability because of M4L, then using that to complain about tighter integration between Live and Max, which very well could and should increase stability between the two is pretty silly. It's attacking the medic when they show up because there are other wounded, it doesn't make any sense.

[Machinesworking]

Face it, Max 4 Live is now never going away, which after 5 years all of you should have come to accept as a fact. Now, it's entirely possible it truly delivers on its original promise, and Live becomes a truly impressive modular DAW.

that's the case. all these 5 years m4l's been proving it's instability and unreliability.

... and the M4L integration gets much more stable

what makes you think so? i see quite the opposite here. they hardly handle this level of integration, why on earth they're supposed to be more stable in deeper integration? on the contrary, instability of m4l will affect Live harder to my mind.
that is sad

Like I've mentioned already, two separate companies working on a partnership maintain a distinctly separate code base and bugs are worked out without inside knowledge for the most part. Deeper integration naturally leeds to possible issues when implementing I suppose, but it most definitely leads to less closed doors in terms of bug fixing. So in the end it can't mean Live would be more stable without deeper integration. There really isn't any down side. Unless you were just wishing Ableton terminated the partnership altogether, which is
IMO kind of insane.

[hyperscientist]

All these discussions are in vain. This news changes nothing for foreseeable future. That's it. Ableton will not get magic powers and start iterating on Live at a decent pace any time soon. This is just business. If Ableton will innovate it will be with Push and other new products (Live for mobile devices maybe).

[TomKern]

Well, we can obviously only comment on what we experienced in the past and that is neglect of Live for the benefit of the not so smooth integration of M4L.

Maybe the future will bring all of what you wrote, you seem to be very sure of it. I guess you must have special insider knowledge since your view is not supported by past experience.
Since we are already dreaming, maybe I finally get a pony too, yay

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. Given the obvious tragectory of Ableton all these years, this can only mean things get better or remain the same. You and others in this thread are addressing the possibility of tighter integration between Max and Live as if it's a bad thing which in and of itself is patently insane. Like I previously mentioned M4L isn't going anywhere, so you either accept that or move on, there are other DAWs, there's no reason to be unhappy.

I use more than one DAW because I don't see the point of being a complainer when a company makes a decision I don't like. All of you petitioning for less Max focus in Live are blatantly ignoring Ableton's obvious tragectory. I'm not saying don't petition for a native LFO or at least a higher functioning LFO, I'm saying complaining about stability because of M4L, then using that to complain about tighter integration between Live and Max, which very well could and should increase stability between the two is pretty silly. It's attacking the medic when they show up because there are other wounded, it doesn't make any sense.

You seem to have missed where I wrote:

I don't have a problem with the M4L integration in general. More power to the people, like you, who profit from it.
What I do have a problem with, is it being used as a substitute in place of further development of Live proper.
A trend that will continue and now with this acquisition probably get worse.

That's why I'm less than excited about it.

Your assertion that this time it will all just work out and they finally:
a.) make M4L integrated enough that the issues I mentioned in a post above (which you also seem to have ignored) will all be solved.
b.) go back to developing Live on equal or greater footing

Are just that, assertions. Others might even call them fantasies based on naivety.

[[jur]]

Hey guys, don't forget to keep it cool please

[stringtapper]

I think people aren't grasping MW's point simply because they don't want to.

Max For Live has always been a very fragile seeming bridge between two applications. This acquisition will make it possible for there to no longer be a bridge but rather one complete codebase.

From some of the remarks David and Gerhard made in their interview I believe this is exactly what they have planned. It would mean that Max For Live would become a native part of Live, with a Live-specific version of Max existing inside of Live's codebase without the need to launch a separate application (Max standalone).

Since Ableton owns all the code now, this is entirely feasible, and more importantly there is no reason for both developers to not want this. The bridge model was a compromise due to the nature of the collaboration: two pieces of software working together through hooks that exist as code within only one of the applications (what M4L is right now). I can't imagine that either developer thought the solution was ideal, but short of merging the two companies or co-developing an entirely different application it was likely the only way it could be done.

This acquisition opens the door for them to get it right this time.

Now if you're prone to believing that Gerhard Behles stays up at night dreaming of ways to thwart your music making endeavors and that M4L's current implementation was his masterstroke toward that goal, then I'm sure none of what I wrote above will make any sense to you.

[Angstrom]

I don't have a problem with Live integrating Max, my problem is with people dismissing my concerns about it.

I am competent at programming. I do it all day, I write code, I interface with APIs, I wrangle servers, I make business apps for clients, mobile phone applications which integrate with all that, I query stuff and make things talk to each other. So, that's my day job. I am capable of doing it, but it's fucking boring.
Still - In M4L I prefer to do stuff in the JS window, as that's faster for me than a bunch of GUI abstractions.

I want a mid-level approach to modular DSP. I want to remain in the "musically creative" state. I don't want to be having a 90% rational musical create process with my tired rational brain at 11pm. I want to be patching intuitively. Patching is different than coding.

Patching allows for serendipitous outcomes. Mistakes are learning events. If I unthinkingly and accidentally patch the oscillator output into the filter frequency in, I discover something new via immediate audio. I am creating and learning through what we call in UI "Discoverability"
However - In coding: a typo or a mistyped variable is most likely to produce a logged error (if you are lucky) and if unlucky it will fail silently. The creative interface is not "discoverable", we learn through logic and unit tests. A very different sort of creativity.

Max is a logical playground where people can create musical tools, but I spend all day debugging. I am tired of debugging by 8pm and I want to enjoy patching. I do not want 90% logic in my creative process. I want to snap mid-level components together. Oscillator, Modulator, Filter, ... etc.
Yes, the eternal promise is that the JIT versions in Max will one day equal the C++ versions in Ableton for stability, speed and resource use. But unfortunately my experience has not been the case. The JIT versions seems to crash, the JS window hates @imports and there is no inter-application continuity, no transferable learnability. There is no discoverability other than via a debug log and a unit test.

What bugs me is that whenever I try to explain this it is dismissed as moaning, and that if I am "incapable of grasping Max I should try buying pre-made Max devices" !
Completely missing the point.

I want to PATCH the best quality devices, stable and robust, and in ten years I want to open a set with them in and it to work fine.

[stringtapper]

Steve, I acknowledge your concerns and understand them. If I have been one of those who has dismissed you in the past, then I apologize.

I think if you look to what Cycling has done with BEAP, and Ableton's embracing of it by promoting it, there is some hope for getting to the kind of workflow you're looking for. And now more than ever because of the acquisition, I think.

I think it's safe to assume that most Live users are going to want something closer to what Angstrom is talking about rather than coding directly in Max. So if Ableton can recognize this then the challenge will be how to make M4L still have the depth that it has now, but allow it to have a hierarchical structure along the lines of, say, BEAP–>Max/MSP–>Gen, in terms of how far down the rabbit hole one wants to go. It's already like that now in many ways, but one can imagine a more formalized implementation of the higher-level end starting with BEAP (or something like it).

[TomKern]

Angstroms points notwithstanding, I think the main problem I have (and others seem to have as well), is that we have serious doubts that they can pull it off. And we would much rather they didn't waste years trying something that is very likely to fail and rather keep updating Live at a good pace.

Look I understand that M4L is wonderful for a specific section of the user base, but for the rest of us the M4L integration so far gave us nothing but shitty devices that we wanted for years in a not shitty form. (seriously the LFO must be the shittiest hack job of a device that Ableton has ever released).

The fact that they are shitty, BECAUSE they are M4L devices raises serious doubts about the value of any of this for us regular users and has turned my stance towards M4L from mild curiosity to utter disinterest.
If they wanted to win people over to M4L they did an extremely poor job of it during the years Live 9 has been out now.

Now you write that all of this shittyness will disappear, because they will finally integrate everything fully. But rather than calm my fears this brings back memories of early Live 8, the last time they tried a serious rewrite of Lives code base.

Besides what are the Max users saying about this step, the ones not using Live? Doesn't that mean the Max standalone version will disappear or at least get neglected?

[stringtapper]

Besides what are the Max users saying about this step, the ones not using Live? Doesn't that mean the Max standalone version will disappear or at least get neglected?

No, it doesn't mean that at all and Gerhard said it point blank in the interview.

[TomKern]

Besides what are the Max users saying about this step, the ones not using Live? Doesn't that mean the Max standalone version will disappear or at least get neglected?

No, it doesn't mean that at all and Gerhard said it point blank in the interview.

But in most merger cases this sort of rhetoric is used. Almost never ends that way.

[LOFA]

Besides what are the Max users saying about this step, the ones not using Live? Doesn't that mean the Max standalone version will disappear or at least get neglected?

No, it doesn't mean that at all and Gerhard said it point blank in the interview.

But in most merger cases this sort of rhetoric is used. Almost never ends that way.

I think both cycling74 and ableton are pretty clear and consistent with their word. Also, they have an established respect for each other that seems quite transparent and established, historically in the public realm.

[TomKern]

I think both cycling74 and ableton are pretty clear and consistent with their word. Also, they have an established respect for each other that seems quite transparent and established, historically in the public realm.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anyone is lying, I'm sure they believe what they are saying.
But over the years maintaining two independent code bases, one a merged Live/Max one and one with the same enhancements, but free of anything related to Live will be quite resource intensive. Especially if as Stringtapper and Machinesworking posit the integration gets deeper and deeper.
I don't know the actual numbers, but given Lives popularity I would think that the majority of Max user are M4L users. So all that work year after year will be for satisfying a niche audience. I would not be surprised if the time comes in the not so far future that the Max standalone version will be economically unsustainable for Ableton.

Might not happen, but as a Max standalone user I would be worried. Very worried.

[Machinesworking]

Your assertion that this time it will all just work out and they finally:
a.) make M4L integrated enough that the issues I mentioned in a post above (which you also seem to have ignored) will all be solved.
b.) go back to developing Live on equal or greater footing

Are just that, assertions. Others might even call them fantasies based on naivety.

Again:
M4L is not going away.
It's obvious that some things you want will be implemented as M4L devices, despite your grievances on their public forum.
Deeper integration between M4L and Live would logically mean that bugs or issues have a better chance than they do right now of being solved.

In italics, I think you're missing my point over and over again.
I'm not living in some world where I believe that Ableton are going to make a native LFO, because so far they haven't, it's been years now.
If they do, I'll be happy, but in the mean time I will welcome changes that give the possibility of less bugs, deeper integration and better implementation.

My trajectory on M4L, thought it was a bad idea at the start, two separate code bases that entangled can lead to issues, which I noticed right away in the Live 8 beta. (they of course already had code in the beta related to M4L, they had announced the partnership etc.) I didn't buy 8 until I had heard it was stable for the most part about 9 months later. That was what? 4 years ago? It's obvious that M4l is going nowhere, I rarely use it myself, my Live needs are mostly live performance oriented, I'm not a tinkerer who comes up with things by accident so a lot of what Live and M4L offer isn't for me. All that said, it's obvious that Ableton are committed to M4L and integrating the experience even further. That can only lead to cleaner integration, since as of now it's got warts, it's what you and others are saying right?

You can worry about it of course, but what option is there besides deeper implementation that isn't you just wanting Live to not use M4L for various functions? It's obvious Ableton will use M4L to patch in things, that you won't be happy with that, so why are you using it? In all sincerity to be as negative as you are about the direction of a company and to still use that companies product is just masochistic.

[TomKern]

Your assertion that this time it will all just work out and they finally:
a.) make M4L integrated enough that the issues I mentioned in a post above (which you also seem to have ignored) will all be solved.
b.) go back to developing Live on equal or greater footing

Are just that, assertions. Others might even call them fantasies based on naivety.

Again:
M4L is not going away.
It's obvious that some things you want will be implemented as M4L devices, despite your grievances on their public forum.
Deeper integration between M4L and Live would logically mean that bugs or issues have a better chance than they do right now of being solved.

In italics, I think you're missing my point over and over again.
I'm not living in some world where I believe that Ableton are going to make a native LFO, because so far they haven't, it's been years now.
If they do, I'll be happy, but in the mean time I will welcome changes that give the possibility of less bugs, deeper integration and better implementation.

My trajectory on M4L, thought it was a bad idea at the start, two separate code bases that entangled can lead to issues, which I noticed right away in the Live 8 beta. (they of course already had code in the beta related to M4L, they had announced the partnership etc.) I didn't buy 8 until I had heard it was stable for the most part about 9 months later. That was what? 4 years ago? It's obvious that M4l is going nowhere, I rarely use it myself, my Live needs are mostly live performance oriented, I'm not a tinkerer who comes up with things by accident so a lot of what Live and M4L offer isn't for me. All that said, it's obvious that Ableton are committed to M4L and integrating the experience even further. That can only lead to cleaner integration, since as of now it's got warts, it's what you and others are saying right?

You can worry about it of course, but what option is there besides deeper implementation that isn't you just wanting Live to not use M4L for various functions? It's obvious Ableton will use M4L to patch in things, that you won't be happy with that, so why are you using it? In all sincerity to be as negative as you are about the direction of a company and to still use that companies product is just masochistic.

Lol, what are you on about?! Masochistic, patently insane. We are talking about the integration of software we use not my sex-life and you are not my ex last time I checked. So lay off the personal touch a bit.

And I'm only negative of this particular development and the slow progress we witnessed in the last years. Doesn't mean I'm not happy with Live. It's a great program I use every day for many hours. And I plan to do so for the forseeable future. I learned to live without a native LFO. I simply use Cableguys MIDI shaper. It's cumbersome because I have to route it out and then back in via MIDI loop back, but other than that it works great. Certainly much better than that hack job Ableton delivered.
The only negative reaction of mine as far as Ableton is concerned would be that I don't up-grade when Live 10 comes out. Which will happen anyways if they don't give Sampler time stretch capabilities.

Anyways.... /shrug