Max for Live - first impressions?

[LoopStationZebra]

Been putting M4L through a bit of testing, but I hope to God Above that someone develops a proper Step Sequencer for use with the Launchpad before I'm forced to learn the programming and do it myself.

[4/4]

An 'app store' is a terrible idea.

x2

[ramble]
There's no reason to change the whole max/msp patch sharing paradigm. Anyone who's made good enough plugs/objects with max/msp in the past have used their own initiative to sell them for reasonable prices or whatever they can get. I think ushering people into the idea of selling patches is pretty repulsive.

And everyone and their dog has had the idea of a M4L runtime, aka some kind of lite 'player only' version for cheap. Because {a} that's the way it's always been up until now. Infact the runtime has always been FREE. and {b} it's common sense.

A runtime for $75 would be less than ideal but certainly more welcome than spending $300 just to play with the toys others are willing to share out of innate human kindness.

I'm reluctantly concluding there won't be a cheaper runtime for sale seeing as there's already such a price reduction on M4L from the stand-alone version. even considering the limitations of being locked into live that's still a sweet price cut. Second to that PLUGGO is included as content (at least that's what I'm led to believe from the material I've been reading over the year). Which, for anyone who doesn't already know, is a suite of plugins that cycling74 sold at a price of $200 until they discontinued it when M4L was announced. For the non-patchers, I'm guessing that's supposed to be a big chunk of the justification in the $300 price tag.
[/ramble]

Food for thought: How far would a project such as monome have gotten if the userbase had to purchase the full max/msp/jitter license or even spend as much as $300 on the necessary runtime ?

[LoopStationZebra]

FFS.

An app store would rock. Fucking Hippies. meh. I've no problem whatsoever with paying some slob $.99 for a bitchin step sequencer app that also controls my yard lighting.

[4/4]

FFS.

An app store would rock. Fucking Hippies. meh. I've no problem whatsoever with paying some slob $.99 for a bitchin step sequencer app that also controls my yard lighting.

Right, and if you improve the sequencer are you allowed to share it ? or do you sell it ? give royalties to the originator ? etc etc, what a fucking quagmire that would be. Seriously, how fucking convenient do people need the internet to be ? lol in advance at 'share' subscribers.

[octopod]

I don't see why a 'patch' store is needed. The only reason I can think of that users would want one is to provide a central place for searches / ratings / reviews etc. I'm hoping maxforlive.com becomes this place for open patches (which are the only kind right now).

The app store works for Apple because it allows them to:

1) Control access to their devices
2) Perform some level of quality control on the apps
3) Take a 30% cut of all sales

I don't see why Ableton or Cycling 74 need to do 1). If they were going to do 3) then they'd need to hire extra people to do 2) as well as manage all the usual billing crap. There would need to be a big enough market for patches to support that.

From a patch developers point of view, the advantage is that billing etc. is taken care of for you, as long as you're happy with the cut the store owners take. The disadvantage is that if you don't like that cut, or fall foul of the store owners for whatever reason, you're screwed.

[LoopStationZebra]

FFS.

An app store would rock. Fucking Hippies. meh. I've no problem whatsoever with paying some slob $.99 for a bitchin step sequencer app that also controls my yard lighting.

Right, and if you improve the sequencer are you allowed to share it ? or do you sell it ? give royalties to the originator ? etc etc, what a fucking quagmire that would be. Seriously, how fucking convenient do people need the internet to be ? lol in advance at 'share' subscribers.

I would do the right thing: rip off the creator, get cheap programmers in India to do my dirty work, sell it for triple what it originally cost, then provide no support whatsoever. Next?

[The Northern Contingent]

I think ushering people into the idea of selling patches is pretty repulsive.

Hey - fair enough! My point is really about offering a stripped down read-only plugin so everyone doesn't have to shell out nearly £240 for what to users like me would essentially remain a glorified step sequencer. To me THAT'S closer to a meaning of 'repulsive'.

[Lord Kahn]

I'd bet the lack of a runtime is more to do with lack of development time (particularly the testing which everyone always forgets about) than with greed.

[The Northern Contingent]

I'd bet the lack of a runtime is more to do with lack of development time (particularly the testing which everyone always forgets about) than with greed.

That's true - the problem with starting a topic like this is that it can all too quickly degenerate into sniping about issues that weren't really part of the initial point made.

So far my own personal experience of Ableton is that they seem to be one of the better companies in offering a fair deal for customers. I would imagine (and hope) in the future that some kind of runtime plugin will be offered as a free or at least heavily discounted option. I can only see this being a positive move, looking at the feeling of response generated here.

[Grappadura]

I think they could have easily priced it around 400 €. I guess you can compare it to reaktor, and there is no runtime for that. I think its fair.

[4/4]

I think they could have easily priced it around 400 €. I guess you can compare it to reaktor, and there is no runtime for that. I think its fair.

comparing it to anything other than max/msp/jitter is nonsense imo.

[Grappadura]

I think they could have easily priced it around 400 €. I guess you can compare it to reaktor, and there is no runtime for that. I think its fair.

comparing it to anything other than max/msp/jitter is nonsense imo.

what about comparing it to pure data?

[The Northern Contingent]

I think they could have easily priced it around 400 €. I guess you can compare it to reaktor, and there is no runtime for that. I think its fair.

Fair enough, but does this mean that any devices that are made in Max won't now make it into Live as standalones? I know I keep coming back to it as an example, but the step-sequencer is a perfect case in point. Ableton has been long overdue a basic step-sequencer (in fact this is my only real criticism of Live), but because it has been incorporated into Max, does that mean that those of us who aren't particularly interested in learning programming will have to fork out around £240 for the privilege of getting one?

I have no gripe whatsoever with its value for money if you want to learn programming at quite an advanced level - but I don't. Does this mean then that if I want something as basic as a step sequencer in Live I will have to pay out £240? To me that doesn't seem fair, or the best business model from which to launch something that seems intended as a significant feature of Live's future incarnations.

Surely a 'read-only' version would both raise the profile of the device in general, at the same time as offering a fairer deal for numpties like me who tremble in fear at the thought of even programming a video to record?

[4/4]

I think they could have easily priced it around 400 €. I guess you can compare it to reaktor, and there is no runtime for that. I think its fair.

comparing it to anything other than max/msp/jitter is nonsense imo.

what about comparing it to pure data?

I was going to use that as an example, but I didn't honestly believe the point needed to be laboured.

[zigzag]

I think they could have easily priced it around 400 €. I guess you can compare it to reaktor, and there is no runtime for that. I think its fair.

Fair enough, but does this mean that any devices that are made in Max won't now make it into Live as standalones? I know I keep coming back to it as an example, but the step-sequencer is a perfect case in point. Ableton has been long overdue a basic step-sequencer (in fact this is my only real criticism of Live), but because it has been incorporated into Max, does that mean that those of us who aren't particularly interested in learning programming will have to fork out around £240 for the privilege of getting one?

I have no gripe whatsoever with its value for money if you want to learn programming at quite an advanced level - but I don't. Does this mean then that if I want something as basic as a step sequencer in Live I will have to pay out £240? To me that doesn't seem fair, or the best business model from which to launch something that seems intended as a significant feature of Live's future incarnations.

Surely a 'read-only' version would both raise the profile of the device in general, at the same time as offering a fairer deal for numpties like me who tremble in fear at the thought of even programming a video to record?

+1000 - my thoughts exactly.
This is no deal for me too.