Ryanmf wrote:I really can't tell whether you guys would prefer more Live-esque features at the expense of appearing like a "rip off," or sacrificing those features and their benefits In an attempt to make Bitwig Studio more original/unique.
I'm not sure if you can have it both ways.
I don't think it's the session view idea that has drawn criticism, its more the additional similarities even down to the terminology (clips, scenes, devices). There's no solid case for that.
I still occasionally call clips "patterns" because of my hardware past and I never heard of 'clips' being used in this context before Live, so why not "patterns", "pattern groups" (for scenes), why not "modules" for devices (as they do seem quite modular)
Weird similarity example
Then we could say: why is there a tiny device/editor lane at the bottom, sure you
could choose put it down there when designing your app, but Live's tiny 170px high GUI is not really the best solution. It's OK for
non-focused elements (EG, an EQ you aren't currently editing but like to glance at), but when focused on a task wouldn't you like something larger, with more accuracy, why not create a Coverflow style zoom/enlargement up to (for example) NI Massive's 670px height! Hey, why not allow multiple active device lanes and midi lanes to be visible, anywhere on the screen you like?
Is one small lane at the bottom really the
only way to do it?
Somebody in here said (something like) "how could you ever do it differently?" I can tell you there are
plenty of ways. If I was designing a performance DAW I'd be saying things like "our customers are on stage, or potentially on the other side of the studio hitting a hardware controller. So lets make each focused GUI element be able to go huge on (focus) demand, map that hugeness to a midi key or behavioural modifier".
I very much doubt I'd be spec'ing "our customers want to hunch over and squint at a tiny scrolling row which requires mouse/trackpad interaction". That's just one functional example out of many, and why many people are raising an eyebrow.
I think they did themselves a marketing disservice.
They worked hard for 3 years on a new product all their own, and now people think its so like Ableton Live that there are even conspiracy theories that it IS Ableton Live in disguise. Personally if I worked that hard on my own product I'd be wanting ME to get the plaudits, not my old employer!
I think they could have got more plaudits by deliberately using different terminology and an alternative layout strategy. They've apparently made a great thing, but rather than a brilliant looking version 1 software, people are actually discussing it as a pretty good version 9!
(BTW - I think it has the chance to be a stellar version 1, I just hope any IP issues can be cleared up)
