What's new

No more dongles!

Snoobydoobydoo

Active Member
Apart from the debatable POV in general: Isn't it a bit cynical to measure multi-billion, globally tax-optimizing companies like Apple or Microsoft against comparably small entities in niche-markets that have a strong personal ethos towards their products, like most audio software manufacturers ...?
Surely is? It may not be fair to "entities" who need to sell for bread and jam instead of new buildings to shovel their taxes on.
If you sell something with ethos.....well, ethos cant be stolen.
But if you sell something with ethos and expect people to not steal it, you may lose it.
 

Dietz

Space Explorer
I think the dongle business did more harm to Stainberg and Cubase then any good
This I doubt. I remember how VSL's sales suddenly quadrupled when the previously unprotected libraries came under the eLicenser umbrella.
 

Dietz

Space Explorer
My Workstation: 468sx 33mhz, 4MB Ram, 160MB HDD, S-VGA SPEA/V7, Dos 3.1.
Software: Fasttracker II
Gear: Silver Karaokemic, Logitech 2.0 Speakers.
I see you're a hi-tech snob. My IBM XT sports 640 KB RAM and a Roland MPU 401 MIDI-interface, running "Texture" (a ASCII-based pattern-sequencer).

:barefoot:
 

JamieLang

Active Member
This I doubt. I remember how VSL's sales suddenly quadrupled when the previously unprotected libraries came under the eLicenser umbrella.
As a legit customer of both(sort of--I bought the Giga, couldn't do anything with it, and they let me exchange it for the Vienna Instrument versions)...no--they made an exponentially BETTER product than they made under Gigastudio (which I assume are the unprotected you reference?). I mean I know they briefly did some deal with NI, but that was crazy brief. Giga's RAM limitations made it so you could literally open like maybe a Violin and Cello on the WHOLE machine...so, the Chamber string quartet (four sections-I realize there are more players) wasn't useable with out multiple computers. With VE, it was....AND was easier to transition articulations...and could do the RAM optimization where you could dump all but use samples from RAM (which is what made the four sections useable).

I mean, I don't know if eLicenser had a positive benefit for them...but the time they implemented it, their tech was a decade ahead of the game.

I want a dongle. Or we can just do serials/auth files. Whichever. Online machine based authorizations are not going to pry much from my wallet.
 

Nick Batzdorf

Moderator
Moderator
For what it's worth, here's my story on Synth and Software:

 

Nickie Fønshauge

Senior Member
A couple of enlightening posts from Daniel Spreadbury on the Dorico forum:

"We have already stated on several occasions that the change in license management system is not in any way connected to the introduction of subscription pricing. It is a change in license management technology, not our entire business model”

“The new system will not use a hardware key of any kind, but it will require a periodic call to a license server on the Internet, unless you expressly choose an offline activation (for an air-gapped computer that cannot connect to the Internet).

However, it will not be required that you are connected to the Internet at all times when using the software, and although we don’t yet know what the interval for mandatory license checks will be, I would expect it to be in line with the policies followed by other software vendors. Microsoft requires you to reconnect once every 39 days; Adobe once every 99 days; PreSonus Sphere once every 3 days; EastWest ComposerCloud every 30 days; and so on.

We also anticipate that it will be possible to authorise the software on more than one computer, but, again, the details remain to be worked out.

You can rest assured that we will let you know what we have decided in good time before the introduction of the new license management system, and that we are listening to all the feedback we have been receiving since we made this announcement last week (and indeed for many years before that).”
 

Snoobydoobydoo

Active Member
"and although we don’t yet know what the interval for mandatory license checks will be"

And that will be a problem for many strict offline users.
Some just cant or want to put a renewal file on an usb stick or else to activate it somewhere else.

Its a bye for me :|
 

Tronam

Member
"and although we don’t yet know what the interval for mandatory license checks will be"

And that will be a problem for many strict offline users.
Some just cant or want to put a renewal file on an usb stick or else to activate it somewhere else.

Its a bye for me :|
In that same reply they mention "expressly choosing an offline activation", so I don't think we can draw conclusions yet on what all of the licensing options are going to be until the details are actually unveiled.
 

EgM

Game music!
"and although we don’t yet know what the interval for mandatory license checks will be"

And that will be a problem for many strict offline users.
Some just cant or want to put a renewal file on an usb stick or else to activate it somewhere else.

Its a bye for me :|

Like it or not, the "strict offline user" is not very common. I've had my machines online as a DAW since 1995 or so and I've never had issues. For a company to dumb down their copy protection to offline only is very problematic.
 

DovesGoWest

Senior Member
I hope Steinberg doesn’t go with ‘code meter’ I had that forced on me with VPS Avenger and its a PIA. Basically you get a 3 month license and then have to reconnect it to download another 3 month license
 

EgM

Game music!
I hope Steinberg doesn’t go with ‘code meter’ I had that forced on me with VPS Avenger and its a PIA. Basically you get a 3 month license and then have to reconnect it to download another 3 month license

3 months honestly is not that bad though for someone who wants to keep offline, better than hours/days

BUT!

Think of it this way from the software developer point of view: One person activating his license gets hacked (it happens all the freaking time!) you see a seller on eBay selling a great library for sale, you buy it (you should never), it works, 2 months later it's invalidated)

That developer wastes man hours on support for software that was never bought from that person.
 
Last edited:

Quasar

Senior Member
Like it or not, the "strict offline user" is not very common. I've had my machines online as a DAW since 1995 or so and I've never had issues. For a company to dumb down their copy protection to offline only is very problematic.
No.
 

Polkasound

Senior Member
Like it or not, the "strict offline user" is not very common.
You are right, but people who want their files and usage data 100% private and protected should be able to make that choice, especially these days. If a software company needs to access my hard drive in order for me to keep using their software, then I'm not going to use their software. It's that simple.
 
Top Bottom