Is Reason Studios falling apart?

[guitfnky]

“doesn’t sound sustainable to me”. again, Propellerhead managed it for >20 years, give or take

managed

good…point? nah.

[dakta]

See, i was thinking a good example of a company that was making perpetual licensing work for continued development would have been one that wasn't trying to actively establish and encourage subscription licensing of its product. I'm not that bothered about the world as it was in the 80's

We are on different planets on this matter I think. On the bright side I don't think Reason studios is going to fall apart though even if someone did trip over the plug for the activation server whilst leaving the office on friday, or if thumbnails/images are going missing or even if the mood of the userbase should take a slight negative downturn

It's all good

[guitfnky]

See, i was thinking a good example of a company that was making perpetual licensing work for continued development would have been one that wasn't trying to actively establish and encourage subscription licensing of its product.

do you not get that two things can be true at the same time? 🧐

[moneykube]

aaaaak...I hope not... my comment...
because...

Screen Shot 2022-07-27 at 12.15.14 AM.png (254.69 KiB) Viewed 1804 times

[Jac459]

I've observed these gloomy signs in the recent years/months/days ...

A below expectations Reason 11 upgrade was released.
A disappointing Reason 12 upgrade was released.
Reason+ was introduced.
Amount of negativity about Reason on YT has increased.
A few days ago the Reason licensing server was down over the weekend.
I'm seeing REs in the Reason RE shop with broken thumbnails.

It does not require a genius to count all these doom-suggesting signs together.
Maybe it's just the recent global trend of war, non-stop deadly pandemics, and trite new world order ambitions by elitists that spoil the soup but Reason Studios not displaying any attempts in getting Reason at least somewhat up-to-par with often requested features of leading DAWs seems concerning.

I've tried Bitwig Studio yesterday, used it for roughly 15 minutes and then was uninspired and irritated by the fiddly UI and uninstalled it again (after it also re-programmed my Arturia Keylab without asking me). Yes I know it's more powerful than Reason but I'm oldschool and like skeuomorphic UI and I guess will just stick with Reason even after it has long been abandoned and forgotten. Call me a dinosaur. But Reason - while leaving a lot to be desired - works for me in its current state.

I think it is fair to say that in this very competitive market reason studio struggles. Maintaining 25 years of development is a huge challenge for such a small company. They have a product that is awesome and beyond rich. In the same time they don't move as fast as new players. Bitwig is a good example (I super love this DAW). VST3 is perfectly implemented since long as well as m1 support. As well as MPE support and other features on the DAW that really matters and that reason doesn't have yet.

What is awesome is that using reason as a rack, you get the best of both worlds. Having Serum and phaseplant, coexisting with Europa, grain, Kong and Friktion in a seamless and optimised experience and feature rich DAW is pure happyness.

I don't think bitwig is better tha' reason. Reason is not better than bitwig. But both together are blowing everything underwater for my taste. Bitwig+reason is like the serenity of a BMW and the fun of a ferrari (if you excuse this shitty parallel).

[avasopht]

I get the impression that some executive decisions being made today are vastly different to what they would have been 10 years ago.

Some of those differences might be necessitated by changes in the market, and some might be in anticipation of predicted market growth, but I suspect that quite a handful come down to changes in upper management.

Only time will tell.

[dakta]

I get the impression that some executive decisions being made today are vastly different to what they would have been 10 years ago.

Some of those differences might be necessitated by changes in the market, and some might be in anticipation of predicted market growth, but I suspect that quite a handful come down to changes in upper management.

Only time will tell.

I think you're right, if I launched a software house ten years ago you generally would have used perpetual licenses by default, it was the done thing, very little (though probably not unheard of) in the way of subscription or rolling contracts unless your solution was enterprise grade. Not only that but if the technology was there and you did push it, you'd be an outlier. To make a constant revenue stream you'd be looking at getting people to buy initially and ultimately relying on churn to sell new licenses with a top up with upgrades from existing users. If your userbase is big enough it can work (I don't despite it can't) but you're in a very good position if it can and the change to subscription models by so many firms these days is very telling. Software developers are not cheap.

I was trying to think of big names from 40 years ago that still exist, make a profit and have yet to onboard subscription pricing - obvious names like Microsoft, IBM etc are an absolute no go, I'm reluctant to include Reason studios in that because they're clearly adapting over a longer term, very gently gently but you know where its going, pretty much everything we use in business is subscription, from office, to protection, to analytics and beyond. The main reverse engineering software I use in my own business has just this year gone annual license model, the office suite i use personally is subscription as is my AV. The best I could actually think of rather topically is steinberg, though forum posts on their side indicate it's been considered and just a case of concern over backlash.

I'm not bothered about whether two things can be true or not, point I'm making is that companies don't seem to see perpetual licensing as a very sustainable way forward, loads are migrating, and I think using reasonstudios is a weak counter-argument when they are putting so much effort into making their subscription model attractive

[Tweak]

I dunno, the vast majority of software companies have managed pretty okay for the last, what, 40 years charging fixed prices. Propellerhead included.

Whilst it is true companies managed before with fixed prices, software nowadays is considerably more complex, mainly because processing power allows it to be. As software becomes more complex, the resources needed to maintain and improve it have to be scaled. From what I've seen in my career in development, scaling resources to meet requirements of software development is non-linear, meaning fixed pricing is rarely sustainable long term.

[guitfnky]

I dunno, the vast majority of software companies have managed pretty okay for the last, what, 40 years charging fixed prices. Propellerhead included.

Whilst it is true companies managed before with fixed prices, software nowadays is considerably more complex, mainly because processing power allows it to be. As software becomes more complex, the resources needed to maintain and improve it have to be scaled. From what I've seen in my career in development, scaling resources to meet requirements of software development is non-linear, meaning fixed pricing is rarely sustainable long term.

the two people coding Reaper might beg to differ.

[Tweak]

the two people coding Reaper might beg to differ.

Indeed they might. Although I'd counter that with the suggestion that, side by side, Reaper is not as complex a piece of software as Reason. Whilst on the surface these two apps are intended to achieve the same thing, the programming journey they've taken to get there is very different. The Reaper guys had a pretty clear vision from the start IMO, I'm not sure the same can be said of Reason, which between the reluctance to include audio recording(until record), no VST... ok VST, Alihoopla etc. has travelled a turbulent path. These things matter to the final code base, and the work it takes for software engineers to maintain it.

In fact, a long term lack of coherent vision can be so damaging to software development that sometimes it is better to start fresh than continue to bolt stuff on to a system, since trying to add things is so complex and expensive. I can well imagine RS might consider developing their sequencer features as a new application afresh as a result - time will tell I suppose.

[guitfnky]

the two people coding Reaper might beg to differ.

Indeed they might. Although I'd counter that with the suggestion that, side by side, Reaper is not as complex a piece of software as Reason. Whilst on the surface these two apps are intended to achieve the same thing, the programming journey they've taken to get there is very different. The Reaper guys had a pretty clear vision from the start IMO, I'm not sure the same can be said of Reason, which between the reluctance to include audio recording(until record), no VST... ok VST, Alihoopla etc. has travelled a turbulent path. These things matter to the final code base, and the work it takes for software engineers to maintain it.

In fact, a long term lack of coherent vision can be so damaging to software development that sometimes it is better to start fresh than continue to bolt stuff on to a system, since trying to add things is so complex and expensive. I can well imagine RS might consider developing their sequencer features as a new application afresh as a result - time will tell I suppose.

right, different strokes for different software. the point is, saying a company needs to offer a subscription to be financially solid enough to keep developing is flatly incorrect. another example is Ableton Live. they sit in a similar place in terms of what’s included in the software compared to Reason (i.e. DAW+effects+instruments). they don’t offer a subscription, and they’re doing just fine.

there’s nothing wrong with subscriptions, but offering them is not a prerequisite for a successful company, period.

[selig]

the two people coding Reaper might beg to differ.

Indeed they might. Although I'd counter that with the suggestion that, side by side, Reaper is not as complex a piece of software as Reason. Whilst on the surface these two apps are intended to achieve the same thing, the programming journey they've taken to get there is very different. The Reaper guys had a pretty clear vision from the start IMO, I'm not sure the same can be said of Reason, which between the reluctance to include audio recording(until record), no VST... ok VST, Alihoopla etc. has travelled a turbulent path. These things matter to the final code base, and the work it takes for software engineers to maintain it.

In fact, a long term lack of coherent vision can be so damaging to software development that sometimes it is better to start fresh than continue to bolt stuff on to a system, since trying to add things is so complex and expensive. I can well imagine RS might consider developing their sequencer features as a new application afresh as a result - time will tell I suppose.

^^THIS^^
I have to think Reason has painted themselves into a corner in some ways with past decisions, making certain features difficult if not impossible to ever add.
I have long wished Reason kept the rack and re-wrote the rest of the application to do the things they want it to do from the start. Things like the way fader automation is handled (0-1000, really?), lack of what should be simple features like auto punch, inability to type in direct values etc. seem to be ‘baked in’ and unable to be changed/addressed.
Look at the newer applications, which have the advantage of standing on the shoulders of the other DAWs. Even the ‘new kid’ Luna can do basic things I worry Reason will never be able to do. Things like show/hide tracks, auto punch, versions, edit groups, persistent undo (even after you close and open a file), non-destructive quantize, smart tools, separate on grid, fade in/out and crossfade slope adjust, direct data entry and probably much more I’m overlooking - and this from a VERSION ONE release!
All to say, starting over sucks but knowing what you know today can sometimes make the results worth it. I don’t know if it’s worth it to RS, but I do hope they have at least considered it!

[guitfnky]

I hope they do consider a ground-up rework of the sequencer and many of the things you mention. they “had to” do it for hi res, and they SHOULD do it with the rest. poor planning is not a sufficient reason for fundamentally basic things like the stuff you describe to be missing in any DAW in 2012, let alone 2022.

[Tweak]

I quietly hope so. They have a track record of doing this with the release of Record. Their upcoming VST3 implementation will perhaps give us clues.

[bxbrkrz]

Why do we need a post-paypal world? It's OK not to be connected 24/7, no matter what the machine tells you.

Please tell this Klaus Schwab and all those other globalistic digitalization fanatics

I can't tell them. I am renting-to-own a super blender already. Getting free shipping of fresh living bugs every month to my sleeping pod is an opportunity no one should miss. I mean, it's FREE!
Bug smoothie subscription is the future

[dakta]

To be fair, it's even coming to cars where functionality can now be enabled for a subscription. On some with secure gateways even doing diagnostics is a subscription service

However, as someone somewhere did make a profit by selling a car (once or twice), you should dismiss my concerns on the general trajectory of business in such areas entirely

[bxbrkrz]

Enabled for a subscription. That means everything you would need is already built in the car from manufacturing it. The subscription unlocks them. How beneficial is it for you, or any advance in tech? A subscription for heated seats? Why? What's next? A subscription for airbags? Oh wait...

Back to Reason.
As I said in 2019, there is a third solution: Reason Studios Free

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=7512697&p=451980&h ... in#p451980

[dakta]

It is already fitted yes, and that's not a new thing - it's for a long time been in cases cheaper to wire everything up rather than take the cost hit of having multiple designs or specs and just disable in software. Some cars I work with are insanely tunable because they come out of the factory with the same turbo as the higher power variants just with software limits in place (that's where I come in on a seek and destroy mission)

I think we can expect to see this concept appear in many parts of livibg beyond software I do believe at some level we've had it good and the chickens will come home to roost. Don't crucify me over the odd exception it's hard to discuss something so broad and cover every single case

[bxbrkrz]

I can see why buying a 67 Mustang today will be a good thing for our dystopian future. Classics not falling apart, just like Reason

[EnochLight]

I've observed these gloomy signs in the recent years/months/days ...

It's been a minute since Reasontalk has had its regular "Reason/Reason Studios is doomed!" thread, so thanks for chiming in and getting the armchair ceo's stirred up!

[joeyluck]

First, to answer the OP, no Reason Studios is not falling apart Reason is getting much more attention now and seems to have a larger user base.

I hope they do consider a ground-up rework of the sequencer and many of the things you mention. they “had to” do it for hi res, and they SHOULD do it with the rest. poor planning is not a sufficient reason for fundamentally basic things like the stuff you describe to be missing in any DAW in 2012, let alone 2022.

I feel like one of the issues is that Reason Studios has probably done more work than necessary to keep users happy by maintaining backwards compatibility.

I seriously wouldn't mind if R13 or R14 or whatever couldn't open older Reason projects...if it meant they could rewrite Reason more efficiently without restrictions, while fixing things and including necessary features like MPE support. For some software where you can't have multiple versions installed, I can see a stronger argument for backwards compatibility, but that's not the case with Reason.

What we learned from Reason 8 and the removal of the Line 6 devices, was that we should focus on finishing older projects rather than keeping them around for years lol. We could bounce tracks or just keep a version of Reason 7 around if we wanted the Line 6 devices for those old projects while shopping around for replacements. I haven't seen many people mention the Line 6 devices in a while and I think people have moved on.

I think many users learned the same with the initial release of R12...people still kept a version of R11 installed while bugs were ironed out. So I see no issue with saying that a future version of Reason is looking forward and won't be compatible with older projects, in order to bring it up to modern standards and make it easier to compete with devs who just started relatively recently on their new DAWs with new code.

Reason Studios could keep much of Reason looking the same, but not be hindered by trying to patch and frankenstein old code. I wonder how people would vote in a poll in favor of ditching backwards compatibility in favor of progress (just for one of the next versions in order to have the freedom to rewrite without that concern).

[EnochLight]

I haven't seen many people mention the Line 6 devices in a while and I think people have moved on.

To be fair, I think that at the end of the day no amount of complaining and rage was going to change what happened, or find a better solution than what we got. For me personally, it will forever be a sore spot for me as I was a huge fan of the Line 6 amp sims. The Softube stuff that replaced them don't even hold a candle. But it is what it is, Props learned their lesson the hard way (no more arrangements between other companies that mean they could lose a feature in Reason at some point in the future). That said, if Line 6 would have done the work and just made Rack Extensions of the Line 6 bass and guitar amp, that would have solved everything, but when Yamaha bought them, they apparently didn't want to play ball.

[joeyluck]

I haven't seen many people mention the Line 6 devices in a while and I think people have moved on.

To be fair, I think that at the end of the day no amount of complaining and rage was going to change what happened, or find a better solution than what we got. For me personally, it will forever be a sore spot for me as I was a huge fan of the Line 6 amp sims. The Softube stuff that replaced them don't even hold a candle. But it is what it is, Props learned their lesson the hard way (no more arrangements between other companies that mean they could lose a feature in Reason at some point in the future). That said, if Line 6 would have done the work and just made Rack Extensions of the Line 6 bass and guitar amp, that would have solved everything, but when Yamaha bought them, they apparently didn't want to play ball.

Yeah I get that and hopefully they learned from it. I have no clue how the arrangement with Softube and Soundiron are different. But hopefully it's not that experience with Line 6 and user reception of their removal that keeps them from progressing Reason.

My point is that users move on. It's tough in some ways at first, but it's not as big a deal today as it was when first learning of the news. I remember when users said they could never learn to get along with the 'new' browser. Now aside from features it's lacking, using it is second nature.

I think they should just drop the obligation for backwards compatibility when developing a future version of Reason to bring it up to speed. Then they can go back to maintaining compatibility. I'm really not sure what prevents them from implementing X, Y and Z features, but I have the impression that users can't complain about backwards compatibility for 20+ year old software and also about it lacking modern features. If we do get something added, chances are it was a headache to add, it took longer patching and frankensteining, and may likely add more bugs.

[SebAudio]

I don’t think rewriting Reason won’t allow opening old reason files. DSP algorithms can stay the same whereas program structure changes

[joeyluck]

I don’t think rewriting Reason won’t allow opening old reason files. DSP algorithms can stay the same whereas program structure changes

Yeah that would be great if it's not an issue. But I'm just throwing it out there, that I wouldn't be upset about the lack of backwards compatibility in favor of new features, efficiency, different behaviors, values presented differently, etc. And maybe even different DSP if necessary.