>Having a live product is a full time job even if you change a single line of a code once in a while.
I have launched dozens of products and changing a single line of code once in a while is definitely not a full time job. Honestly, this makes no sense.
> They abandoned their products once the growth stopped
This is obviously false (take basically any popular app with a single license and look through their update log). Your stated reason -- fixing bugs or updating API usage for existing products -- should not require a subscription. Maybe it's an old school assumption, but I expect single line bug fixes to be included in the initial cost.
If this was an incredibly complex project that required years of research and development I could see some logic behind your argument. However, linking to a 50 line code snippet as your inspiration and explaining that you faced some challenges when building the production app does not look serious.
> I decided to go with a very cheap subscription model because I suspect further development might be needed as bugs emerge or API behavior changes
Right, makes me wonder how did companies even exist before the subscription model.
> I don't know what would the right price be for supporting an app for years to come and still have people willing to pay for it
Not to sound too negative, but your app might not even exist a year from today. It's a single utility app, let people buy it if they want to fix a bug with Bluetooth+AirPods, not to subscribe to a bug fix.
Are you saying that if I don't enjoy watching live video of e.g. an anthill 24/7 then I am actually not interested in unbiased media and crave drivel like CNN? That's... one way to reason I guess.
At $10K per pair in the first dev batch and the consumer version price still unknown, it's not surprising that this was not a reasonable option for Apple. It's going to be interesting to see the actual price and the specs once these glasses are launched.
When talking about department stores people in Europe will likely mean something like Selfridges in London, not Costco or Walmart. A vast difference in service and presentation.
I am not sure if this fits your usecase - but why not just to use encrypted Notes on a Mac or iPhone (if you have an Apple device), and set a daily reminder? What does WhatsApp have that Notes doesn't?
Totally agree regarding the piano roll. Same with the sample editor.
Saying that, DAWs just have different specialization. E.g. for a long time midi support in ProTools was extremely limited. Cakewalk already had an excellent piano roll in the late 90s.
I was so impressed by Bitwig since the beta. Just couldn't find anything major enough to make the switch from Live. Also, M4L is such an amazing ecosystem, I would miss it.
Any features in more recent Bitwig versions that stand out?
In my experience, unnecessary processes can creep in into any org, regardless of the planning framework used. Agile or no Agile, over-planning cripples teams.
I fell in love with the Session view when I started using Live in the early 2000s. But the thing is, even the most basic production nowadays uses a ton of automation, variations, break downs, single shots, etc. Session view just doesn't work for that. It's nice to be able try out various combinations in the Session view but I switch to building bigger structures almost instantly.
I found it faster to just record clips directly into the Arrangement view and not waste time on moving between different views. Right from the beginning, basic things like chopping audio or e.g. removing the last kick in a bar are a pain to handle in the Session view (creating a copy without that last kick). And once I start touching automation - which is basically from the start - Session view becomes irrelevant.
I produce music since the early 2000s and used to own a music studio. And to answer your question: not everyone, "no one in my (limited) experience" uses the Session view for composition.
I didn't mean "default" in the sense that it's the first view in a new session. It's one of the only two default views. It would be useful to me if I could open a different view on my second screen.
I worked in companies that are committed to Agile and companies that have a completely custom planning and development process. I don't understand your argument. What process in Agile dictates shipping subpar UI?
Build, test, file bugs, resolve bug. You can do this within any framework. Or, better, develop a high quality UI component library instead of asking a junior engineer to write CSS for correct checkbox handling.
This sounds like a lead/architect issue. If you can't roll out a custom UI component library, use one of several mature libraries that already handles these cases. Accumulating tens or hundreds of thousands of lines of UI tech debt is not an Agile issue.
Not sure what this has to do with Agile. Companies that move fast and have complex UI almost always use React (or similar) and a UI component library that handles all these edge cases.
Writing CSS for every checkbox makes no sense in Agile.
>Having a live product is a full time job even if you change a single line of a code once in a while.
I have launched dozens of products and changing a single line of code once in a while is definitely not a full time job. Honestly, this makes no sense.
> They abandoned their products once the growth stopped
This is obviously false (take basically any popular app with a single license and look through their update log). Your stated reason -- fixing bugs or updating API usage for existing products -- should not require a subscription. Maybe it's an old school assumption, but I expect single line bug fixes to be included in the initial cost.
If this was an incredibly complex project that required years of research and development I could see some logic behind your argument. However, linking to a 50 line code snippet as your inspiration and explaining that you faced some challenges when building the production app does not look serious.