Hi Jeff, I think I accidentally sent a content-less reply to this earlier. Sorry to the list. It's like an email blizzard for me this morning (lots of fun - thanks to all). Thank you very much, Jeff, for your very thoughtful reply. I just have a couple of comments, inline below. Best wishes, Warren Sirota > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Larson [mailto:Jeffrey.Larson@Sun.COM] > Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 6:06 PM > To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com > Subject: Re: Naming a software looper > ... > It depends on what you mean by "layers". A few loopers > support multiple "tracks" which you record and mutate > independently, and if the tracks are made to be of identical > size you achieve an effect similar to layers of overdubs. > The challenge here is to make it so you can record into > successive tracks as easily as you would just make several > overdub passes in a single track looper. Yes, this just happens automatically: as each overdub track fills, additional audio records into the next until you hit the Overdub switch to stop overdubbing. > ... > > > - support for VST plugins to modify the input to the > looper and the > total mix output > > Having the looper host plugins is a powerful concept, but I > would suggest you consider having the looper *be* a VST > plugin instead or in addition. If you want to get into the > VST hosting game, then you're going to be competing with the > likes of Bidule, EnergyXT, and Live. If ease of use is the > primary goal, then being a limited host is a good thing. But > if you want to be flexible, being a VST is better. I'd rather be a host. There are far too many plugins for a looper plugin to get any attention in the world. I don't mind competing with Ableton - I don't really think that we'll have the same audience, because I'll be cheaper and simpler. > > > - affordability - I anticipate 3 versions, one at $89 or > so, one at > $199 and one at $299. > > With all due respect, I think you're going to find that the > market for a software looper priced over $99 is rather small, > especially if you're targeting customers for whom "ease of > use" is a primary concern. > You may be right, although ease of use is not the *primary* concern - except in the larger sense of ease of making great-sounding live music and recordings (ok, maybe I'm splitting hairs). It's very hard to predict what people will pay for in non-commodity categories (although loopers are maybe starting to become commodities). Listen, I'd be *thrilled* (and surprised) to sell 1,500 of these a year at $99 (assuming I spent half the money on various operating and promotion costs). I could improve it more-or-less full-time! That, of course, would be far better than selling 100 a year at $300. I've been thinking - though this is probably crazy (I'm not a great businessman) - of using one of those "progressive pricing" systems at first; you know, it starts out at - who knows? $50? - while it's still very immature, then at a certain point it starts increasing by, like $25 per week or month until volume starts diminishing. That rewards early adopters nicely, which is an unalloyed virtue. And, I've learned the hard way that from a business point of view, it can be easier to increase prices than to reduce them (what do you do for the people who bought your product the day/week/month/year before the price decrease?).