[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index][
Thread Index][
Author Index]
RE: Naming a software looper
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?).