Beta 1&2- fx! Beta 3- NO fx!!

Wavestein wrote on 7/15/1999, 6:48 PM
Anybody who got both betas 2 & 3 notice that the Sonic Foundry FX don't work anymore? Mine
don't. If I'm the only one with a copy that has the Sonic Foundry FX disabled, read no further. I
mean, we're urged by Sonic Foundry (those of us who already downloaded beta 2 **which has
fully functioning Sonic Foundry FX**) to replace our beta 2 with the new and improved beta 3
which at least on MY version has the Sonic Foundry Effects units disabled, with the word 'demo'
stamped all over it. And no mention of this change, anywhere in the SFoundry emails on on the
website.

Um.... whatsup with this?

I tried addressing this issue with Dramise Gates, the Software Quality Assurance Manager, who
was either too much of a coward to respond, or.. well, too much of a coward to respond. Dramise
Gates does not have the confidence in his postion with the company, or even enough confidence
in Sonic Foundry itself, to respond in any way whatsoever to my questions about this action. [I
had pointed out to him that I had already spent over $700 on Sonic Foundry products.]
That kind of nonresponsiveness gives me a bit of a chill when we're considering a company who
you spent hundreds of dollars with, for a piece of software.

Why does it bother me that Sonic Foundry would urge those of us who had beta 2 (with working
SF effects) to update to beta 3, **without telling us** that the effects were now going to be
disabled? NOT because I have to have the effects. NOT because I think they're obligated to
make every part of the beta functional. My concern is the arguably sneaky way they
handled this take-away. It smells of distrust on their part, and it was actually a pretty seedy
maneuver, and it definitely does NOT have the prospective customer in mind. I am a registered
owner of both Sound Forge and CD Architect, and I intend to keep these updated. I was actually
seriously considering Vegas Pro, but not after this deception. It leaves a bad image in my mind
of this company to see 'em pull a stunt like this. I mean, when you're even a SEMI professional
company, you don't pull fast ones like this on prospective customers without being upfront with
them about it. That's freshman Marketing 101.

Also, this swift removal of the working FX makes me wonder things I wouldn't have even
considered before, such as,

"DOES THIS MEAN THAT YOU CAN REINSTALL THE BETA 2 VERSION AND SOMEHOW EXTRACT THE
WORKING SF-FX AND USE THEM SEPARATELY FROM THE BETA ON YOUR OTHER APPS AFTER THE
BETA EXPIRES?"

Sorry, but I wouldn't have even begun to think about that possibility before this secret
FX-disabling action.

Simply, maneuvers like this expose the true colors of an organization, and right now at least in
terms of that area of integrity, Sonic Foundry has just shown me some pretty disgusting colors.
Now that I know what kind of folk I'm dealing with here, I won't go bounding into another
multi-hundred dollar app. I'm willing to wait for the inevitable one-better (with working inserts,
etc.) from the competition.

Still, it would be nice to hear SOMEBODY from Sonic Foundry to address this thing and come
clean without trying to hide behind some kind of weak justification. We're talking about being
HONEST with your customers. I know, I know,... who am I kidding?

Comments

Sonic_Curt wrote on 7/15/1999, 6:52 PM

Perry,

The FX missing from Beta 3 was a bug in our first posting. We corrected the
problem with Build 132 and reposted it. We also posted a method to 'patch' the
Build 133 that had the missing FX. There are several messages on this board
related to this.

As for Dramise Gates not responding to you, understand that she is extremely
busy and may not have gotten to your email yet. Your assumptions and insults
are completely unjustified. She's one of the hardest working people at Sonic
Foundry.

-curt.
CTO/Sonic Foundry, Inc.


Perry Williams wrote:
>>Anybody who got both betas 2 & 3 notice that the Sonic Foundry FX don't work
anymore? I
>>mean, we're urged by Sonic Foundry (those of us who already downloaded beta 2
which has fully
>>functioning Sonic Foundry FX) to replace our beta 2 with the new and improved
beta 3 which at
>>least on MY version has the Sonic Foundry Effects units disabled, with the
word 'demo' stamped
>>all over it.
>>
>>Um.... whatsup with this?
>>
>>I tried addressing this issue with Dramise Gates, the Software Quality
Assurance Manager, who
>>was either too much of a coward to respond, or.. well, too much of a coward
to respond. Dramise
>>Gates does not have the confidence in his postion with the company, or even
enough confidence
>>in Sonic Foundry itself, to respond in any way whatsoever to my questions
about this action.
>>That kind of nonresponsiveness gives me a bit of a chill when we're
considering a company who
>>you spent hundreds of dollars with, for a piece of software.
>>
>>Why does it bother me that Sonic Foundry would urge those of us who had beta
2 (with working
>>SF effects) to update to beta 3, **without telling us** that the effects were
now going to be
>>disabled? NOT because I have to have the effects. My concern is the arguably
sneaky way they
>>handled this take-away. It smells of distrust on their part, and it was
actually a pretty seedy
>>maneuver, and it definitely does NOT have the prospective customer in mind. I
am a registered
>>owner of both Sound Forge and CD Architect, and I intend to keep these
updated. I was actually
>>seriously considering Vegas Pro, but not after this deception. It leaves a
bad image in my mind
>>of this company to see 'em pull a stunt like this. I mean, when you're even a
SEMI professional
>>company, you don't pull fast ones like this on prospective customers without
being upfront with
>>them about it. That's freshman Marketing 101.
>>
>>Also, this swift removal of the working FX makes me wonder things I wouldn't
have even
>>considered before, such as, "
>>
>>Simply, maneuvers like this expose the true colors of an organization, and
right now at least in
>>terms of integrity, Sonic Foundry has just shown me some pretty disgusting
colors. Now that I
>>know what kind of folk I'm dealing with here, I won't go bounding into
another multi-hundred
>>dollar app. I'm willing to wait for the inevitable one-better (with working
inserts, etc.) from the
>>competition.
>>
Wavestein wrote on 7/15/1999, 7:26 PM
Curtis,

I wrote Dramise about the expiration period of the beta and got a reply the same day. I wrote her about this "BUG" (the "BUG"
that made the FX units have the word 'DEMO' stamped all over them, complete with an explicit warning that the FX were disabled
because it wasn't a fully registered copy-...yes, that "bug"....>ahem That tells me it was a judgement call on her part to just let me find out about it on this forum (which I came to immediately, but
for days I could not pull up ANYTHING more recent than JUNE 18). I would've heard from her by now had she really wanted to
actually address the issue with me.

And perhaps all of this would have been averted.

I don't doubt at all that she is a very hard worker. Additionally, I do applaud the fact that SOMEONE had enough influence to
change Sonic Foundry's mind about disabling the effects- I'm sorry-- I meant I'm glad that someone there had the presence of
mind to sniff out that BUG [the one that came up with its own 'demo' stampings and registration dialogs referencing the
disabling of the FX], and getting it banished from the programming of this beta.

Seriously, I appreciate your quick response, and I fully understand the need to invoke the term "BUG" when seemingly it just
plain won't benefit anybody to put it any other way.


PWilliams



Curtis J. Palmer wrote:
>>
>>Perry,
>>
>>The FX missing from Beta 3 was a bug in our first posting. We corrected the
>>problem with Build 132 and reposted it. We also posted a method to 'patch' the
>>Build 133 that had the missing FX. There are several messages on this board
>>related to this.
>>
>>As for Dramise Gates not responding to you, understand that she is extremely
>>busy and may not have gotten to your email yet. Your assumptions and insults
>>are completely unjustified. She's one of the hardest working people at Sonic
>>Foundry.
>>
>>-curt.
>>CTO/Sonic Foundry, Inc.
>>
>>
>>Perry Williams wrote:
>>>>Anybody who got both betas 2 & 3 notice that the Sonic Foundry FX don't work
>>anymore? I
>>>>mean, we're urged by Sonic Foundry (those of us who already downloaded beta 2
>>which has fully
>>>>functioning Sonic Foundry FX) to replace our beta 2 with the new and improved
>>beta 3 which at
>>>>least on MY version has the Sonic Foundry Effects units disabled, with the
>>word 'demo' stamped
>>>>all over it.
>>>>
>>>>Um.... whatsup with this?
>>>>
>>>>I tried addressing this issue with Dramise Gates, the Software Quality
>>Assurance Manager, who
>>>>was either too much of a coward to respond, or.. well, too much of a coward
>>to respond. Dramise
>>>>Gates does not have the confidence in his postion with the company, or even
>>enough confidence
>>>>in Sonic Foundry itself, to respond in any way whatsoever to my questions
>>about this action.
>>>>That kind of nonresponsiveness gives me a bit of a chill when we're
>>considering a company who
>>>>you spent hundreds of dollars with, for a piece of software.
>>>>
>>>>Why does it bother me that Sonic Foundry would urge those of us who had beta
>>2 (with working
>>>>SF effects) to update to beta 3, **without telling us** that the effects were
>>now going to be
>>>>disabled? NOT because I have to have the effects. My concern is the arguably
>>sneaky way they
>>>>handled this take-away. It smells of distrust on their part, and it was
>>actually a pretty seedy
>>>>maneuver, and it definitely does NOT have the prospective customer in mind. I
>>am a registered
>>>>owner of both Sound Forge and CD Architect, and I intend to keep these
>>updated. I was actually
>>>>seriously considering Vegas Pro, but not after this deception. It leaves a
>>bad image in my mind
>>>>of this company to see 'em pull a stunt like this. I mean, when you're even a
>>SEMI professional
>>>>company, you don't pull fast ones like this on prospective customers without
>>being upfront with
>>>>them about it. That's freshman Marketing 101.
>>>>
>>>>Also, this swift removal of the working FX makes me wonder things I wouldn't
>>have even
>>>>considered before, such as, "
>>>>
>>>>Simply, maneuvers like this expose the true colors of an organization, and
>>right now at least in
>>>>terms of integrity, Sonic Foundry has just shown me some pretty disgusting
>>colors. Now that I
>>>>know what kind of folk I'm dealing with here, I won't go bounding into
>>another multi-hundred
>>>>dollar app. I'm willing to wait for the inevitable one-better (with working
>>inserts, etc.) from the
>>>>competition.
>>>>
DBS wrote on 7/16/1999, 12:06 PM
Perry,

Please note that this issue was addressed on the board the day Beta 3 was
released (7/8/99, see msg. 228). Please also note that Curtis had the
professionalism to acknowledge the problem and describe to fixes that same day
(see msg. 240).

I can't help but be amazed at the vitrolic reaction people have to
functionality (or lack thereof) when testing a Beta product. You may be
frustrated at the perceived lack of attention given a matter you clearly
thought was important, however you always have the option to discontinue
testing the product. How can there possibly be and "deception" in an
acknowledge public Beta? SF has the right to enable or disable any features
they see fit in any release they see fit as part of the Beta process.

Sorry to get on my high horse about this, but I believe your suggestion that SF
is somehow being devious because a feature you desired didn't work as expected
to be completely uncalled for.

Good music making,

David

Perry Williams wrote:
>>Anybody who got both betas 2 & 3 notice that the Sonic Foundry FX don't work
anymore? Mine
>>don't. If I'm the only one with a copy that has the Sonic Foundry FX
disabled, read no further. I
>>mean, we're urged by Sonic Foundry (those of us who already downloaded beta 2
**which has
>>fully functioning Sonic Foundry FX**) to replace our beta 2 with the new and
improved beta 3
>>which at least on MY version has the Sonic Foundry Effects units disabled,
with the word 'demo'
>>stamped all over it. And no mention of this change, anywhere in the SFoundry
emails on on the
>>website.
>>
>>Um.... whatsup with this?
>>
>>I tried addressing this issue with Dramise Gates, the Software Quality
Assurance Manager, who
>>was either too much of a coward to respond, or.. well, too much of a coward
to respond. Dramise
>>Gates does not have the confidence in his postion with the company, or even
enough confidence
>>in Sonic Foundry itself, to respond in any way whatsoever to my questions
about this action. [I
>>had pointed out to him that I had already spent over $700 on Sonic Foundry
products.]
>>That kind of nonresponsiveness gives me a bit of a chill when we're
considering a company who
>>you spent hundreds of dollars with, for a piece of software.
>>
>>Why does it bother me that Sonic Foundry would urge those of us who had beta
2 (with working
>>SF effects) to update to beta 3, **without telling us** that the effects were
now going to be
>>disabled? NOT because I have to have the effects. NOT because I think they're
obligated to
>>make every part of the beta functional. My concern is the arguably sneaky way
they
>>handled this take-away. It smells of distrust on their part, and it was
actually a pretty seedy
>>maneuver, and it definitely does NOT have the prospective customer in mind. I
am a registered
>>owner of both Sound Forge and CD Architect, and I intend to keep these
updated. I was actually
>>seriously considering Vegas Pro, but not after this deception. It leaves a
bad image in my mind
>>of this company to see 'em pull a stunt like this. I mean, when you're even a
SEMI professional
>>company, you don't pull fast ones like this on prospective customers without
being upfront with
>>them about it. That's freshman Marketing 101.
>>
>>Also, this swift removal of the working FX makes me wonder things I wouldn't
have even
>>considered before, such as,
>>
>> "DOES THIS MEAN THAT YOU CAN REINSTALL THE BETA 2 VERSION AND SOMEHOW
EXTRACT THE
>>WORKING SF-FX AND USE THEM SEPARATELY FROM THE BETA ON YOUR OTHER APPS AFTER
THE
>>BETA EXPIRES?"
>>
>>Sorry, but I wouldn't have even begun to think about that possibility before
this secret
>>FX-disabling action.
>>
>>Simply, maneuvers like this expose the true colors of an organization, and
right now at least in
>>terms of that area of integrity, Sonic Foundry has just shown me some pretty
disgusting colors.
>>Now that I know what kind of folk I'm dealing with here, I won't go bounding
into another
>>multi-hundred dollar app. I'm willing to wait for the inevitable one-better
(with working inserts,
>>etc.) from the competition.
>>
>>Still, it would be nice to hear SOMEBODY from Sonic Foundry to address this
thing and come
>>clean without trying to hide behind some kind of weak justification. We're
talking about being
>>HONEST with your customers. I know, I know,... who am I kidding?
>>
Wavestein wrote on 7/17/1999, 3:59 AM
I know, I know- a couple of us acted like babies about this thang with the effects. Some of us admittedly are musicians with the
disposition of true artists and therefore sometimes the demeanor of self-centered, true pains in the ass... guilty as charged. But
way up there on yer high horse, you completely missed my point which was about nothing but communication. Honest
communication being the vehicle of choice to handle a snafu. Not politics ("Hey, let's not post anything about this FX thing on
the DOWNLOAD SITE ITSELF, it may scare away some people- just leave it to the suc- uh- customers themselves to bear the
burden of bringing it up in the forums, THEN we'll address it to them and tell them how they can remedy the situation"), Not
deception ("Aw come on, of COURSE they'll buy the bit about a BUG which randomly just happened to come up with the word
DEMO stamped all over the FX, fully disabling the FX, while additionally coming up with a separate window explaining that the FX
are disabled because the app is not fully registered- didn't you guys hear that if a bunch of [immortal] monkeys were put in front
of typewriters for 50 gazillion centuries, they would all type out the full script to Water Boy?"), Not legality ("Hey, whaddathey
want? It's a free demo. We don't have to make ANYTHING work in beta three if we don't want it to. Maybe beta 4 will be just a
screen shot! If they don't like it, hey- Forge THIS."), but just straightforward, honest, upfront communication ("Folks, some
careless decisions resulted in beta 3 being designed to work without the benefit of the FX, with explanations as to why they
wouldn't work, pointing out that this wasn't a fully registered copy. We realize how bad a decision this was, and we have once
again restored the FX in this latest build, along with our apologies. [In other words, we understand that some of you out there
have a brain, and we would not insult you with the claim that a bug created the entire FX shutdown, complete with 'demo' stamps
and pop-up windows which make references to incomplete registration as the culprit.]").

I didn't say there wasn't great talent involved here, or great work ethics among the troops, or that there was any lack of
generosity in allowing this thing to be tested this way. I was just talking about how a company communicates with its
customers. THAT's where this could've been handled much better.

But in the end, the product itself, in beta 3 form was restored to working-FX status, and I can understand some folks coming to
Sonic Foundry's defense. And I realize that even though my response may have been expressive and communicative, it was
also caustic- so exactly is my music a great deal of the time. Frankly, I would've just let it go without adding this last note, but
as a cat, I just could not resist the temptation to paw at this ultra-tight ball of yarn wound around such sterilities as "please
note" and "vitrolic," dangling from the patronizing strand, "good music making," partingly shot from way up thar on that high
horse, pardner.


David Schultz wrote:
>>Perry,
>>
>>Please note that this issue was addressed on the board the day Beta 3 was
>>released (7/8/99, see msg. 228). Please also note that Curtis had the
>>professionalism to acknowledge the problem and describe to fixes that same day
>>(see msg. 240).
>>
>>I can't help but be amazed at the vitrolic reaction people have to
>>functionality (or lack thereof) when testing a Beta product. You may be
>>frustrated at the perceived lack of attention given a matter you clearly
>>thought was important, however you always have the option to discontinue
>>testing the product. How can there possibly be and "deception" in an
>>acknowledge public Beta? SF has the right to enable or disable any features
>>they see fit in any release they see fit as part of the Beta process.
>>
>>Sorry to get on my high horse about this, but I believe your suggestion that SF
>>is somehow being devious because a feature you desired didn't work as expected
>>to be completely uncalled for.
>>
>>Good music making,
>>
>>David
>>
DBS wrote on 7/19/1999, 10:48 AM
Hey Cowboy,

Bill Buckley would be proud. Rarely has so much been written to say so
little. Imagine that, after several paragraphs expounding upon what you
_didn't_ say, you actually reach your point in twenty words (although I can't
help but again note Curtis's same-day response and posting of a fully-enabled
version -- somewhat contrary to your suggestion that commucication with
customers is handled poorly).

How wonderful a gift it must be, to know the exact thoughts of all Sonic
Foundry employees, not only as they finished work on Beta 3, but even as they
posted it. One can only hope you use this gift to better all mankind and not
only those who use Sonic Foundry products.

I believe I'm fresh out of sterilities, however; should I be in further need of
patronizing strands, it appears I've found an endless supply.

BTW, are you suggesting that wasn't how "The Water Boy" script was written?

Perry Williams wrote:
>>I know, I know- a couple of us acted like babies about this thang with the
effects. Some of us admittedly are musicians with the
>>disposition of true artists and therefore sometimes the demeanor of self-
centered, true pains in the ass... guilty as charged. But
>>way up there on yer high horse, you completely missed my point which was
about nothing but communication. Honest
>>communication being the vehicle of choice to handle a snafu. Not politics
("Hey, let's not post anything about this FX thing on
>>the DOWNLOAD SITE ITSELF, it may scare away some people- just leave it to the
suc- uh- customers themselves to bear the
>>burden of bringing it up in the forums, THEN we'll address it to them and
tell them how they can remedy the situation"), Not
>>deception ("Aw come on, of COURSE they'll buy the bit about a BUG which
randomly just happened to come up with the word
>>DEMO stamped all over the FX, fully disabling the FX, while additionally
coming up with a separate window explaining that the FX
>>are disabled because the app is not fully registered- didn't you guys hear
that if a bunch of [immortal] monkeys were put in front
>>of typewriters for 50 gazillion centuries, they would all type out the full
script to Water Boy?"), Not legality ("Hey, whaddathey
>>want? It's a free demo. We don't have to make ANYTHING work in beta three if
we don't want it to. Maybe beta 4 will be just a
>>screen shot! If they don't like it, hey- Forge THIS."), but just
straightforward, honest, upfront communication ("Folks, some
>>careless decisions resulted in beta 3 being designed to work without the
benefit of the FX, with explanations as to why they
>>wouldn't work, pointing out that this wasn't a fully registered copy. We
realize how bad a decision this was, and we have once
>>again restored the FX in this latest build, along with our apologies. [In
other words, we understand that some of you out there
>>have a brain, and we would not insult you with the claim that a bug created
the entire FX shutdown, complete with 'demo' stamps
>>and pop-up windows which make references to incomplete registration as the
culprit.]").
>>
>>I didn't say there wasn't great talent involved here, or great work ethics
among the troops, or that there was any lack of
>>generosity in allowing this thing to be tested this way. I was just talking
about how a company communicates with its
>>customers. THAT's where this could've been handled much better.
>>
>>But in the end, the product itself, in beta 3 form was restored to working-FX
status, and I can understand some folks coming to
>>Sonic Foundry's defense. And I realize that even though my response may have
been expressive and communicative, it was
>>also caustic- so exactly is my music a great deal of the time. Frankly, I
would've just let it go without adding this last note, but
>>as a cat, I just could not resist the temptation to paw at this ultra-tight
ball of yarn wound around such sterilities as "please
>>note" and "vitrolic," dangling from the patronizing strand, "good music
making," partingly shot from way up thar on that high
>>horse, pardner.
>>
>>
>>David Schultz wrote:
>>>>Perry,
>>>>
>>>>Please note that this issue was addressed on the board the day Beta 3 was
>>>>released (7/8/99, see msg. 228). Please also note that Curtis had the
>>>>professionalism to acknowledge the problem and describe to fixes that same
day
>>>>(see msg. 240).
>>>>
>>>>I can't help but be amazed at the vitrolic reaction people have to
>>>>functionality (or lack thereof) when testing a Beta product. You may be
>>>>frustrated at the perceived lack of attention given a matter you clearly
>>>>thought was important, however you always have the option to discontinue
>>>>testing the product. How can there possibly be and "deception" in an
>>>>acknowledge public Beta? SF has the right to enable or disable any
features
>>>>they see fit in any release they see fit as part of the Beta process.
>>>>
>>>>Sorry to get on my high horse about this, but I believe your suggestion
that SF
>>>>is somehow being devious because a feature you desired didn't work as
expected
>>>>to be completely uncalled for.
>>>>
>>>>Good music making,
>>>>
>>>>David
>>>>
>>