Looper's Delight Archive Top (Search)
Date Index
Thread Index
Author Index
Looper's Delight Home
Mailing List Info

[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 - 
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 
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 
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?).