Atomic Tonocracy (Inc NAM support)

MirrorProfiles said:
The issue for me is that if its a demo - you should be able to use it freely without giving them something in return. This is giving them an exchange of something, its not a free demo. The goal should be that the user is so impressed with the demo that they want to buy the product and share what they create. What if I'm still figuring out the best way to create models, or a day later I'm not happy with the model? Demo user or not, they should have some control over what is shared publicly.

But even worse, the user isn't told this at any point. If they make it explicitly clear that in return for trying the software and making a model, that they will keep the model unless you cough up. If this isn't made clear to the user, its snide AF. I don't mind sharing information for the most part, but I don't like when a company just decides what to take and defines what is and isnt fair.

Its a demo, it shouldn't be a mining exercise for Atomic to boost their portfolio for free. and if it is a mining exercise, then they should tell the user "BY THE WAY, THIS PRODUCT ISN'T AS FREE AS IT SEEMS". At first I thought it was just a trivial quirk, but the more I think about it, its absolutely not cool and not how I want a software company to operate. I'm not aware of any plugin company (or HW modeller) doing anything like this.

FWIW, to add a NAM model to your library with the demo version, you also have to be online. So I must assume that these also get added to Atomic's online stash. This needs to made abundantly clear to any user (customer or demo). I only found the error message because for whatever reason, Tonocracy is having connection issues/bugs. This could get incredibly messy for people who are using 3rd party IR's and NAM models if they have no control on where they are being uploaded and how they are being used and shared.

View attachment 12349
Click to expand...
It’s all democracy…once you purchase it. Until then, it’s all about the COMMUNIty
 
JiveTurkey said:
Wow GIF
Click to expand...
:barf
 
Hey - just wanted to clear things up and let everyone know that this is something we take seriously and have already made moves to address.

We realized earlier today that some users have signed up using the same data for BOTH their public username as well as their private contact email. The usernames in Tonocracy are intended to be the publicly visible name (a la ToneNET, etc), and if the user is not aware of this fact it can potentially lead to information entering the public view. We have updated the registration form so that it is now explicitly clear that the username will be visible to others, and as a safety measure we no longer allow new usernames to resemble an email address. In addition, we have pulled down the captures made by those users who may not have realized that this information would be visible. We’re in the process of reaching out to all other users who could possibly be impacted due to the misunderstanding, and will make sure that they are aware of the situation while we proactively take steps to make sure their data remains safe.
 
@atomicamps
Why are you automatically uploading software captures made by demo users without their permission?
And why are you restricting importing NAMs if users are offline?
Can you be transparent about what happens with those NAMs? Are they in anyway being uploaded to your server?
If so this is directly going against EULA of the authors of those NAM files.
 
ohmboy said:
If Atomic don't make meaningful changes to return some 'faith' in this product, abandonware is inevitable at this stage.
Click to expand...
I don't really get why the discussion has to turn like that. Yeah I bought some sequencer software for over 1000$ in 1997 and wtf I can't use it anymore, so what?
What I saw over the last couple of weeks beta testing was a super motivated and positive team of maverick people who really care about tone and about pushing the limits of what can be done. It's a great product and I am highly confident that it has many years left where it will grow, in content, functionality, versions and platforms.
Just give it a try and make some music with it rather than bash away...
 
I'm really not down with the cloud stuff.
MirrorProfiles said:
so I've just learned that if you create a model in demo mode, it goes straight to the cloud and its public for everyone. You have no say in whether it’s public or not unless you pay for the software. The same is true of NAM models and IR’s - if you can’t connect to the cloud, then they ain’t allowed in the app. Massive WTF, why do Atomic need my NAM and IR libraries?

The more I think about that, its one of the most absurd, manipulative and sly demo limitations I've ever seen. At first I just kind of laughed at it, but the more I think about it, its pretty appalling. It basically exploits demo users to improve the product without them knowing. I can't think of any commercial plugin doing something like this, ever.

"hope you don't mind, we have servers to pay for"
Click to expand...
That is unacceptable. Period.
 
"I don't really get why the discussion has to turn like that."

It's criticism that I think is fair. "IF" they don't make meaningful decisions...

A company that has decided on launching a product that has literally just taken sensitive user data without permission, and displayed that information (emails) and, without any notice automatically uploaded captures that users have made whilst trialling the software, and, preventing users from loading NAM files whilst offline... (and hasn't clarified their position about this, or if they are also being uploaded server side)...

All of which makes me feel like 'beta testing and QA period' has failed.

So ... IF they don't make meaningful decisions based on this, then yeah, it's absolutely critical to the success of the platform and the product's lifespan.
 
*potentially, and currently without any transparency, if you do import a NAM or (imagine an IR file in this situation too) when 'online' and that was (potentially without anyone knowing) uploaded without permission? This is anti-EULA.
*obviously, without clarification this is speculation.
 
It is extremely off base. I wouldn't have let it out of the door with these issues; as QA manager or Product Owner. I'm not even going to install it to be honest; this has put me right off.
 
hunter said:
What I saw over the last couple of weeks beta testing was a super motivated and positive team of maverick people who really care about tone and about pushing the limits of what can be done. It's a great product and I am highly confident that it has many years left where it will grow, in content, functionality, versions and platforms.
Just give it a try and make some music with it rather than bash away...
Click to expand...
Unfortunately motivated and positive teams don’t make a good product. They should be par for the course and the bare minimum for any company.

The underlying tech seems very promising here but as a product, IMO, it should never have left beta.

My gut feeling atm is the tech is good but whoever is steering the ship has no idea how to make or launch a product. The lack of information on what I was signing up for when trialing the software (I had to download and install the software to know if there was aax and standalone, and whether it would even run on my computer). Testing a product with limitations shouldn’t come with any “aha, got you” catches and certainly no question marks on how my data and information is going to be handled.

I have zero trust in what Atomic might choose to do with my data or how they look after it. It certainly doesn’t seem like something they care about have experience with dealing with. It’s legitimately the first time I feel like asking for a copy of all data that they have and for it to be removed.

I feel like many of the restrictions have been because Atomic does not trust potential customers, but the feeling I now have is I don’t trust Atomic one bit.

What a disappointing mess of a situation.
 
What’s the problem? Some people used their email address as their username. Maybe it wasn’t made clear enough that’s not a good idea, but it sounds this has already been addressed.

If you want to use their server for training with the free version, you have to publish your capture. That seems fair. You can always use the paid version if you want your captures to remain private.

I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I don’t see anything that deserves condemnation.
 
"If you want to use their server for training with the free version, you have to publish your capture. That seems fair."

It's an anti-piracy measure that goes so far as to pirate the content of the trial user. What's wrong with it? It's disgraceful, that's what.
 
LP59 said:
If you want to use their server for training with the free version, you have to publish your capture. That seems fair. You can always use the paid version if you want your captures to remain private
Click to expand...
Well, without me having a recording rig, a load of amps, time, effort and the willingness to try another product they wouldn’t have any captures to use freely until the end of time. The user has 20 credits they can use. Either way, if they want to insist on that as a fair system, at least tell the user that’s what the case is before continuing.

The beginning of the capture process should say “YOU ARE USING THE FREE VERSION - THIS MEANS ANY CAPTURES YOU MAKE ARE SHARED PUBLICLY AND YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO MANAGE OR EDIT THEM. PROCEED?”

It’s dumb anyway because the cloud gets flooded with people making their first test capture with goofy information. Not every capture needs to be public, quality over quantity is best.

Absolutely all of this stuff gives a bad impression of how Atomic intend to treat customers or potential customers. It’s not a good look, no other company behaves like this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

laxu
Hotone Ampero II Stomp - Review
5 6 7
Replies
131
Views
7K
Jkist7
Jkist7
Back
Top