Atomic Tonocracy (Inc NAM support)

LP59 said:
I'm uncomfortable having my stuff in the cloud too, but it's a good way to provide a simple, shareable, and consistent repository that works on both desktop and mobile apps. It's not much different than the transition to music streaming services. People complained about not having their music on their hard drive, but the advantages outweighed the disadvantages, so the cloud prevailed.
Click to expand...
tmp uses the cloud as well
 
Enchilada Jones said:
Either I'm missing something or you have a really over inflated opinion of the value you potentially add by a couple captures you might make and someone else might like, download and play guitar with them!

Your file isn't the 5th Symphony for crying out loud. It's you, using a demo software for copying the digital foot print of some amp manufacturers hard work, and then getting upset because strangers might make music with it and end up liking the software!
Is your capture fu really all that?!?
Click to expand...

LP59 said:
You may be right and the captures they get might not be great, but it's a way for them to get their library off the ground. In return you get to use Tonocracy (that is a weird name) for free. Seems like win win and Tom says they're trying to make the details of this arrangement clearer. I can't believe they were trying to hide anything. There would no reason to do so. Anyway, it just doesn't seem like this is cause to come after them with pitchforks :giggle:
Click to expand...
If that’s what the deal is, then tell the user this. This isn’t something a prospective user should find out afterwards.

There doesn’t need to be anything more to it, if they are scooping up models from users to use how they wish, without users knowing, or having ANY kind of control over it, is totally wrong.

If the user is aware of this, they can decide if they want to go ahead. If they aren’t aware, it’s sneaky.

LP59 said:
At the very least it's a creative alternative to the more common demo limitations of time or noise
Click to expand...
well any model you make is also constrained by noise unless you use one of your 20 unlocks.

If you’re fine with it, that sort of misses the issue - you never had a choice, and this information is not even given to you.

Whatever you create is used to
bolster their product, because they decided it’s better to take it from unknowing prospective customers than providing value themselves.

LP59 said:
I'm uncomfortable having my stuff in the cloud too, but it's a good way to provide a simple, shareable, and consistent repository that works on both desktop and mobile apps. It's not much different than the transition to music streaming services. People complained about not having their music on their hard drive, but the advantages outweighed the disadvantages, so the cloud prevailed.
Click to expand...
this misses the point.

In some ways I think it’s worse to do this to people who are testing the product. If you are a customer you could factor these quirks into your decision to buying the software. With the demo version, that choice is made for you before you’re even aware
 
Choice - Try this feature, try that feature, be excited that it works, be disappointed how it works, either way... it's all good.
No Choice - You are trying this feature and we've now used that for our own gain without mentioning it, and your choice is non-existent and not factored into the experience, and you are now disappointed. And that sucks.

No custom from me, instant uninstall.
 
1697859402229.png



"Oh sorry, yeah that is how it works."
"We'll say it louder"

1697859341039.png
 
LP59 said:
But it's a stretch to say that means the demo system is evil or nefarious.
Click to expand...
if you aren’t aware of what the exchange is, then it’s a con. If something I provide them directly benefits Rob Chapman, then it’s evil as far as I’m concerned.

Imagine if the trial version of Reaper or Ableton or whatever automatically uploaded anything you bounce to its own distribution, where they could use it to promote their product as they see fit and you have no say in how your content is used. Imagine you find out the bounces you did for a joke are suddenly used on a reaper advert or a Rob Chapman fundraiser. Doesn’t matter if what you provide is seemingly throwaway or trivial - you should be able to have a say in it. and if you can’t have a say in it you should be very aware of what the situation is.
 
With ToneX I made a bunch of captures, shared the good ones onto ToneNet
With NAM I made a bunch of captures (and continue to do so) and share the good ones onto ToneHunt

I would have done the same with Tonocracy but the thought of an app auto uploading my test captures to the cloud is just annoying. I'm also just a dude noodling around trying to make cool sounds. If I was a studio or 3rd party creator or something trialling this out it would be "unacceptable".
 
MirrorProfiles said:
if you aren’t aware of what the exchange is, then it’s a con. If something I provide them directly benefits Rob Chapman, then it’s evil as far as I’m concerned.

Imagine if the trial version of Reaper or Ableton or whatever automatically uploaded anything you bounce to its own distribution, where they could use it to promote their product as they see fit and you have no say in how your content is used. Imagine you find out the bounces you did for a joke are suddenly used on a reaper advert or a Rob Chapman fundraiser. Doesn’t matter if what you provide is seemingly throwaway or trivial - you should be able to have a say in it. and if you can’t have a say in it you should be very aware of what the situation is.
Click to expand...

Yes, they should have communicated the terms of the demo limitation better. AFAIK nobody, including Tom, disagrees with that.

I was just saying that inadequate communication of the terms sounds like an oversight to me, not some kind of evil plot they were hoping would go undiscovered. That would make no sense since the uploads can't be hidden.

I get the feeling I've wandered into the middle of a family squabble between Atomic and TGF members that goes back years and has nothing to do with recent events :giggle:
 
LP59 said:
Yes, they should have communicated the terms of the demo limitation better. AFAIK nobody, including Tom, disagrees with that.

I was just saying that inadequate communication of the terms sounds like an oversight to me, not some kind of evil plot they were hoping would go undiscovered. That would make no sense since the uploads can't be hidden.

I get the feeling I've wandered into the middle of a family squabble between Atomic and TGF members that goes back years and has nothing to do with recent events :giggle:
Click to expand...
I’ve never used any Atomic products in my life, and genuinely have no idea of their past products. It does seem mistakes have been made previously, but they have no bearing on me or my thoughts.

It seems like oversight to me too, that is my assumption. But that’s an assumption, and it’s also something that can be subject to change. Why assume trust with any company? especially one that doesn’t trust potential customers?

If these oversights have been made at launch, it doesn’t give me any confidence with how other information and data will be handled. Whether it’s just dumb or evil doesn’t take away that it’s shambolic and all this stuff should have been flagged well before the product launched.

What leading software company releases software like this? I’ve been using plugins for over 20 years and this is by far the most ridiculous launch I’ve seen. it’s good tech wrapped in a half baked unfinished product that was nowhere ready to leave beta.

As someone totally new to the brand, what reason do I have to have faith or trust this company?
 
MirrorProfiles said:
if you aren’t aware of what the exchange is, then it’s a con. If something I provide them directly benefits Rob Chapman, then it’s evil as far as I’m concerned.

Imagine if the trial version of Reaper or Ableton or whatever automatically uploaded anything you bounce to its own distribution, where they could use it to promote their product as they see fit and you have no say in how your content is used. Imagine you find out the bounces you did for a joke are suddenly used on a reaper advert or a Rob Chapman fundraiser. Doesn’t matter if what you provide is seemingly throwaway or trivial - you should be able to have a say in it. and if you can’t have a say in it you should be very aware of what the situation is.
Click to expand...
What has any of this to do with Chapman?
Afaik he has no stake in this.
 
LP59 said:
I'm uncomfortable having my stuff in the cloud too, but it's a good way to provide a simple, shareable, and consistent repository that works on both desktop and mobile apps. It's not much different than the transition to music streaming services. People complained about not having their music on their hard drive, but the advantages outweighed the disadvantages, so the cloud prevailed.
Click to expand...
Cloud can be great, but if a company is scraping your data to benefit themselves in return for a product demo, that should be made abundantly clear.

They can bury it in a EULA that nobody ever reads to cover themselves, but this thread is a case study in why that’s not a great idea.
 
SwirlyMaple said:
Cloud can be great, but if a company is scraping your data to benefit themselves in return for a product demo, that should be made abundantly clear.

They can bury it in a EULA that nobody ever reads to cover themselves, but this thread is a case study in why that’s not a great idea.
Click to expand...

This was discussed above. Nobody, not even Atomic, disagrees with that and Tom said they will make the terms clearer. Horse is quite dead now ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

laxu
Hotone Ampero II Stomp - Review
2
Replies
29
Views
878
laxu
laxu
Back
Top