Paul,

Firstly I haven't had any mails from you for months. Maybe my ISP is blocking you. If I don't answer your points here mail matt@amguk.co.uk AND matt@amguk.demon.co.uk and one at least should get through. It is also possible you called me a twat or something in a mail and I blocked your mails of course... ;-)

OK. To your points:

1. We don't have a set policy on number of authorisations. Each application is judged on it's merits. I had one unlucky Japanese guy who was literally struck by lightning and needed 3 in a week for example. We have a large installed user base so we know what is normal or average from this. 4 in two years is quite a lot above average but not beyond the pail.

2. We have hundreds if not thousands of happy users. Assuming there's not another whose e-mails are bouncing around or they're posting somewhere no one has referred me to - you're the only one with an 'issue'. The simple fact (I believe I recall) is that you took your third authorisation explicitly against my advice as I knew that simply would not work. If you'd had the sense to realise we know more about how our software works than you do then you would at least be complaining about not having your third rather than 4th. But of course by your admission, having had it, that wouldn't have been a problem. As it is the 4th also isn't a problem.

3. All software developers who use this sort of CP have limits. They don't announce them but if you push them far enough you hit a wall. That's the way it is and unfortunate and unfair, etc. we all know. It 's a pain for all the people involved who are honest. It's a shame but it's a fact of life.

4. The software is very SIMPLE and VERY STABLE. It doesn't officially support Vista though. Maybe you need to update to 1.06 if you had problems with it although I think this is more you making something of nothing than anything. There's simply no record of any serious problems although you get the odd bug come up of course, these are usually solved very quickly. It's a non-issue.

5. I think you bought many AMG products over many years and I seem to recall we even had some direct communications and you seemed very happy. With KAB you seem to have revealed an attitude where your opinion of your knowledge on the subject outweighed ours' and when it did not it has ended up creating a problem for you that would never have arisen had you simply listened. Software only works within certain criteria and when you start twisting these criteria around and try to do things that officially it won't do then you're wise to listen to those that may know better. Especially when you then want to blame everyone else for the problem you created afterwards and crusade against them.

6. Your comments about KAB itself are obviously coloured by your 'issue' - created by you, extended maybe by failed communications but not in reality an issue if you need a 4th auth on a supported format. You can have the 4th although I wonder a bit why you even bother if KAB is so bad? ;-) The fact is it's the absolute best of it's type and you're just making these remarks out of spite IMHO.

Hopefully that puts things into their correct context rather than your rather unique take on things. Zap in that license application (from a supported system), ask for an update for 1.06 if need be and I'll zap you a license for this crappy, buggy software you hate so much. Hopefully then you'll be a happy camper. ;-)

Cheers - Matt 8)

Guess its always good to get the complete story before passing judgement.

R

Thanks for the heads up Paul. Some vendors just don't respond until their dirty laundry gets aired in public. Maybe you'll get some satisfaction down the road.

Email is easy to ignor. A snail mail letter with a signature might get you going in the right direction.

DaveT

That sucks. I had similar problems with my previous PC (network card problems, always screws up your machine ID), which led to the same problem with WaveArts and Applied Acoustics. But the guys at these companies were very friendly, and supplied new codes without hesitating.

Wow, just noticed the last posts are by Matthew himself.

I think there are about 10 people too many in this conversation. LOL

ORIGINAL: MattatAMG

Paul,

Firstly I haven't had any mails from you for months. Maybe my ISP is blocking you. If I don't answer your points here mail matt@amguk.co.uk AND matt@amguk.demon.co.uk and one at least should get through. It is also possible you called me a twat or something in a mail and I blocked your mails of course... ;-)

OK. To your points:

1. We don't have a set policy on number of authorisations. Each application is judged on it's merits. I had one unlucky Japanese guy who was literally struck by lightning and needed 3 in a week for example. We have a large installed user base so we know what is normal or average from this. 4 in two years is quite a lot above average but not beyond the pail.

2. We have hundreds if not thousands of happy users. Assuming there's not another whose e-mails are bouncing around or they're posting somewhere no one has referred me to - you're the only one with an 'issue'. The simple fact (I believe I recall) is that you took your third authorisation explicitly against my advice as I knew that simply would not work. If you'd had the sense to realise we know more about how our software works than you do then you would at least be complaining about not having your third rather than 4th. But of course by your admission, having had it, that wouldn't have been a problem. As it is the 4th also isn't a problem.

3. All software developers who use this sort of CP have limits. They don't announce them but if you push them far enough you hit a wall. That's the way it is and unfortunate and unfair, etc. we all know. It 's a pain for all the people involved who are honest. It's a shame but it's a fact of life.

4. The software is very SIMPLE and VERY STABLE. It doesn't officially support Vista though. Maybe you need to update to 1.06 if you had problems with it although I think this is more you making something of nothing than anything. There's simply no record of any serious problems although you get the odd bug come up of course, these are usually solved very quickly. It's a non-issue.

5. I think you bought many AMG products over many years and I seem to recall we even had some direct communications and you seemed very happy. With KAB you seem to have revealed an attitude where your opinion of your knowledge on the subject outweighed ours' and when it did not it has ended up creating a problem for you that would never have arisen had you simply listened. Software only works within certain criteria and when you start twisting these criteria around and try to do things that officially it won't do then you're wise to listen to those that may know better. Especially when you then want to blame everyone else for the problem you created afterwards and crusade against them.

6. Your comments about KAB itself are obviously coloured by your 'issue' - created by you, extended maybe by failed communications but not in reality an issue if you need a 4th auth on a supported format. You can have the 4th although I wonder a bit why you even bother if KAB is so bad? ;-) The fact is it's the absolute best of it's type and you're just making these remarks out of spite IMHO.

Hopefully that puts things into their correct context rather than your rather unique take on things. Zap in that license application (from a supported system), ask for an update for 1.06 if need be and I'll zap you a license for this crappy, buggy software you hate so much. Hopefully then you'll be a happy camper. ;-)

Cheers - Matt 8)

MattatAMG;

I was not going to comment on Paul’s post. I was not sure if he was as forthright as he might be in another situation.

Your posting has changed all that. You really have no idea how to deal with customers. I now find that all that Paul said was probably understated. You have confirmed in one long and self indulgent post the very worst practices of some developers to berate their paying customers. What you have done with Paul is awful. What you have written here is beyond understanding and I am glad that Paul took the time to alert us to your business practices.

Be assured that your products will never see any computer of mine.

ORIGINAL: MattatAMG

I don't know what he's doing really. I knew his last file wouldn't work when he insisted on having it and knew what the situation was then. Now? I don't know anything other than what's here really. Before he was talking about changing machines, etc. I don't know why he's bothered at all if the software is as bad as the picture he paints. His view is pretty unique in this respect too. It seems more about me and less about KAB or the reality for some reason. Maybe he didn't like my advice or being wrong on authorisation number 3. Who knows?

I just thought I'd take a quick look and one customer has needed 4 authorisations since Sept 2006. A guy called Phil from Romsey, UK for the record. He actually needed them, didn't take them when they were going to be useless too. So that's actually 4 in 9 months although we said he should hold onto his current computer for as long as possible now, 8 months so far, so good. ;-)

Some users only need need one after years, many 2 and some 3 of course. All these users have had what they needed and are happy users. I don't really know what this guy's motivation is, it's not shared by the hundreds of others we deal with. He's a special case for one reason or another. You decide. I don't want to drag this on too much. Hopefully he'll figure out what he wants, has a system that we support and ask for it and then maybe he'll be happy and have an entirely different view of KAB as he won't feel the need to make the story suit his ends any longer?

Cheers - Matt 8)

The fact that you are even posting this kind of thing here is SO wrong. It's between you and the customer and you should not be discussing this here at all.

Regardless of who is wrong or right this is as good a reason as any not to buy software from your company IMHO.

Wow, now I REALLY won't buy your products. Way to be openly condescending in front of potential customers.

ORIGINAL: MattatAMG

I just thought I'd take a quick look and one customer has needed 4 authorisations since Sept 2006. A guy called Phil from Romsey, UK for the record. He actually needed them, didn't take them when they were going to be useless too. So that's actually 4 in 9 months although we said he should hold onto his current computer for as long as possible now, 8 months so far, so good. ;-)

Who the Hell are you to decide how many times I replace my workstation or re-install my OS on it?

Maybe he should rename his product "Kiss Ass Brass".

ORIGINAL: John

ORIGINAL: MattatAMG

Paul,

Firstly I haven't had any mails from you for months. Maybe my ISP is blocking you. If I don't answer your points here mail matt@amguk.co.uk AND matt@amguk.demon.co.uk and one at least should get through. It is also possible you called me a twat or something in a mail and I blocked your mails of course... ;-)

OK. To your points:

1. We don't have a set policy on number of authorisations. Each application is judged on it's merits. I had one unlucky Japanese guy who was literally struck by lightning and needed 3 in a week for example. We have a large installed user base so we know what is normal or average from this. 4 in two years is quite a lot above average but not beyond the pail.

2. We have hundreds if not thousands of happy users. Assuming there's not another whose e-mails are bouncing around or they're posting somewhere no one has referred me to - you're the only one with an 'issue'. The simple fact (I believe I recall) is that you took your third authorisation explicitly against my advice as I knew that simply would not work. If you'd had the sense to realise we know more about how our software works than you do then you would at least be complaining about not having your third rather than 4th. But of course by your admission, having had it, that wouldn't have been a problem. As it is the 4th also isn't a problem.

3. All software developers who use this sort of CP have limits. They don't announce them but if you push them far enough you hit a wall. That's the way it is and unfortunate and unfair, etc. we all know. It 's a pain for all the people involved who are honest. It's a shame but it's a fact of life.

4. The software is very SIMPLE and VERY STABLE. It doesn't officially support Vista though. Maybe you need to update to 1.06 if you had problems with it although I think this is more you making something of nothing than anything. There's simply no record of any serious problems although you get the odd bug come up of course, these are usually solved very quickly. It's a non-issue.

5. I think you bought many AMG products over many years and I seem to recall we even had some direct communications and you seemed very happy. With KAB you seem to have revealed an attitude where your opinion of your knowledge on the subject outweighed ours' and when it did not it has ended up creating a problem for you that would never have arisen had you simply listened. Software only works within certain criteria and when you start twisting these criteria around and try to do things that officially it won't do then you're wise to listen to those that may know better. Especially when you then want to blame everyone else for the problem you created afterwards and crusade against them.

6. Your comments about KAB itself are obviously coloured by your 'issue' - created by you, extended maybe by failed communications but not in reality an issue if you need a 4th auth on a supported format. You can have the 4th although I wonder a bit why you even bother if KAB is so bad? ;-) The fact is it's the absolute best of it's type and you're just making these remarks out of spite IMHO.

Hopefully that puts things into their correct context rather than your rather unique take on things. Zap in that license application (from a supported system), ask for an update for 1.06 if need be and I'll zap you a license for this crappy, buggy software you hate so much. Hopefully then you'll be a happy camper. ;-)

Cheers - Matt 8)

MattatAMG;

I was not going to comment on Paul’s post. I was not sure if he was as forthright as he might be in another situation.

Your posting has changed all that. You really have no idea how to deal with customers. I now find that all that Paul said was probably understated. You have confirmed in one long and self indulgent post the very worst practices of some developers to berate their paying customers. What you have done with Paul is awful. What you have written here is beyond understanding and I am glad that Paul took the time to alert us to your business practices.

Be assured that your products will never see any computer of mine.

Heartily agree. Nice bridge burning.

I've been thru the gamut with both Microsoft and Waves on reauthorization of respective products.

believe it or not Microsoft is actually quite reasonable with this sort of thing, Waves, not so much.

I would like to believe that Matt(whoeverheis) is suffering from either a language barrier or cultural differences, but seeing as he's supposadly a UKer, that kinda falls off the table as well.

I'm gonna stick with Garrintons stuff...

Who the Hell are you to decide how many times I replace my workstation or re-install my OS on it?



Precisely.....there are countless reasons why many here would be re-configuring or upgrading any number of components during the course of a year.
I buy some software and 'they' want to tell me 'how many' authorizations I'm allowed?....or put a limit on how many?...or question my request for another 'authorization' because 'you' felt is was too many?
It's quite appalling how copy protection has....uh....'evolved' over the years.
Companys decide to employ what they think is best for their business....that's OK with me.
I will purchase no music software that employs any of this.

For the record, I run 5.0 Producer and it has everything I need....lucky for me.

A creative day to all.
Quaz out

Boy, I've never seen a company come right out and confirm its customer's reasons for dissatisfaction so thoroughly!

I can remember the days when every successful company's motto was, "The Customer is always right."

Wait -- that's still true. It's only the companies doomed for failure that don't feel that way. Out of a presumably unfounded concern that one customer might, possibly, have been attempting to "share" a copy of its software with, like maybe, one other person, KAB has now managed to alienate at least a few hundred potential customers. I'd be surprised to see KAB still in business for many years going forward.

At this point I don't care who's right or wrong........Matt is just plain Unproffesional.