Literal show stopper concern about authentication
I was just about to blindly purchase the upgrade but fortunately read about the new authorization process. I have a question about the new process, particularly having already been bitten by SuperVP.
I read that one must reauthenticate with the servers at least once every 180 days. That's fine (in principle). I also read that Max7 will warn you ahead of time and my question is HOW does it warn you.
In particular, if it warns you by popping up a modal dialog such that Max stops working until you respond to the dialog then there is the serious risk of the first warning appearing during a live show and Max stopping, an actual literal show stopper!
That's an unacceptable risk. Has this issue been considered?
Yes, and obviously we have some time to fine tune this experience.
We have no plans to make this an intrusive gig buster. Currently Max goes from fully authorized to the new unauthorized ("runtime") state gracefully. The new unauthorized state includes the ability to open and create patchers and edit them, but not save. The new unauthorized state is where your Max install would be after 180 days of being offline.
Wow -- thanks for quick response. Obviously I don't think there would be any deliberate attempt to screw up a performance.
My concern is that transition --- when it switches back to demo mode, are you warned in such a way that Max stops working until you respond to the dialog? Or would it just be a separate program such that there would be no impact?
The sudden loss of saving would in fact be an issue. For example, one thing that happens when we're on tour is that the set list gets changed and I have to tweak a master patcher appropriately right before a show. If it has gone into demo mode, I'm screwed.
Now, in principle I should never go 180 days without connecting to the internet. But depending on how your protection system tracks time, the problem could occur at any time (and in fact this is what happened to me with SuperVP, leaving a very bad taste in my mouth)
So just a little nervous here.
Personally, I understand entirely the need to be confident of being able to edit onstage. While testing Max 7 I often went days without realising my demo had expired, but don't take my word for it. Expire your demo and see what happens.
The transition away from Pace to our own in-house auth server allows us the flexibility to be able to respond to real world auth needs. We have tried to cover as many scenarios as we can for the initial release,feedback from your experience with Max 7 is extremely valuable to us as we move on with iterations in the software.
-A
OK -- I just bought it and I'll try it out (hoping that the VST problem is fixed).
However, I'm wondering why it wants to connect to patheos, reddit and amazon among others during the purchase process?
Interesting. perhaps it has something to do with previous max 6 preferences? Regardless, Reddit, Amazon, Patheos? I "limit my creativity" to only using software i've paid for - but you've just reminded me why I have a little snitch license!
about to install myself - the subscription model seems interesting though. if you pay for a year then would you only have to re-authenticate every 365 days from the initial subscription purchase?
180 days seems very generous to me. Who goes really that long without connecting to the internet? I think they have really gone out of their way to make it as unobtrusive as possible. If you really had to, I'm sure you could cut and paste patches to and from a text file if you were really in a pinch. But who knows
What does that mean for an exported Application?
Do's re-authorisation happen automatically every time that I'm connected to the internet ??
@JNINEK
Mistrust the obvious. My main performance laptop travels with my gear and I rarely interact with it other than perhaps to copy some updates into it via a flash drive. Other than that it only gets turned on at a show or a rehearsal. It is still running 10.7 and Max 5. Its goal is to be ultra reliable rather than latst and greatest.
You're right that in theory 180 days seems very generous. On the other hand, SuperVP has a similar system and blew up on me suddenly after a year! That's why I'm nervous. As Yogi Berra observed, "in theory there's no difference between theory and practice, in practice there is"!
To be honest, I'm don't understand the need to reauthorize at all but everyone keeps reinventing copy protection schemes and then others break them.
Personally, I would pay more for a version that didn't have this at all. I just don't need the worry.
How about just making sure the notification only shows up at, say, 10 AM (local time on computer)? Nobody plays a gig at that hour, hehe.
perhaps when Max recognises you are offline (and perhaps after 120 days?) then it could show somewhere how long until reauthorisation is required. you would then still have 2 months to sort it out. (perhaps in same space as Trial is displayed)
also when exactly/how often does this 'phone home' happen, on the machine i use for music, I really don't like apps doing things in the background, as they have a nasty habit of glitching audio.
I'm surprised there isn't a low-tech backup solution, e.g. license file that could be emailed, and then transferred via usb stick to performance machine.
If we must have this kind of authorization, then I'd much rather have a message show up in the Max Window every time you start Max indicating how many days are left before an internet connection is required. In that case, as long as Max checks ONLY at startup, there's no risk of a problem during a show.
However, if Max is checking intermittently during a show, that has potential to cause all sorts of problems. In particular, I have seen problems with programs getting held up because they see there's a LAN connection but don't recognize that there's no external internet but they try to do DNS resolution and get held up. I've seen Max delayed by this sometimes. I see it all the time with the Audio MIDI setup program if I double-click on the "Network" icon in the MIDI window and my Mac is connected to a LAN via wifi but there's no external internet.
This ignores issues caused by bugs in the authentication that would make Max think it has to suddenly authenticate when there's still actually months to go (i.e, SuperVP problem).
Seriously, if someone buys a full license for Max and goes through the activation process on a particular computer, is there really any real need to have to this re-authentication at all? Is the piracy problem for Max so bad that legit customers have to be impacted?
Max 7 only connects at startup.
OK --- so that means Max won't suddenly stop temporarily sometime after it has been running to pop up a warning.
I can probably live with that. It would probably still be very useful to have the number of remaining days displayed in the Max Window when it start up.
I'd still like to know why it tried to connect to Reddit, Amazon, Patheos and others!
Completly A new permanent Full licences don't phone home?
Ok - I need to walk my statement back.
Actually, we do connect back to the auth server once per "server_interval", which is currently set to 60 minutes
Also, we automatically do a refresh (thus connect back to the auth server) if the auth window is opened.
Please let us know if you notice any problems - if you are without network connection this will silently fail.
Cheers
-A
Have you tested this when your machines are on a LAN (typically through wifi) but the LAN router is NOT connected to the external internet.
There's a well known problem with some programs hanging in such cases while they attempt to do DNS requests. For example, you can see this if your Mac is on a wifi LAN with no external internet and you double-click on the "Network" icon in Audio/MIDI settings.
I have to say I'm a little concerned by software designed to support real-time processing that goes off and does other stuff intermittently. Maybe it will be just fine, I dunno --- but I don't want to find out when I'm on stage.
This stuff is really going down the path of something that gets in the way of real customers and will most likely be cracked by the bad guys anyway (and if it can't be cracked, then you guys are in the wrong business!!!)
Please reconsider this decision.
We may well change the way this works, and of course we reserve the right to change the way the auth system operates at any time.
If you have real world reports of trouble, we are very interested in seeing them/reproducing them.
Cheers
AS soon as network connections are thrown in without user's explicit request for it - all sort of problems could happen. For someone using MAX in a live environment - this could be potentially disasterous.
It is almost impossible to test and try all possible scenarios one could be in. WiFi connection may be there, but the internet connection may not be. Maybe it is some sort of internal, AdHoc connection, maybe the DNS servers currently in use are down... I know that is should "silently" fail, but while it's trying and failing and re-trying - it is using the precious CPU cycles and network resources.
Consider a scenario where MAX may be driving your rig and some devices are connected via AdHoc WiFi. No internet connection so the thing will be trying and failing every hour while every byte of data passing between the devices is critical.
Putting overhead on network and CPU to do this every hour is a really bad design decision. What can possibly happen in an hour?
If it has do be done - do it on startup so that you do not have to waste resources later.
it would be difficult to find a real-world worst case scenario before it's actually too late
+1000
Every hour seems pretty crazy I must say. Even from an authentication standpoint. Like DJOGON said, what could possibly happen in an hour?
And with the attempted authentication, presumably, happening silently/quietly, how would one be able to even identify if that is what is causing problems with network/cpu stuff?
>it would be difficult to find a real-world worst case scenario before it’s actually too late
... and also hard to prove, without having a networking monitor running
also, the potential for factors influencing are huge, running from software configuration, internet provider, computer hardware, network hardware. e.g. I use a satellite connection, which often can be very slow, and have dns issues.
also, how does this work if Im using Max 4 Live on one computer, and running Max on another... do I now need 2 max licenses? are you going to check this every hour?
(I own both (full) Max 7 , and Ableton suite which includes M4L)
the machine i run max on, is for music making, Ive spent many hours tuning the mac to not run anything in the background, to avoid audio glitches. I want max running 100% on what I ask it to do, and not going off doing other things.
please consider live audio (& performance) use more carefully...
id say, at a minimum
a) no hourly background checks
b) consider an offline authorisation system e.g. email containing 'authorisation' token, which can be transferred via usb stick.
c) clear indication on current state of authorisation, how many days to run.
one final point... Ive bought Max 7 (as an upgrade from 6) outright (not on subscription), this means that if I want to, I might still be running Max 7 on this computer,without upgrading, in 5 years time, by which time you may be on Max 14 by then... are you going to still be running the authorisation service so that it can be authorised every 180 days?
so, even though Ive bought Max7, I strongly agree with the sentiments expressed on this thread, its excessive,
that won't stop pirates, but is likely to impact fully paid up users.
The demiurge not want to do !!! but if suddenly arises, a hole or crater, exactly in the area where they were, offices cycling74 ... or where was located the server: (may be, mix Maelzel 's chessplayer with Bartleby.. in this system protection... "Demo, subscirption and licenses, "I guess)
"The software still work, after 180 days without phone home"?
These things somehow trample users are the more enticing to hackers.
ILok was annoying, but it was invulnerable.
iLok was(is) hardly invulnerable --- those things get lost, break, etc. I NEVER use an iLok protected app on the road.
The iLok "Zero downtime" concept is NOT!
Yuk!
watching this thread closely as I weigh the pros and cons of an upgrade.
What excites me about max 7 the most is the potential for software to act as a true "hub" for various hardware and software. Max has matured into a real performance environment that I see going head to head with popular DAWs in the future. The initial ease of use for beginners to get up and running with a few simple triggers and playlists, alone is pretty incredible, yet all the math, gen, js, and more are still easily accessible if one desires.
Given what DHJDHJDHJ has brought up though, makes me think twice. Yes the Max 7 scheduler is utilizing less CPU cycles when Idle, but, as someone who streamlined the HELL out of Yosemite through the terminal to squeeze every cycle possible from OS X the idea of some background daemon even sniffing for internet connections (real or 'imagined') worries me.
I may be assuming the worst here, but I'd hate to think that those extra cycles used every hour to phone home could even cause a pop in audio during a gig. Yes, I'll be upgrading, but stability of Max in a performance environment defines whether i pay $150 to upgrade or subscribe for a few months and see what happens.
iLok is what it is, my main issue with dongles is the need for an extra USB port. I need that port! Always. I always. need. that. one. more. port.
Given that none of us actually *own* max besides c74, and we're worrying about how the current iteration of Max software license is handled, I'm going to just upgrade. chances are very likely that I'll not be pushing max to it's limitations on stage, and even then, If we're worried about stray cpu cycles, then it makes more sense to turn off the cable 'wiggle dance' than anything else.
In retrospect i'm not worried about this. if I have an issue than i can always just run v6 on stage - or my own application.
I agree that stray cycles are a smaller issue --- my concern is WHEN those interruptions happen and WHETHER there is a chance that something will get broken during one of those stray interruptions. I'm concerned that Max7 will decide to go into demo mode 20 minutes before a show, just as I'm about to make a minor tweak to change our set order list and I won't be able to save an important change. I'm concerned about what happens if Max decides to go into demo mode while a patcher is loading or a VST is loading, right in the middle of a show.
My live rig laptops travel with my gear, they don't generally connect to the internet and if there's a lull in shows, they just stay in their Pyramid foam cases with other audio gear needed for the show. I'm still running 10.7 with Max5 on those machines, very stable. I would LOVE to be able to use a newer version of Max and was hoping I'd be able to use Max7 since I was never able to get Max6 to run reliably.
Now, I would have to worry that even though Max7 might seem to be working fine, it could break at any moment and no amount of testing will eliminate that risk.
Please --- if we've paid for a full version of the product, let there be a way to just turn that stuff off once the product has been initially authenticated. How risky could this possibly be to Cycling74?
This does strike me as a bewildering amount of copy protection. If all my vsts did this, FI, I'd be on the net every 5 minutes.....
My gig computer has never been online. All networking is disabled at the driver level. It's a good way to insure your computer runs reliably in live performance.
Does this mean I can't use MAX? Every other software I use has a workaround for a non-networked computer....
+1
As Andrew said, Max 7 is currently checking in with our authorization server once an hour after it has been launched. The original purpose of this check was to provide additional authorization flexibility, but we've subsequently implemented the same feature for individual users in a way that doesn't require a periodic check while Max is running. While the chances of anything going wrong during this check are extremely low, the chances are not zero, and I completely sympathize with the concerns of anyone who performs live with a computer. As performers, we don't want surprises. Therefore, we have decided to eliminate the periodic check. We can make this change by updating our authorization server and we will doing so over the next few days — you won't need a new version of Max 7, although we'll be releasing an update very soon with many bug fixes and improvements I think you'll want to download.
We may still check once every few hours when a subscription license is on the verge of expiring and a user has chosen not to renew it. Any subscription that is kept current will not check in with the server while Max is running.
Please note that if the check were to fail, Max would not have stopped working. This was never the issue. To be clear, we are implementing this change because we want to eliminate the remote possibility of a network exchange causing any type of interference with a running patch. If we advise you to stop your e-mail client from checking for new mail while you're using Max in performance, we should follow our own advice and avoid checking in with a server in the background, even if it only happens once an hour.
Finally, I want to clarify that if you have a regular Max 7 license, your computer only has to be on the internet once every six months. And every time you are connected to the internet, you get another six months of unconnected time. I understand there are a few people who dedicate machines for offline use. For users who practice this type of absolutism, where twice a year is too often, we don't currently have an answer, but we're investigating a few alternatives.
What a great post to which to wake up.
Re-reading this very carefully, can I get a little clarifcation? If you're not doing periodic checks for a regular (I assume this means a non-subscription fully paid-up license) install, are you just doing a check when Max first starts up? And if so, what exactly will happen if one is at that 180 day limit (or more importantly if one has gone well past that limit)? Can you make it so that one gets a few weeks (say) of grace at that point no matter how long it has been since the last use? I certainly would not have a problem with that approach because I have no doubt that once having been warned, I would be able to explicitly connect to the internet within a few days no matter where I was located.
Having said all that, I would still have the concern about Max unexpectedly reverting to demo mode due to a bug somewhere, which is precisely what happened to me with SuperVP (and with an Arturia product two years ago due to a bug in their eLicenser, and I don't use Arturia products any more either because of that issue)
Even if I had to pay double the price, I'd still prefer a version of Max where, if it's a full license, it will just continue to work forever without any checking.
So would I. Please allow the old style licensing. It worked well for many years. And it seems that the community is eager and willing to buy upgrades when they appear.
Hans Peter
Yes, Max7 seems to be "fixing" many things that were not broken
i don't necessarily mind a check, but i usually disable network when working because i don't want distractions, like os doing any pushing, and i would've though lower cpu use, but i've noticed with some programs (not max, i don't think) if you start without the net they push up cpu use by constantly checking...but anyways it's not rare to not get online for a few weeks.
what might be nice? is if max could download (and resume!) it's own updates and use that time to check? i've been trying on 7.01, but it keeps timing out and having to restart...it's as much my poor connectivity as anything... don't think it's going to happen tonight. :)
tbh, i think login for stuff along the lines of up dated references or help or tutorials and community are probably the best piracy preventions because people would feel a lot worse about taking from that than a somewhat impersonal tool. (although i have a hard time believing anyone could use max a ton and not get into it...) and it's stuff that more regular users would be doing organically anyway. like, "oh a cool new gen example, i've been trying to figure out anyway, i'll log in to see that" and so on, dunno, that would make it feel more like a fun "feature" to me.
i kinda assumed that's part of where the embedded browser stuff was going.
Yuk...imagine this happening during a live performance if you did happen to have an Internet connection?
In my particular configuration, I'm not connected to the external Internet but my laptop is on a LAN, so it can communicate with iPads via OSC. This actually causes problems if I run some apps by mistake (e.g. Opening the "network" icon in Audio/MIDI settings hangs for ages because it's trying to do DNS requests over what it thinks is a connected network). I don't want Max trying to resolve server names in that environment, thank you!
what might be nice? is if max could download (and resume!) it's own updates and use that time to check? i've been trying on 7.01, but it keeps timing out and having to restart...it's as much my poor connectivity as anything... don't think it's going to happen tonight. :)
i didn't mean do it automatically. i thought it'd be obvious that would be terrible. :)
i was thinking ways to maybe make checking in and refreshing authorization before 6 months feel more organic. like you click a box to ask max if there is an update, it checks your authorization and if there is an update, asks if you want it.
6 is doing the same kinda thing already, i think. it told me when 7 was out - but wasn't smart enough to know i already downloaded it and had it open... :)
i was wondering has it been explained what happens if you have multiple point releases of 7 on a single machine? does each one get 6 months or do they share that? i mean could you use 7.01 for 5.5 months, download the latest version, authorize, use it for 1 month, then if you had to go back to 7.01 would you have to re-authorize?
i do think the flexibility of switching where you're editing from without a major hassle is going to be pretty awesome, part of it for me is just getting used to the idea of being able to do that though!
i hear you about worrying about something going wrong live, but on the other hand if something happens to your computer in transport (which has happened to me a few times) you could now borrow one, plug in a thumb drive, install max, authorize, get to work, then log out.
anyway, my download finally finished. :)
Exactly how would you do that? You're not going to find out that something went wrong in transport until everything is set up on stage and you're doing equipment and sound checks. No internet connection at that point.
Now imagine you're setting up in a club or theatre on a tour. You've just arrived from another country, it's 5pm and the show is at 8pm. Roadies might have set everything up but you only discover a problem when you do your own tests. From where exactly do you think you might be able to borrow another laptop that not only has the right configuration (RAM, diskspace, right number of USB ports, firewire, etc) and even if you could, you would then need to install audio drivers, needed apps, plugins, get them all authorized (no internet connection, remember?) and be ready to play?
I carry a second laptop with everything already installed and preconfigured (essentially mirror image of the first laptop) precisely for this reason. It travels with different gear to lower risk but that second laptop might not get turned on for a year unless it's needed. No way to deal with expired permission to run Max (say) at that point.
There are ZERO other apps or plugins in my system that require server connections to verify legitimacy. Once they've been installed, they just work! Max needs to be like that too.
i hear you about worrying about something going wrong live, but on the other hand if something happens to your computer in transport (which has happened to me a few times) you could now borrow one, plug in a thumb drive, install max, authorize, get to work, then log out.
hello dhjdhjdhj,
perhaps making a standalone of your patch is a solution for you.
or does standalone applications also needs to authorize after 6 months ?
petcode
The patches change from time to time --- indeed there can often be a minor tweak right before a show, perhaps due to sound check or set change. That gets copied to USB so the other laptop can be updated in case of failure. It's not that the laptops don't ever get touched, it's just that they don't get connected to the internet.
I don't know about authorization but it wouldn't make any sense to start building standalones after every tweak.
they didn't say you couldn't make changes to your patch just before the show or that you couldn't do your performance. You just can't save those changes for the next show. Nothing about this is the "literal show stopper" the title of this thread implies.
And if one makes those changes before a show, how is one supposed to access those changes DURING the show if you can't save them ---- it's not like there's just one monolithic patcher loaded for the duration? And what happens if one has to reboot or restart during the evening, perhaps due to a problem with something else that's running? And what happens if you can't get to an internet location before the next show? Etc., etc.,
Stringed instruments need new strings and tuning on a regular basis. Maybe you should look at Max/Msp as an instrument that needs regular maintenance. Part of this maintenance is making sure it gets access to the internet. you have roadies to set up your equipment. You could make this one of their responsibilities. I'm sure someone is carrying a phone you can tether to at any location for a minute or two.
Really? That's your analogy? OK --- then let me put it this way...it is the nature of guitars that strings break. It is expected that the neck may warp a little over time (or with temperature changes) and guitarists bring spare strings and a key to adjust the neck bar, etc. They adjust the action and so forth. If you have an old-style tube amp, you bring spare tubes because tubes fail and are easily replaceable.
However, unless you're schlepping an old mechanical instrument like an old Hammond, a Mellotron or even a Rhodes, you generally don't have to worry about maintenance. Every last one of my electronic instruments behaves the same way today as they did on day 1.
I have carefully selected my computer and the software that it runs SPECIFICALLY so that I don't have to worry about that specific maintenance. Neither my apps nor my plugins require connection to the internet other than for the very first authorization.
Unless there's a hardware failure (and I have a backup computer for precisely that possibility), all my "1"s stay "1"s, all my "0"s stay "0"s and the behavior at runtime is essentially deterministic (i.e. works the same way that it works at rehearsal, no unexpected surprises). I'm interested in as stress-free an environment as possible, there are enough issues with which to contend on the road and the ability to simply set up my gear and (in the absence of hardware failure) just have it all work flawlessly all the time is my goal, and something I have achieved with my current live rig.
Now, maybe if I played in Lady Gaga's band with multi-million dollar support behind me, I could afford to have a technician to do the kind of thing you suggest without my having to worry about it. Right now, we have a few roadies who are responsible for set up, tear down and transport from one location to the next. That's it!
Damned if I should have to change my working environment because somebody else decided I shouldn't be trusted not to steal their software!
Hi Folks,
I edited the contents of this thread because it went right off the rails.It's important to everyone in Cycling '74 that this forum is a friendly place, and that everyone who participates is treated respectfully.
Thanks for playing along.
Cheers
-A
Thank you Andrew, it is appreciated.
Continue with your good work
Hans Peter
Hello Andrew - can I just double-check the situation with standalones and patches that are only accessed using Runtime version?
I have Max patches running in some highly inaccessible spaces (e.g. on a 1940s submarine). So if I'm going to upgrade to Max 7, there are a few issues I need to consider:
- Due to their odd locations, the exhibition machines can't ever connect to the internet after installation. And they may be running for many years.
- As the machines are installed in inaccessible places, it's extremely costly and difficult for me to go back and solve any errors that pop up on the screen. I do my own extensive debugging but I'd be very nervous about authorisation messages popping up in the future.
- The machines are in very busy places, where hundreds of visitors are clogging up small corridors etc., so if they fall over unexpectedly, it isn't easy for anyone to step in and reboot - or even click off a dialogue box on the screen.
So it would be very helpful if you would confirm: if I write patches in Max 7, then install those patches on other machines but only play them using the Runtime version of Max 7, I won't be troubled with any authorisation messages, even if the machines never see an internet connection again.
I'd also second all the concerns above about repeated authorisation calls in the editable version of Max 7. I use Max as a live performance tool and I hook it up to robots on stage - it's taken a long while to perfect the art of switching off anything that will give me nasty surprises mid set. I usually shut off the wireless altogether as I run my robots wired. I'm wondering how I'm going to find out the best scenario in the future, given this change. I'm very anxious reading this thread - I feel like it's setting things back. It's taken many iterations to find out how to stop nasty surprises from background operations mid-set. So I'd second the call for a one-off permanent authorisation - we have bought the software, after all!
Thanks!
Sarah
Hi Andrew,
I can only support what Sarah says. I am also doing installations that run either Runtimes or even full licensed MAX patches in sites that are not internet equipped. How do you do this in the future? If I buy a full license for MAX to install it in a computer to run an installation for year, should I not have the right to use it unrestricted? What is the use of buying a license if you might lose it. I know that internet seems to be everywhere. But you won't believe it there are still many places without access or - especially when things have to run long time - there is no one who would maintain it, even if you did set up an internet connection for the site. Have you ever been in museums? The people working there have usually very little experience with technology, they are actually afraid of it. If you put up a system there, it has to be fool-proof. It is possible to make MAX-patches fool-proof. But the demand to have internet access every when ever is nothing one can seriously guarantee, there goes the fool-proof patch...
Please don't follow Adobe in making it a rental software. This is terrible for the users. And if we have to have internet in any case, it is not so far from rental software.
Thanks for considering
Hans Peter
Standalone applications built with Max 7 will NEVER initiate contact with the C74 auth server.
They will never change their "auth status", because as far as we're concerned, they have none. They will always run.
The Max editor, both authorised and unauthorised, contacts our auth server at startup and every time you open the "User Account and Licenses" window. The next time the authorised Max editor will phone home is in 3 months, if you leave Max 7 running continuously for three months. The unauthorised editor will not phone home again.
Authorised Max will create a further 6 month auth for itself if it successfully talks to our server at every launch. This means that with no further connection with the internet, Max 7 will go silently from being authorised to not in about 180 days. This will not happen while Max is running - no change in auth state will ever occur in an active session.Going from authorised to unauthorised does not in any way effect the ability of patchers and projects to load, nor the ability to edit them. Only saving is disallowed while unauthorised.
We are actively collecting and analysing use cases as part of the evolution of our license management systems. As David mentioned, we hope to roll out tools in 2015 which will enable users more control of their licenses. If you have a a story to tell or a use case you are concerned about, please send it to me, or to support.
Cheers
-A
Hi Andrew,
thanks for your extended response, very much appreciated.
Allow me to respond again. I came in touch with MAX in 1991 at IRCAM, when I had a working grant there and my tutor who was supposed to work with me on their mainframe machine had to study the newly installed operation system, so to give me something to do, he gave ma a Mac with MAX on it and I started learning it. Since then I use it. I am not a super crack, but I am not totally bad.
My experience with MAX is, that you cannot have it run for several months or so. If you do that your computer will crash at one time pretty certain. So to run safe, you program everything in that way that the computer shuts down in the evening and starts in the morning loads MAX and all will be fine for the day. Besides the fact that at many places electric power (outside of the emergency stuff) gets turned off at night, so there is no way to run permanently. In other words any software that needs to contact an outside server at start up is a no go. The problem is that at exhibition sites there is in most cases no internet and there is no need so it does not get installed and those venues usually have shoe string budgets so they won't do, they get money for a production than they buy the necessary equipment and that is it.
So when I buy equipment and software I expect that I can use it until it breaks down. Anything else does not make sense.
MAX is a software for cultural purposes - not business (or at least in most times not) - it should serve the culture scene (which it does by content) so do not cut it away with this kind of restriction. You make it impossible to use MAX in the most interesting (and poor) places.
Honestly I do not even understand why you need our softwares that we bought from you to contact your server all the time. Sure, I know there are people who crack your software and don't pay for it, but don't you think those people will also find a way to crack your server related protection?
Over the years I bought for myself, for other organizations or recommended to friends to buy quite a few copies of MAX for full prize, I bought all updates and many times those extensions that were not free (like MIRA). MAX is a perfect software for all the purposes of music and other media and sometimes even weird things on the border of anything. I bought from OPCODE and from Cycling'74 but now I feel estranged, a bit like the ADOBE crowd that do not give the option of either buying or leasing their software.
Talking about Adobe. They had a good protection system, the first time you started the software you had to register at their server. And you could register onto 2 computers. If you tried to register a 3rd one you had to cancel it on one of the first two. You could copy the software onto as many comp's as you liked but only 2 of them got the "free" code from ADOBE's server once you registered. So the internet was necessary only the very first time. That makes sense, everything else is a hassle.
Please consider this and please come back to normal use for full paid licenses. Make two groups if you want, those who lease and those who buy. But don't bind us to the internet.
Thanks for your attention. Still I am a great fan of MAX
Hans Peter
+1 (but please, don't consider a dongle to be the solution!)
hey Hans Peter,
why do you not simply make a standalone app out of your patch ?
as far as i understood andrew a standalone never phones home or change the auth status.
but perhaps i missunderstood something ...
yf
Can't speak for anyone else (obviously) but in my case the answer is that there's always going to be a little bit of tweaking, sometimes right before a show...indeed that's one of the key benefits of Max. I've actually had (fortunately only) one experience where I had to change something right in the middle of a song. My expression pedal failed (bad MIDI cable, I discovered later) and I had to map a slider to the volume of a synth. Nightmare!
To be crystal clear here, and putting this in the context of current Max 7 auth practices - the use case that @dhjdhjdhj is describing is a situation where a computer he is using on stage has not been connected to the internet for over 6 months, and he wishes to save a change to a patcher he is editing.
As I mentioned, we take all use cases seriously, and are actively working on finding ways to deal with them.
Cheers
-A
I was already on the fence about Max 7, but this pretty much kills any interest I had. None of my other software (all of it paid for) requires me to periodically log on and re-authenticate, unless I get a new computer. Is piracy really such an issue with Max? Surely anyone who doesn't want to pay for it could just use pd.
@ Yonfell: as DJDHJHJ says it, there is always the difference between the ideal world and the real world. Setting up these shows is always deadline trouble. You manage to make it run until the opening, but some little things are making a problem. All pieces are in a way prototypes and nothing being produced in a series. Again I am talking about installations not concerts.
I just had the case of a quite complicated patch with some students of mine and the patch worked, but then it just stopped and it took another 2 weeks to find the bug. Sure - our problem, wrong patching - nevertheless, this is how it happens, that is the real life. And in that real life, things are not perfect and you have to fix things. And this you do not want to do with a standalone. That will drive you crazy.
I only ask that I may use, what I pay for, just like anything else I buy. I pay and I can use it till it breaks or I die.
@ Andrew: Yes I heard your message and I am thankful, that you do not close the book on it.
Have some happy holidays and a successful and good New Year
Hans Peter
it would be great if max could be authorized limitless on at least 2-3 machines...
if you need to use it on another machine, you could de-authorize one (if connected to internet) and therefore authorize the another...
i live 50/50 between two countries.
Right now i have Max authorized on my personal pc-tower in China, and on an old MBP that i use as laptop.
Next week i go for 10 weeks to Germany, where i have another PC-Tower at my studio with which i work there.
I also plan to replace my old mbp with two new laptops then:
- an ultrabook with long-battery life for travelling
- a gaming laptop for mobile vj stuff
So when i am in Germany i need additional 3 machines running Max.
Alltogether five machines then (maybe i get rid of the old mbp then, so i would only need 4, but i would like to keep just because since its a mac and all other are win-based then)
But back in march when i teach at university i also use an extra computer regulary at university...
And if a do a residency or a art project abroad, i often make use of local pc towers to work. As long as the duration is
Most software i use i replaced in the last years with open source stuff (gimp, open office, blender for video editing, audacity...) just because i can easily work on multiple machines without having to worry about licenses/ organisation...
For Max always different because i really like it. And there was the ilok which let it use me anywhere without having to worry about authentication /licensing...
Without ilok its much more unconvenient for me
@Tobias - noted, thanks for the use case.
To everyone else, thank you for voicing your concerns. We're very interested in them. Please remember that once you purchase a license of Max, C74 tech support is here to keep you up and running. If you get stuck, please do not hesitate to get in touch
Cheers
-A
@Andrew: Here is a suggestion, that might solve also use cases like Tobias's: What if you could change the user account of a permanent subscription any time. When the maximum number of activations is reached for an account a dialog could give you the chance to unsubscribe one of the computers registered (showing a list of subscribed machines). This would keep the flexibility of the iLok.
Another suggestion --- I haven't completely thought this through (I'm on vacation!) but if the option to just have a permanent license is just impossible, then assuming that a check is done only upon startup, then I think I could live with the following scenario:
1) If you're running Max regularly, you'll get a warning that you have 1 month (say) left before you must authenticate and that time will start counting down. That warning might initially just be on the top of the Max Window but as you get closer to deadline it might need to be a modal dialog to ensure that you notice. However
2) If you don't run Max regularly and you have less than a month to go, or if you have gone past the 180 days without having run Max at all, then when you do eventually run it (even a year later, say), you will now get the 1 month warning so you have time to deal with it but it will still run fine with saving enabled. In this scenario it's probably fair to say that an internet connection could be found within a month and any problems with authentication could be ironed out by Cycling74 support.
I'd still rather have a model where once I've bought it, it will just work forever though. I still think the bad guys will find a way to crack it but if they can't, then Cycling74 needs to get out of the Max business and get into the cybersecurity business where they'll probably make far more money ;-)
@Jan,
this is exactly what I supposed, that is how ADOBE software worked before the squeezed everyone to be part of their cloud and leasing scheme. And that (older) system worked well, you had the software installed on a many comps as necessary but only two of them were hot. You deactivate one and you can activate another and so on. I thin this is a good and fair system.
@ DHJDHJDHJ
your proposal still needs somebody actively every now and then has to connect the computer to the internet. PLEASE understand not everybody uses MAX for concerts. If you do installations or whatever kind of exhibitions, the technology has to run by its own and without big maintenance. But if you need to connect the computer every now and then it is an effort that will not be done and the exhibition will be down.
@ Cycling 74 makers:
Please understand, you are the heirs of a software that was developed in the 90s of the last century and it made it to become - with your very active and wonderful help - a very important software in 2010+s and one reason for that was and it is its flexibility and for example that one can use it even in an environment that is not yet digital-ready like old style museums or whatsoever. And I promise you theses organization will stay pretty long time the way they are. Nevertheless they also want to participate in the new media, but the can only afford a part of the necessary costs. And we - who do the artwork - try to keep the costs reasonable so that the art can happen. It is a give and take as always in life. And one thing that is true for these situations is that you want to have a situation where you own what you pay for. And I think this is the most reasonable desire. I pay for something - I own it. Of course I am not supposed to use it in a criminal way - like copying without license - but that is common sense. If common sense is gone, you can try anything, you will always be cheated. So rather let us try to recreate a code of common sense that understands that people who work for you - like software programers work for musicians in this case - need to get paid paid for their work, as the musicians expect to get paid for their work. Very simple game.
Let us own, what we paid for and don't squeeze us into any kind of scheme where we have to fulfill tasks to keep our ownership.
I hope I can be understood.
I wish you a happy and very successful New Year
Hans Peter
Thanks for the clarification Andrew. I really appreciate it.
I take what you're saying about standalones and unauthorised copies of Max. So just to double-check: if I install Max on a machine but never authorise it on that machine (as it's simply the machine that will be playing my software in an exhibition), I'll be able to run the patch as a Runtime-only (not standalone) version in perpetuity, without being plagued by any attempts to connect with the Internet? If so, that's great.
At the moment, I'm using Max 5 and 6 in exhibits and have found Max 5 or 6 Runtime suits my purposes better than a standalone. I find it's far easier to locate the latest version of the patch and edit it at speed on my laptop (which has my authorised copy).
Also, a very common usage scenario is this: I install unauthorised Max at home on a computer that's been bought for an exhibit. Thus during installation, for the first few days, it has internet access. I don't authorise this copy of Max but during the 30 day grace period, deal with any last minute edits of the software by editing on that machine. This is something I do simply for convenience. During installation, I might be crawling through the cupboard of a submarine, for example, to reach the target machine - and the machine is hooked up to sensors and soundcards that are equally inaccessible - so this is far preferable to sending files to and fro to my laptop (which has my authorised copy of Max). Bluetooth and wifi in such situations are often hopeless.
Usually the installation period lasts fewer than 30 days so I never have to authorise the exhibit Mac's copy of Max. This way of working won't introduce calls to the internet either, will it, at any point in the future?
I agree with Hans Peter's points about museums. For the record: over the last few years, I've had many tricky conversations with national museums in the UK, convincing them that Max is a viable means of delivering sound in public spaces. These organisations can be very conservative at times and - for good reason (they have to maintain dozens of exhibits) - are wary of any tech that's outside their usual experience. I've been winning the argument with them, over the last five or six years, by consistently installing exhibits that run and run in such tricky environments. And it would be great to be able to go into the next project - if there is one! - without having any nagging worries about a level of reliability I can't deliver. Hence the alarm bells ringing when I read the thread above.
Thanks again for the clarifications
Sarah
@therematrix
You can set up an installation specific account and run another demo for this if you like. That will get you your same behaviour, as long as you are installing on a machine which has not already run the Max 7 demo.
Currently there is no way to avoid an attempt at an internet connection unless you build a standalone application. If the machine is not connected to the internet this will just fail and you'll be fine - the check happens as part of Max's startup.
If your machine is running headless or you are not displaying patcher windows then you'll be good. If you are displaying patcher windows as part of some kind of control UI these may be modified as a result of deauthorization - they'll get the "you are in demo mode" banners. This is something we are looking at as part of our ongoing auth improvement efforts.Jitter windows are fine, and will not display banners.
So for now, the only way to have a completely static, no phone home at all experience is to make a standalone.
Cheers
-A
Dear Andrew,
why do we do this talk around the issue with a distance. The real question is: Why coming up with this trouble to your customers?
What is the problem? Since the early 1990s people are buying MAX, upgrading, buying the little extra softwares that popped up over the time - or like in my case buying several versions not only for me, but for other organizations - and suggesting friends, students and other interested people to buy MAX.
So what is it about? OK, we all know, that there are people who cracked MAX and use it for free. I am afraid there is no way to stop it and your new concept will not change it either. Yes you got a new clever method and two weeks later the kids have a clever way to bypass it.
Why can't we buy a license from you to use MAX and that is it. Why do you need to control us. Don't you think there is enough control around already. Isn't NSA and all these f.... enough. Why can't you deal with us - your trusting customers - like human beings, like grown ups and trust us too.
I find it is getting too much. Sell us a license and then let us do. What more can I do then buying your licenses for people who only use your software to run it every day the same (as museums do). Why do I have to develop a work style hat is crooked only because you dictate this to me. This is not funny anymore. I tried to be reasonable since this discussion came up, (read my older texts) but you are not willing to discuss this issue you are blocking it. You (cycling74) made up your mind. That's it. We customers are supposed to accept. That's it.
Honestly I find this ridiculous and as one of your oldest customers (I bought my first version of MAX in 1991 and upgraded etc all the time, so you also made some money from me) i feel hit in the face by this kind of mistrust. Sorry, I cannot see it differently. Get back to normal. People buy licenses from you, they own it. And if they get new computers with new OS's they may have to buy a new license for an upgrade or whatever. But as long as they stay within the system they bought once, they should be allowed to use it until they die or their equipment falls apart without restrictions. Everything else is theft. You buy something, you own it. Right? That is a simple capitalist equation.
I am very sad that I have to say these things, because I always felt that MAX software was far away from these ideas.
I hope to that you can take some time off in your company and have a deep thought about how you want to treat the people who trust you and appreciate the wonderful work that all of you have brought in all these years. Don't destroy this community.
Hans Peter
Another reason "phone home" has to go
Hello Andrew
Thanks for the reply. Sorry - I'm not sure what you mean by 'You can set up an installation specific account and run another demo for this if you like".
Actually, I do make UIs and these are for members of the public, many of whom are not remotely computer savvy (e.g. elders who are volunteering at museums). Sometimes the UIs are in museums where they are as pared down an interface as possible. I'd be very concerned if a fresh licence and access to an internet link (even if only once or twice a year) is now the minimum requirement to create such a thing without extraneous banners - it never used to be the case. Maybe I've misinterpreted what you're saying above but I think the mention of the 'this is a demo banner' suggests that will be the case. So I'm very glad to hear you're reconsidering this.
Thanks
Sarah
Hi Sarah,
In honour of the submarine use case we shall be implementing
;max runtime 1
In a future update which will silence all the banners.
So here's a workflow for you.
Get the new machine, sign up for an account specific to your installation for it through Max once you have installed. Projects of mine have specific email addresses associated with them, or I use the google "+" trick or something.
Then you get your 30 day demo on the machine which you will be installing to the venue. Make sure your patcher has the upcoming ";max runtime 1" message set up to fire at loadbang, and you'll have the same experience as previous versions. Hopefully we'll get this message in 7.02
Also C74 support is not going away. As regularly happens, we are on hand to make sure that auths for specific events or installs or shows can be manually requested. All you need to do is get in touch.
Cheers
-A
";max submarine 1"
Andrew: seriously, don't you realize that th whole things becomes some sort of kafkaesque?
How about being open and honest. You deal with a community of people who are not completely stupid. So please speak with us like grown ups.
Just answer one question: Why can we not own the licenses we pay for as long as our equipment lasts or we ourselves die?
If you can answer that question, maybe we will also be able to understand.
That Adobe went nuts is not surprising, because they are rather about money. That MAX had to follow that path is more then sad.
Hans Peter
PS. I find it pretty amazing that you answer all other forum mails but my requests have never a direct answer. Do I by chance hit the nail?
@ Jan
thank you, you bring it to the point
HP
@ Sarah (Therematrix): Sure one can do anything, one just has to first switch off your comp 3 times, run around the house, make a handstand, then turn the machine back on and do some illegal downloads after that you will be able to use MAX in a museum or a similar place. It is so easy.
I think we have to become a bit stronger. Since MAX got released it was a wonderful and more and more powerful software. Now it gets ridiculous.
Cycling 74: come back on earth and behave normal.
@ULLSTEIN: ... wasn't meat to be a statement. Was trying to be funny - guess I wasn't ;)
Nevertheless - as usual and as we just learned 2 days ago - it is the funny, the satire that shows us how things are.
Je suis charlie
hello andrew,
perhaps its a good idea to make
;max runtime 1 as default.
so we can activate the banners if we want.
i think most of the users dont want to see them.
i would vote for ;max showbanners 1 (default 0)
petcode
@ Andrew: the banners (I guess you mean this little window that pops up telling you that are in demo mode?) are not the only problem. You are trying to avoid the real discussion. Please explain to the community why we are forced to do all kind of workarounds when we all buy a license from you to use the software. That is the point.
@ Ampoule: do you feel my comments as grumpy? If so, I apologize, because I don't want to appear as that. I just want them to step into the discussion and tell why they think it is necessary to force us into this system. For me it means that I really have to look for another software, if they keep this up, because I have the same problem as Sarah. And I can absolutely not understand why it is not possible to communicate the reasons for this step.
Well, Miller Puckette wrote another version of MAX, it is not as elegant, but maybe that is the way out in the end. It is a shame, I am always willing to pay for good software, because I want to see the programers being paid as well. But then you get a fist in your face by the very same people. It is not a nice feeling I have to say, and I know I repeat myself, specifically as one of their very early customers and follower of almost 25 years. Not to say, that I have no idea how many colleagues, students, and others considered buying MAX, after I enthusiastically suggested them to do so...
Another idea just popped up: I will get myself a cracked version of MAX 7 as soon as it is out. Since I paid for the original I have the right to use it. But I leave the original at rest and use only the cracked one... I guess this will become an interesting legal case. Hahaha!
Hey Ullstein, my guess is that c74 are trying their best to please everyone while having an unpiratable system, like genuinely trying to fulfill both objectives, so they might take your grumpynnes as a lack of understanding from your part and simply proceed to not answer to you in order to preserve their good mood in front of their customers - which is quite understandable.
Ah VICHUG, this sounds really bad, don't you think. First: how long do you think it will take until the kids will be able to hack the system? 2 weeks? one month? half a year? Let's be clear, there is no way to protect a software from being stolen. This is not a question of abilities or mathematical features, this is a question philosophy can answer: Any system human being can set up to protect something, another human being will be able to destroy it. We re living in the same world, so any genius idea you might have to protect MAX, there will be someone to find a way around it. If that was not the case, wars would not get lost. Galileo came up with the idea that the world is not flat and the (catholic) church did not accept this. The only problem is, that an idea that was thought by one person is in the world and cannot be put away again. If one person can think it everybody can think it. It might take some time, but it will happen. That's why the bishops lost and Galileo finally won.
I think the cycling 74 people should be clever enough to understand that, So the way to avoid piracy is not by building walls, because walls can be climbed. You have to find a different way. Create a community that supports you and helps you and by that stops other people from invading you. How is that? Physically we all can manage the same, but if we create a social network (I am distinctively not speak of Facebook - I mean a real social network of responsible people) you do not have to fear anything, because everyone understands. I know this is a dream, but I think this dream has a higher reality then any wall to protect your country from invaders.
OK, the second part of your mail I can agree to. Of course they want me to shut up and of course they believe waiting and not saying anything will stop me sooner or later and sure they are right. But what a fucking world is that. You and all the other great people in this community - and I definitely include the great people of cycling 74 who are doing this great job of delivering us this super good software - should we not expect a little bit respect? No software is great without those people who do the work with it.
Isn't it strange to have these discussions not because of the work you are doing but because the maker of your tool forces you to do so? Can you imagine the maker of the hammer tells you that you can only hammer 120 nails into the wall, then you you have to connect to the internet again to upload your hammer to be able to do the next 120 nails. Funny image isn't it?
I wish you all success and don't forget freedom and democracy has to be defended everywhere any anytime. We just learned it. Je suis Charlie
I don't want to take part in this discussion, though one thing bothers me: Comparing a software auth system with murder is nothing but tasteless and disrespectful! Maybe time to take walk in the real world and to chill down the temper.
Jan, please, I think you do get what I meant. Of course I do not compare these things, but no matter where you look - specifically in the world of software and computer and surveillance, there is a clear development, I guess you won't argue that.
Anyhow I apologize to put this up. You are right it goes in the wrong direction. Sorry.
I agree with many of the concerns expressed here but threatening to pirate the software in retaliation is extremely counter-productive.
My primary concern (and one of the underlying concerns of this thread) is that C74 has taken steps towards the Adobe model of non-perpetual licensing. As a paying user of Max since version 4, and having purchased multi-seat licenses for various universities over the years, I too am disappointed by the potential obstacles this new authorization scheme creates when I've been a legitimate, invested user for so long.
We all know piracy is a huge problem, but the burden of curtailing piracy should in no way be placed on the backs of legitimate users. I think most of us want to own and use the tools we've paid for indefinitely without needing to worry about phoning home or other authorization hoop-jumping after the initial fact. I, for example, occasionally still use Max4 on a G3 iBook that hasn't connected to the net in close to a decade due to hardware issues--even the old software/hardware is very useful in certain installations of mine. I'd like to have that option with Max7 and my present MacBook in the year 2025. Of course that's an extremely rare scenario but it's meant to illustrate the point. The more unrestricted technology we have at hand – old or new – the more work we can put into the world with some degree of permanence.
That said, the new licensing scheme is really nice for computer lab authorization. I know the IT folks at my university are especially appreciative as it makes their jobs easier. Classroom volume licenses are, however, a very different beast than single-user licenses because the context is quite different.
In the end, my rant is merely a plea to C74 to (pretty please with a dongle on top) never fully abandon the perpetual license as an option.
i guess because of recent news of hacks and leaks, i've had some concerns expressed to me over the security of using software that gets online at all for projects, especially on computers that don't do it regularly. (so that they also get (or don't get) security updates.)
also, this isn't cycling74's problem directly, but given apple's security update policy for older operating systems it could be somewhat troubling to potentially expose an older operating system, that continues to work well for using max (and maybe even non-upgradable), to security issues because you can't simply not connect the machine.
kinda paranoid, but as internet connections get faster with things like fiber + gigabit speeds it gets more disturbing! just something to think about for the future, maybe.
Gumi, at first please understand that this was a joke, maybe it wasn't funny enough, but of course that is no solution. I only wanted to show the absurdity of the case.
I guess the problem is, that the softwares got so sophisticated that any new offer does not really trigger people to buy the next upgrade. This is a difficult thing for the programers, they realize they made their kids so perfect that noon is interested to buy another step up.
Yes, we have to acknowledge that as well and we have to allow them to make their living. But these restrictions do not help both of us. We get mad and sooner or later turn away and then they have no income either.
Why do we not sit together and talk about it and find a solution hat is good for all partners. Why do we have to go this kind of crazy "warfare": programmer vs. customers. Why can't we find a way to live together. We are such a small community (compared to let's say Adobe's Photoshop or MS Office.
My suggestion to C74 is, put it on the table. Let us find a solution for the problem. Maybe there is a way to support you while we have free access. I think we would be able to handle it.
Only I do not like this kind of "you are my friend or my enemy"- concept.
In other words: C74: tell us your reasons and let us discuss things as friends, but don't be stubborn and make us feel upset. How about that?
@Ullstein - Maybe I've missed another joke, but I don't think anyone else views this discussion as "warfare." The enemy–if there is one–is the pirate (troll?), and piracy (trolling?) is a very difficult problem to solve. Technical challenges aside, different philosophies are colliding here, and I think some of us (myself included) have conflated C74's corporate mission with a Stallman-esque "free as in freedom" mantra. As much as I'd like it to be, Max is not "free" software. For that we should refer to PD.
The new authorization process is clearly an attempt by C74 to reach a minimally invasive solution to piracy. Is it ideal for every user in its current form? Certainly not. But C74 is hardly being stubborn about it; they've announced at least two changes to the authorization process based on productive user feedback in this thread. DZ himself has even weighed in. That tells me the issue is very much on the table and other solutions are being considered.
As users who have legitimate concerns over losing unrestricted access to our tools, we should help C74 better understand our specific needs, not create rifts by leveling accusations at them.
@ Gumi, OK I understand, but let me speak about a story that C74 is connected to and that shows the problem. After MAX was made by Miller Puckette and others at IRCAM in the early 1990s, it was licensed to an American company called OPCODE - maybe you remember them. They were famous in those days for a MIDI-Sequencer called VISION (Later it also could do audio as STUDIO VISION). VISION was a simple, easy of use but still quite sophisticated software at the time, it had some distinct features, no other software had. OK. Then OPCODE got bankrupt or something similar - I never found out what really happened - but they disappeared and C74 bought MAX from them and Gibson ( the Guitar Company) bought VISION. Only Gibson did not know what to do with it. When they realized it, they published a semi-free version of VISION, but that never worked. (in those days you still needed discs as copy protectors). Besides that one could not use VISION any longer when you had to work on another comp then the original, all your work became unreadable. So I transferred all pieces to another sequencer, which never really worked the same way. Plus that was a very stubborn task.
What if for whatever reason C74 disappears. I don't hope they will, but since I had this experience I am ready to expect anything.
As I said, I agree that they have to protect their property and I am happy to support this, but we must too. And I do not believe that there is any piracy protection that will work in the end, they will hack it anyhow.
Let me bring up the ADOBE thing again: Before the cloud, you had to connect ONCE to the Adobe server and register your software and you could do so for 2 machines, if you wanted to use the software on a third machine, you had to de-authorize one of the other two. This way Adobe was protected and you could work no matter where you were. Why not doing it this way? I suggested it already many mails ago.
And I find it a bit frustrating that I do not get an answer. Maybe my mails get a bit strange, but this comes from the frustration to have the feeling that noone wants to really consider this. Maybe I am wrong, maybe this does not work, but maybe one could tell me then. Andrew from C74 is reading this thread, maybe he can say something to it?
I hope I am able to make my point. Can someone from C74 tell me if this would be a solution? This method would serve us both. C74 controls the number of used copies (which they have the right to do, I agree) and we can do whatever we need to do. One only needs one time internet connection for the computer that runs the software.
Andrew - just wanted to say thanks for listening to my concerns about working in long-term internet-free spaces and for adding in the function to remove the banners in the next update. This is really helpful. Have just downloaded Max 7 on the strength of this and am going to give it a try over the next few days...
All the best
Sarah
I'm fully on board with a "one ring to rule them all" authentication method. I'd even favor a dongle over periodic calls home if that's the only way, provided I can have a dongle this tiny :)
@ GUMI: you wrote "The new authorization process is clearly an attempt by C74 to reach a minimally invasive solution to piracy. Is it ideal for every user in its current form? Certainly not. But C74 is hardly being stubborn about it; they’ve announced at least two changes to the authorization process based on productive user feedback in this thread. DZ himself has even weighed in. That tells me the issue is very much on the table and other solutions are being considered.
As users who have legitimate concerns over losing unrestricted access to our tools, we should help C74 better understand our specific needs, not create rifts by leveling accusations at them."
That is the problem, I made several suggestions, but I don't even get an answer. May be mysuggestions don't work, then give me a short note. My problem is a "real" problem. And so far MAX was good for these purposes. Now it becomes a problem. But they are not responding to it. Please advice, what I should do.
I have another suggestion. I also use a small package called "Master Restoration" (it filters out clicks etc) when installing they ask for the machine code of the computer it is installed on. You give it and you get a timeless installation.
Maybe that would be a possible solution.
I am not against C74, but there is no answer to my problem, actually it is not discussed.
although I am not a fan of dongles, because you can lose them or forget them at home, when traveling, still a better solution. OK, I am happy to support your suggestion (which would then be suggestion # 3 from my side) to get dongles.
Other problems with dongles include no room to plug them in and as well as losing them, they break. The iLok "Zero Down Time" isn't! Got bitten by that once --- never again.
Not that Cycling74 will care but I'm still stuck with Max5 and Max7 was my last hope to address the problems with Max6 but if they go the dongle route, I'm screwed.
well here I am running into a serious limitation: used up my max 7 authorizations on work machines (who's disks get quite often changed, so I loose those authorizations). I could always log in to authorize a machine I am working on, but now during rehearsal I can't log in and max says: "Your authorization file has expired."
And I can't log in to my account (on the website it works fine). Not being able to save during rehearsal is not an option for me!
I have started looking at dropping Max completely and switching to something else to manage MIDI processing. I'm not wild about doing this but now that Apple MainStage seems to be extremely reliable and with the availability of plugin hosts like Blue Cat's PatchWorks, I would no longer need the MSP features of Max to manage audio routing.
For MIDI processing only there are several options available including PD, AudioMulch and Bidule for example.
I'm not wild about making such a change as apart from the effort it will take, Max 5 has been 100% reliable but the authentication/risk of Max7 failing is just not something I'm willing to accept.
+1 for allowing perpetual licenses without requiring the periodic internet connectivity.
I have been a PureData user for about 7 years. I have never used Max but I am am (was?) on the verge of moving to it and away from pd. Having just learned of the v7 authorization requiring connection to the internet, I must say that I am extremely put off by this notion. Like others in this thread have mentioned, my performance laptop (and my main studio PC) have never been online and I don't intend them to ever do so. I've found it's one of the best ways to preserve their "integrity", for lack of a better word. I realize users such as myself may be in the minority; but to echo the words of a previous poster: the burden of anti-piracy measures should not be placed upon legitimate, paying customers.
I definitely urge Cycling 74 to reconsider the options. As a potential customer, this is casting a large shadow of doubt over my decision to move to Max.