RNBO 1.0 now available
Today we are launching RNBO, a new add-on patching environment for Max built for exporting code that sounds like Max. While RNBO will look and feel very familiar to you as a Max user, the patches you build in RNBO are being compiled to code that is loaded into Max and run as you go. This same generated code can be exported using the export sidebar to several ready-to-use targets - Raspberry Pi, Web Export (WASM/WebAudio), VST or AudioUnit Plugin, and Max Object. You can also export efficient, generated C++ code that is self-contained and can be used to integrate a RNBO sound engine into other projects.
Be sure to visit https://rnbo.cycling74.com to see all the things that RNBO can do and how to get started.
Learn more about RNBO here:
https://cycling74.com/products/rnbo
We've just released Max 8.5 to support the RNBO add-on, which you can download here:
https://cycling74.com/downloads
The Forum has a new RNBO category:
https://cycling74.com/forums?category=RNBO
We can’t wait to see what you make with RNBO!
- Cycling '74
It is so brilliant that it is almost unbelievable.
Bundled? Bit of a false claim.
I have to pay $ 299 (excl. tax) for a crossgrade...
Creative prototyping just gained multiple levels. This makes investing in learning Max even more worth it.
Wow! 👏👏👏
The RNBO package is "bundled" with the Max 8.5 installer, though it is a paid add-on. RNBO has a demo mode if you want to check it out!
The language in the marketing was a confusing to me too, Ben. I see that the RNBO page has been updated and it's definitely MUCH clearer now. But yeah, I get that from a marketing perspective the focus would be on how cool the product is (and it is definitely very cool) and what its features are rather than the fact that it costs money, but especially with a product like Max that gets major features added within version cycles, it would be a good idea to continue to make it very clear that RNBO is a separate product within the Max "ecosystem" and not a new feature of Max 8.
RNBO patchers have a presentation mode. Is there a way to include that pres mode in a plugin export instead of the generic slider UI? Forgive me, I have had only a cursory look and quick play with it so far; I may be overlooking something obvious.
It’s pretty rare for any new technology to significantly change my daily life but I think that just happened. Thanks
I don't understand the pricing at all. An hour or two ago the crossgrade price was $ 200 and now it's $ 299... (excluding $ 60 tax).
@Ʀivanni, we had a bug with our shop where the RNBO add-on price for crossgrade licenses was listed incorrectly, apologies!
The price for a permanent RNBO license is $299. This price is the same whether you add RNBO to a crossgrade license, or to a normal permanent Max license. Only Max is discounted with a crossgrade license.
Which objects from Max will be in RNBO, is there a list?
You can find the list of objects and operators here:
https://rnbo.cycling74.com/objects
Thanks Ben
This is very cool! In the absence of .coll or .dict objects, what would be the best way to store data?
I realize this is version 1.00, so don't get me wrong, I'm super excited and grateful. I'm still just figuring out what's possible for porting some projects.
@OSCILLATEDSPACE For simple list storage (for the time being) we have list.store , or if you want just index / single value pairs, maybe data / buffer~ will do the trick.
Thanks Ben!
I was excited but I saw it was an extra $200 $359. obvi this isn’t aimed at personal users but at businesses
It looks amazing!! what a wonderful surprise!!!
Where can i find information about the licensing for code generated by RNBO? What is the privacy policy for the code processed by the cloud servers?
@Cupcake
https://support.cycling74.com/hc/en-us/articles/10730637742483-RNBO-Export-Licensing-FAQ
@cupcake for more information on the privacy policy on the Cloud Compiler, please see the EULA clicked through on installation as well as https://cycling74.com/privacy-policy.
looks cool, it could be argued that that tool had been waited for for a long time by the Max community, but indeed it is very expensive and seems to be aimed at business owners, not humble Max hobbyists or even artists.
Sorry Cycling 74, but I think you've used some very duplicitous marketing with this one. I'm sure I wont be the only one who was given the impression that RNBO was an additional feature in the new update. There isn't even a mention mention of it being a separate paid for product on its dedicated page and its not mentioned in the videos I have watched either.
It's a cool looking feature but the way it's being presented sucks and the price is way too high, especially in this financial climate. No thanks.
As a choice, one can trash RNBO out of packages and enjoy Max without it.
But for me too, it is a bit undefined, mentioning "included" RNBO as if it were a free package.
I don't care really much, just it is annoying to have a package included in the App, but you can't really use it without buying it first.
Like if my trip to a local pub would be with included 2nd pint of beer, in case I buy myself 1st one.. but actually I still have to pay for the 2nd one.
One would actually expect Max 8.4 with fixed bugs,
which are quite a few, with added support for
RNBO package if one buys and downloads it.
Reminds me a bit on the time when jitter was first introduced
and "included" into Max, but ...
I don't mind if pricing is whatever it is, as long as I have a choice to buy that 2nd beer or not.
Very disappointed of your marketing and the price tag (almost 380€ is insane). Code licensing is also dubious. Also that there is no crossgrade for existing customers is unbelievable. I hope the gen~ export to C++ & JUCE functions will not suffer and will continue to be supported.
Thank you for a very interesting presentation, C74.
Are there any plans afoot to add jitter, may we know, and if so, how far away would it be?
@David Meyer There are no differences in license terms between Gen and RNBO Code Export. The code exported by RNBO and Gen both use the Cycling '74 License for Max-Generated Code for Export.
Here is a FAQ regarding Code Export:
https://support.cycling74.com/hc/en-us/articles/10730637742483-RNBO-Export-Licensing-FAQ
Well, good to know, thank you.
I have a more constructive question. If you have a permanent license of Max, is it not possible to buy RNBO by subscription?
@DAVID MEYER We don't currently offer RNBO subscriptions for full Max licenses. The following is an article that covers the basics of RNBO purchases:
https://support.cycling74.com/hc/en-us/articles/10542305345043-Purchasing-RNBO
RNBO looks really great, but I have to say the marketing side of the rollout is being handled, IMHO, very poorly. It makes no sense to me, for example, that as someone who has purchased Ableton Live Suite and full Max for full ticket prices (a lot of cash!), I can't get the RNBO add on at academic rate now that I am back in school, or try it out a subscription add on rate. (To clarify, I understand that I can't do these things - I'm saying that decision makes me feel quite poorly treated as a customer and is, in my humble opinion, some poor pricing strategy that will not help uptake.)
Product looks very cool though! pity about the first impressions. :-/
It seems to me that someone wants to charge for a short update or a pack twice for a product that has already been purchased.
If it had been correctly implemented it would have been interesting a few years ago, today it is very common (anyone finds exciting frameworks that can export on all kinds of platforms and without contracts and tricky licenses).
@IAIN DUNCAN If you are currently a student or a teacher and would qualify for academic pricing, please drop a note to support@cycling74.com.
So I want to make sure I understand…RNBO can be used to create VST plugins and if I want to be able to do that I have to pay $299 for the product. Further, cycling74 is the “author” of that created plugin?
Then, if I want to distribute that plugin, or include it with some other product, then I have to pay further licensing fees?
Is that correct?
Thanks Ben, I will do so.
Impressive! at least at the first glance. Putting price aside, I’m wondering who’s the audience for this addon? RNBO (btw - great name! easy to remember and recall) looks like a bigger brother of the gen-suite with part of its infrastructure in the cloud. For academic arts community (hello!) this is way beyond interests and technical comprehension, for „serious” developers licensing scheme is just scary (and the tools provided are quite basic – data structures? abstraction?). RNBO seems great for stuff like „butterworth filter modulated by logistic function as vst3 as a piece of art depicting the confusion of a modern man in changing times”. But those people may struggle with the price. Maybe there are some plans for more-native M4L devices? Full-transition to the web? But how it integrates with Mira/Web? And so on...
I’m just curious how it will roll out. Ars pro arte for me.
@DHJDHJDHJ Here are some answers to your questions that will hopefully clarify a few things.
Using the Audio Plugin Export Target (one of the currently available Export Targets), RNBO can be used to create VST3 and AU plugins.
Yes, RNBO is a paid add-on to Max.
No, Cycling ’74 is not the author of your code. Cycling ’74 retains the copyright over the RNBO exported source code. That copyright is not a patent or any other claim on your algorithms or your RNBO patcher, but pertains to the text of the generated code.
If you are an entity with under $200k in annual revenue or funding, you pay nothing for commercial use of the RNBO exported code. If you are using RNBO exported code for commercial purposes regardless of revenue or funding, please contact us at licensing@cycling74.com about licenses for commercial use.
If you want to learn more about RNBO licensing, please refer to the RNBO Licensing FAQ.
Thanks for the clarification. However, given that Cycling74 retains the copyright over the exported source code, they might as well own what is produced since they get to control what can be done with it, i.e, require payments for some commercial use.
In any case, it's a moot point. I would have loved to have experimented with it to create some useful plugins but there's absolutely no way I would consider sharing my revenue numbers with a third party.
Very interesting, but the BIG question is this one:
Is the RNBO object set extensible via an SDK by our own C++ code?
@Diemo Not at this time, but we have done some prototyping of this type of feature and would love to hear more from developers that might be interested in that sort of feature over time to consider for future versions.
@source audio "As a choice, one can trash RNBO out of packages and enjoy Max without it." Turns out we can't. I've removed it but it the package is added straight back when restarting MAX.
This is incredibly shoddy behaviour from @cycling74. Shades of Apple foisting that U2 album on every iTunes user. Give us the option of removing it. At least Apple did that much. Its nothing but unwanted clutter taking up disk space for me.
No iOS export target :( out of game...
If I trash anything on my computer, it never ever comes back, unless I want it to.
Maybe you have some auto restore-backup-keep healthy whatever stuff
on yours...
Even package manager offers to install it,
means no trace of it in Max
@joshua - FWIW that would be a major motivator for me. I'm not sure yet that RNBO solves any problems for my use cases right now absent being able to extend it with an RNBO equivalent of externals, but if it had that, it would definitely be of more interest.
Also, just some market feedback to C74 from the sidelines - and please take this as an attempt to be helpful because this is amazing technical work and I would love to see it, and the larger Max world, continue to succeed and grow (and I am heavily invested in Max with Scheme for Max!).
The cost to benefit scenario for RNBO is odd to me, and not particularly compelling (yet). It's seems very high for personal use (especially if you are coming at it from the Max for Live side so one is likely in well over $1000 already...), but it's unclear as to whether it's attractive for commercial use. If the intent is for commercial use, I would recommend a much clearer page on licenses and revenue thresholds and so on, like the one on the JUCE site (they did a really good job of laying that out with their graph). I have reservations when I read there is a $200k ceiling before we need a special license - but there is no information on how expensive that license is or what is entailed. For JUCE, I know exactly what the long term situation will be and can use that to determine if I want to start prototyping with it. (FWIW, I work in diligence in software mergers and acquisitions so this is the kind of thing I talk with a lot of software companies and investors about.)
It would be a lot more attractive to me if I could buy a significantly cheaper "strictly no commercial redistribution" license with an option to upgrade that license to commercial later if warranted (again similar to what JUCE and QT do). At half the price for personal use, I would have been pulling out the plastic already.... ;-)
Hope that is somewhat useful feedback. I do realize that pricing for software companies is a dark art and very, very difficult.
Hi C74 folks, the license page could be a lot more clear. We have the following:
"What are the terms of the license for commercial usage?
If you are an entity with under $200k in annual revenue or funding, you pay nothing for commercial use of the RNBO exported code. If you are using RNBO exported code for commercial purposes, regardless of revenue or funding, please contact us at licensing@cycling74.com about licenses for commercial use."
This implies to me that
a) I cannot use RNBO exported code for commercial use without paying more if I make over $200k - regardless of the type of use. (IE I am a studio making tools for our use and not redistributing, but my studio clears $200k through any of its work)
b) If I use RNBO for commercial purposes (regardless of revenue level or type) - I need to contact C74 about a license - a license for which I have no idea about the costs or restrictions.
If both of these are true, this is not an attractive license situation (if they are not true, this needs to be rewritten). This ought to be reworded to clarify a) where revenue can come from b) what is meant by commercial purpose (redistribution vs
reselling vs internal use) c) what is entailed with getting a commercial license from C74. Please keep in mind that if one is a sole-prop and runs projects with subcontractors, it is very easy to hit $200k in *revenue* without making much money, and that *all* your work (music or no) goes through that entity (because it's a sole prop). I regularly run projects with a profit margin of only 10-20% when there are other good reasons to take it on (such as providing work to my friends).
I really want to like RNBO, but am afraid that if the above is all accurate, this is a non-starter for me. And just to be clear, I'm not saying these comments out of ignorance. Part of my job is talking to software companies and the investors that buy them about the long term ramifications of their platform and license decisions. I think RNBO looks amazing for personal use, but for commercial use the license page is a big red flag as it is currently worded.
Gotta say that the pricing is pretty tone deaf during a time of huge economic upheaval.
its absolutely ridiculous that there isn’t a cheaper option for non commercial use or at least a subscription option for full max license owners.
All of this seems like typical tech bro behaviour. I guess you’re trying to compete with Elon and Twitter here with the price gouging.
if i would have to guess i would say that commercial use implies redistribution.
while all these words on the various sites are completely unclear, if not contradictionary, the basic idea to make individual contracts seems very right to me, in a way.
Ben, am I right that RNBO is just a long awaited buffer~ feature for gen~ sold as a separate purchase?
Thanks to everyone who gave us feedback about the lack of clarity around the "add-on" nature of RNBO. We've updated some of that language around the site to hopefully provide more clarity. For those still trying to assess whether RNBO is for you, I highly recommend trying it out in trial mode – which allows you to do everything but save, and is not time-limited.
@Andrew, I just want to say, following on my complaints, that the C74 policy of unlimited demos, where the only cripple is saving, is awesome. It is, IMHO, one of the coolest features of Max, and I'm glad it's the same for RNBO. For my own work (Scheme for Max) it's great that people can get playing with it and really do quite an amazing amount before having to decide if a purchase is worth it to them.
@Iain and others concerned about RNBO licensing terms and copyright. We've attempted to make some clarifications on our RNBO Export Licensing FAQ.
Importantly, we've spelled out a commitment to no commercial licensing fees for any code exported with RNBO 1.X for commercial entities of any size, and no need to register with us for commercial use if you are an entity with under $200k in revenue or funding. Larger entity commercial use will need to contact us and receive a formal license for commercial use (without fee).
As for copyright, we tried to make clear what it applies to, and why it is there. Essentially, it does not take ownership of your creative work, and it is a necessary legal mechanism for us to be able to enforce any license that differentiates commercial and non-commercial usage.
We realize all this legal licensing stuff is cumbersome and confusing. It's way more complicated than simply releasing a closed source software product, and we're learning on how to best communicate it in a way that isn't being misunderstood. Thank you for your patience with us as we continue to learn in this process.
We also understand that for some users, our licensing terms may not be compatible with how you would like to operate commercially. We respect that decision, and we feel that the licensing terms are open enough that a majority of users of commercial and non-commercial applications will find them adequate and acceptable, as people have with Gen code export under similar terms for a wide variety of projects.
I hope this helps to answer some of the questions and concerns that you have about licensing and exported source code copyright. Please let us know additional questions you have, and we'll do our best to answer them. Needless to say, it's pretty busy over here, so some of our answers and communication improvements might take a couple days to get to.
Thank you again for all your valuable feedback and more importantly creative uses of Max, MSP, Jitter, Gen, RNBO and beyond. We've worked on this and all our other products as a labor of love dedicated to this community, and can't wait to see all that you do with RNBO.
Sincerely,
Joshua
The document is there and it clearly says something else, I don't think anyone would risk their work and their intellectual property for a comment on a forum that promises a benevolent interpretation, because the license (ominous) AT THE END OF THE DAY is there. Cycling74 concerned about the community, has to take into account a factor about its users/customers who spend money on your product.: DIGNITY.
sorry, couldn't find the answer when looking so far: (i know it sounds like 'rainbow' but..) are the letters 'RNBO' an acronym for anything specific?
Really Not Best Offer
I have just read the RNBO Licensing FAQ and despite all the well-meaning assurances from Cycling74, I can't help but be disturbed by this text: "Cycling ’74 retains the copyright over the RNBO exported source code that realizes your work with the RNBO Engine… We reserve the right to change the terms and conditions of commercial use of code generated with RNBO versions greater than 1.X."
If I paid > 300 USD for a compiler, I would be pretty dismayed if I find out later that the compiler developer retains commercial rights to any and all compiled output from said compiler.
if it sounds like rainbow, it means rainbow. :)
but it fits into the picture that not even this is explained somewhere.
@Joshua "...We've worked on this and all our other products as a labor of love dedicated to this community, and can't wait to see all that you do with RNBO."
I’ll take that at face value but as you will have seen from the comments, RNBO is priced way too high for regular, non-commercial MAX users. At 2/3rd the cost of a full MAX licence (and that’s not including the current 20% discount on MAX) it’s a ridiculous amount to expect users to pay. I just don't get how the company came to the conclusion that $295 is a reasonable amount to charge for this addon? Personally I think C74 will make far less money out of RNBO that it would have done if it was more affordable to what I expect is the majority of hobbyist users.
Pimp74's cloud servers, keep a copy of my code? It seems logical to me because if I pay 300 bucks that someone else considers himself the owner of the rights to my work, I also want him to keep it.
Kudos!
I've noticed the video on this page is missing: https://rnbo.cycling74.com/article/plugins
Also, maybe reconsider the wording "turning your patch into both an AU, VST & Linux plugin".
What you mean is a plugin in VST3 format compiled for either OS; Win/Mac/Linux. There are native Linux plugin formats like LV2, LADSPA, DSSI and the wording sounds like you would support these.
Hope this feedback helps. Keep up the good work.
@Joshua: Thanks for giving us hope that it might become possible at some point to extend the RNBO object set via an SDK. All our pipo audio and gesture analysis plugins are crying out for being integrated into a dynamic compilation environment, where one can set up the data flow graphically, instead of by yet another graph syntax within mubu.
@Cyling Team
I started to dive a bit deeper into RNBO - I am even more impressed. Features, stability, performance, and the really good documentation all that in a 1.0 release!
Are there any plans to support MPE and MPE-polyphony in some future? That would make it even more valuable to me!
--------------------
Chiming in on the discussion of pricing: Yes it costs a significant amount of money and I too cannot afford it immediately. But being a (part-time) developer myself, I do not find it overpriced. There is so much going on under the hood, an incredible amount of seamless integrations of so many different technologies. The work needed to build a system like that from a starting idea and bringing it to a coherent and very easy to use platform. This is high quality work in my eyes.
And let's do not forget that a one-time payment includes an unlimited access to the building and trans-coding infrastructure that is running in the background.
I could easily think of a lot companies who would happily take advantage of these external dependencies and charging for every single build.
I will be definitely saving up money and trying to purchase a license as soon as I can afford it. And even though it's currently a lot for me, I will think about as well spent.
And let's don't forget we got just recently mc.* as a free incremental update!
------------------
sorry, couldn't find the answer when looking so far: (i know it sounds like 'rainbow' but..) are the letters 'RNBO' an acronym for anything specific?
Let's make something up :)
RNBO: Rise n' Be Organic
While I am sympathetic to some of the concerns around pricing and licensing mentioned here, I'm nonetheless very excited about RNBO.
One interface question/suggestion: will it be possible to do 'set' and 'param' in the object inspector instead of as separate objects? It would be a nice option to keep patches less cluttered.
Also, are there any plans to bring in the pitch/time stretching from Max? FFT?
Let's make something up :)
RNBO: Rise n' Be Organic
Haha, yes! I love that :D
(far better than my 1st guess: “Raja’s Narcissism Becomes Object-oriented”)
Hey there!
just curious if anyone has tips for recreating the vexpr @scalarmode 1 for operating on lists in rnbo — and/ or if cycling 74 has any plans for adding more objects to rnbo going forward.
Thanks!
- Aaron
Some years ago I couldn't imagine what else Max needed as a major feature... and now we got this. Damn. Impressive.
@aaron we will definitely be adding objects to RNBO over time
To simulate vexpr @scalarmode 1 in RNBO right now I'd probably use list.iter -> expr -> list.group as shown below. You may also find list support in codebox useful for your needs.
@UNUNUNIUM without committing to if/when it will happen, I like your ideas about using the inspector and object arguments for setting subpatcher parameters (I think that's what you're asking).
Regarding pitch/time, we do not have plans on bringing the zynaptiq pitch/time library features to RNBO at this time. However, FFT is working already in RNBO. We hope to have some nice examples demonstrating its use in the near future.
Finally, I'd recommend starting new threads on specific RNBO topics, rather than one long thread with all these questions about RNBO.
@JAN Thank you for your kind words!
We definitely hope to better support MPE in a future RNBO update, but do not have any timeline.
Can not say anything yet about price (since i more GFX user, while this addon mainly sound related, right, so i rather calm), but wanted to say to c74 team - guys if you later make it as a free addon for MAX (as it happened with some stuff already once) the dude who buys it first, he'll just go and shoot himself lol. I hope you understand this, it's a lot of money.
Just, would like the slightest confirmation that you will not do this with RNBO.
regardless of if C74 say they have /have not 'plans' today of rolling into Max
history, shows they will... roll RNBO into Max, they did it with gen/jitter.
Id not be surprised if its not the key selling point for Max 9...
I guess then the question is... will those with Max8+RNBO, get a special upgrade price?
as for price... I think it depends on C74 target market.
sure, if they think people are going to sell whats created with RNBO its ok.
personally, I doubt thats true for many software developers, as most of us use C++ natively, RNBO doesn't add much for us. (esp. given licensing terms on RNBO)
the issue is I think RNBO is best considered/utilised as an enabling technology for non-developers. the issue there is, at that point, its pretty expensive for anyone that is not already really invested in Max.
thats a shame , as I think this is where RNBO could really shine, really be a bit of a game changer.
I guess, that could happen once RNBO gets rolled into max, but by then, no doubt we'll all have moved onto the next shiny thing :)
Joshua, thanks for clarifying things but I'm still not sure I totally understand: referring to parts of the license in italics below:
no need to register with us for commercial use if you are an entity with under $200k in revenue or funding. Larger entity commercial use will need to contact us and receive a formal license for commercial use (without fee).
If indeed there will be no fee for commercial use (which seems like good news) regardless of the revenue of the entity, why are you distinguishing between entities below and above $200k in revenue? Why is a "formal license" necessary at all? And what information needs to be disclosed to get a formal license?
it is a necessary legal mechanism for us to be able to enforce any license that differentiates commercial and non-commercial usage
Again, why? If you are not going to charge fees regardless of entity size, then what exactly is it that you have to enforce?
We reserve the right to change the terms and conditions of commercial use of code generated with RNBO versions greater than 1.X."
This feels very nasty --- changes in terms and conditions in the future that are not acceptable not only prevents future use of RNBO (and in particularly benefiting from bug fixes), but also means that any investment made now to leverage RNBO would be completely lost --- consequently it would be safer to simply not commit to using it at all.
@dhjdhjdhj
Again thank you for your interest and concern here. Just a brief message for now. I hope to be able to more adequately address your questions and also provide more context for what the reasoning of the licensing model in place in the coming weeks, and preferably in a deeper way than forum thread messages. At the immediate moment I would like to focus on some important bug fixes and feature improvements, and will get back to this conversation when I have some time to focus on the topic more meaningfully than quick messages on a forum thread. In the meantime, I totally respect if you choose to not use RNBO for your projects.
Very nice achievement ! expected for so long. Thanks
But :
1) expensive: about the same price as Max itself.
2) web export terribly disappointing, because it needs web coding in addition. It would have been so nice to export patches to the web, without reprogramming the hole graphic interface in a web language. To me this limit unfortunately brings back RNBO in the category of 'designed for coders only' tools.
Maybe something could be done one day because web formats are definitely the main purpose for me, even more important than vst.
Best regards
Not sure what think of this. It is as if all software is slowly turning into an advertising platform.
@joshua kit clayton, thanks for the responses on this, and I appreciate that you all must have a lot on the plate! A request: please consider the revenue entity bit when you revisit the license issue. When it comes to licenses, the fine print details matter hugely. And as I mentioned before, that sounds like a lot until you consider that anyone who owns their private company, and hires other people can very easily hit $200k of revenue while not making much profit. In other platform licenses I have looked at (can't recall OTOH who it was, sorry) this was spelled out clearly - and was set to be *of any kind of revenue* (because otherwise, how do you enforce it? how do you say what comes from one licensed tool or another? so I would assume the fine print is going to be "the entity's gross revenue").
Trust me also when I say that for any small software company who might have eventual exit aspirations, these details are very important and will very often be the overarching determiner on framework choice. I have done diligences with many investors, and they all want to know what all the license encumbrances are for a target company and get very nervous about anything that is not crystal clear or puts the company into a possibly unknown or changeable situation. (And way more small companies are eventually doing exits to private equity than used to be the case, FWIW).
I love Max, I have massive respect for C74 (and Ableton). If anyone at Cycling wants to talk to me about this I would be happy to do so. I have been working for the last 4 years for the biggest diligence provider for software transactions (we have literally done thousands) and know a great deal about what the other side of the table on these things looks like. HTH.
@joshua "In the meantime, I totally respect if you choose to not use RNBO for your projects."
But I want to -- I'm just afraid to! Others have expressed exactly the same concerns --- e.g, as @iain Duncan accurately noted, that $200k or significantly more gross revenue is easy to reach if your product is any good but your net may still be zero (or even negative if you're growing and investing)
What complicates this more is that, unlike a company building a C++ compiler (say) for use in any industry, you're creating products for a domain in which you're also a competitor (I'm also thinking of Ableton here).
Imagine the scenario where somebody uses RNBO to create a plugin that competes with a plugin that Ableton (say) also develops and Ableton gets to just nix you.
I've read through the licensing, and privacy policy, but as i will not be installing Max 8.4 any time soon i cannot read the EULA that comes in the package, so am still completely in the dark as to the data protections implemented in the use of the cloud servers which are a necessary part of the build process for RNBO exports. I have serious concerns over how this is implemented.
Are C74 committed to running these servers indefinitely at their own cost, and will there always be full access to the build environment via RNBO for license holders?
Will there be downtime notices?
What is the transport mechanism for sending data?
Is it encrypted?
Under what legal jurisdiction are the servers located?
Is any user information stored on them permanently?
Is the data processed in such a way as to be able to uniquely identify users?
And if so what is the user data that is transmitted and stored?
Et cetera.
data protections implemented in the use of the cloud servers which are a necessary part of the build process for RNBO exports.
this is simply not true...code can generated and built locally.... so will not hit cloud servers.
the detail of this is already public and detailed in the RNBO docs, so its not an issue.
(btw: its max 8.5 not 8.4)
You misunderstand, i'm not talking about code generation:
https://rnbo.cycling74.com/learn/export-targets-overview#the-cloud-compiler
Also very strange wording in that section i linked (emphasis mine):
After exporting our RNBO patch, it is sent off to the Cloud Compiler which remotely compiles the patch to our target format and sends us the output once it's done.
What about my patch...?
yes... but you if you use the C++ Code Target then you can compile locally
so it does not touch the cloud.
https://rnbo.cycling74.com/learn/the-cpp-source-code-target-introduction
(and yes, this what Im already doing... so I know its possible, to compile outside the cloud ;) )
so, if someone has concerns over cloud compiling, simply don't use it.
(and to be clear, all the targets you can do via the cloud, can also be done via the c++ source code route, using the supplied c74 templates)
Well bully for you. We can all manually compile our own code. However, that doesn't answer any of my questions, and is not actually descriptive of the complete process being sold under this product which explicitly emphasizes the cloud* remote compilation aspect.
*(cloud means 3rd party owned server, this should be clearly stated, not obfuscated by a buzzterm. Does use of 'the cloud' mean AWS, or Azure, or some other server farm monolith (as is usually the case), or is it that C74 have machines under their exclusive ownership and control which are configured for this specific purpose?)
(I'm sorry to break the EULA discussion)
Guys, two questions:
1) Do there already exists simple example of compiled VST3 plugin from Max environment (via RNBO) ?
2) It is means that m4l devices can also be vst3 already ?
@TECHNOBEAR wrote
.. all the targets you can do via the cloud, can also be done via the c++ source code route, using the supplied c74 templates
I think this is the crucial point. If a developer can just uses the c++ export and template method for all dev needs, then s/he can probably avoid some of the pitfalls mentioned here.
The key thing is to have (1) a large developer ecosystem providing a whole bunch of open-source templates which can do more then what the black-box cloud compiler can do and (2) to lose the ambiguity on licensing related to the exported (c++) code. But even for the latter point, I read somewhere (I think it was the FAQ) that if one rewrites the exported c++ code in another language then one can even sidestep the licensing issues as well.
@SHAKEEB , perhaps, perhaps not....
the cloud building is very limited its not really useful for more 'serious' projects, more demos/prototypes.
why? (exported) RNBO only provides a very limited UI!
when you do export to c++ and do a local build, this is not an issue, as you can customise the code, to create the UI you need...
but with the cloud build you do not get access to the generated source, nor any means to customise or 'inject' code to create a custom UI, so you are stuck with serious UI limitations.
Im not sure what you mean about re-writing the export c++ code, thats completely impractical.
one thing that perhaps is not clear for some, is that we (as users) do not have access to the code generation code... whilst we can change how we utilise the generated code, we cannot change what code is generated.
(in this sense the term code templates being thrown around could be misleading to some that have not really dug deep into RNBO, and whats it capable (and not) of doing)
I have many reservations about RNBO, both pricing model and licensing, and how this is going to affect what we (as developers) can use RNBO for, and also the 'adoption' rates for it.... but I do think that discussion has to be based on real world use cases.
(which we probably lack at the moment, early days)
which leads me nicely to @BUGCHK questions
1) I doubt it, but you can download Max 8.5 and even in trial mode, you can generate (e.g) VSTs from the demo, so you can try it yourself.
2) M4L -> RNBO
Max != RNBO... C74 documentation explain this really well, unfortunately some 'influencers' seem to have clouded this message with their hype.
RNBO is different enough, that Max/M4L patches would need to be 're-written' as RNBO patches.
how difficult this is going to be depends on patch complexity and features of max used... some will be simple, some hard... but the more complex the patch, the more work involved.
one (key) example, is the UI I mentioned above.. the M4L UI will not 'just work' in RNBO, it will need to be re-coded.... if that M4L has a more 'complex' UI, then this will require the developer to write some C++ code.... and thats where we hit a potential issue, many M4L developers are NOT C++ developers - its a reason to choose to write M4L devices, rather than VSTs which would be usable all daws (and so wider audience).
so will M4L devices become RNBO/Vst? depend on the M4L developers skills sets, time, wishes.
Id guess, some will be looking at RNBO now, looking to see if the effort involved to 'convert', but they might wait until RNBO / Max 8.5 becomes embedded into Ableton Live, so the RNBO based M4L device can work for all (current) live users.
but its early days, its a new product, there has been (inevitable) hype surrounding it, there are dreams...
unsurprising, RNBO 1.0 cannot live up to all of this, its currently finding its niche, finding its user base.
I admit, Im mostly focused on what it can do now... rather that what 2.0/3.0 might do... as I simply dont know what C74 has planned.
but it does mean, we as developers/users probably all have different ideas about where RNBO might (should?) go in the future... so thats going to colour discussions I guess, whilst the dust settles.
@THETECHNOBEAR damn ok thanks. Sounds not so simple (was hoping for a more easier exhaust lol)
Well maybe someday
Is it possible to purchase a monthly RNBO license without being on the Max subscription license? I own a permanent (i.e. non-subscription) license of Max so don't need a Max monthly license but I don't see a way on the purchase page of buying RNBO monthly license without also purchasing a monthly Max license.
doesn't seem like it... I had the same issue, (had to buy a permanent license)
Im guessing whatever license you own for max, you have to buy the same for rnbo
plans for Clap support?
been trying it out a bit, this is quite a deal actually… i mean, just for free, i can already build a VST3 (i just have to get it done in one sitting and hope it doesn’t crash… but so far so good, and soooo fun)… i’m not sure what people are complaining about… i haven’t paid yet, but plan to, but even without paying it’s already a ridiculously huge amount they’ve given me(i also looked at the code generation… i can even learn from the C++ (it even output interpolation libraries i didn’t expect to see, just for a simple/quick comb~-based effect plugin?), there’s quite a bit to borrow and learn from)…
also, i took a look back at the license page(i think they changed it recently), that also seems fair now, altho, personally, i wish they’d up the amount before contacting them for licensing to 400k(as it can often help a start-up business to fortify more properly if it can build more before it has to start even worrying about licensing and such). still, it’s fair enough: they don’t say you need to contact based on 200k of profit from RNBO alone(the wording is something like ‘annual funding’, etc. which means the income/profit needs to be firmly established at that level to a certain degree; you could make 1 million from your first RNBO product, spend 900k on building your business within that year, never call anything but 100k of that true ‘profit’ and not have to contact Cycling74 until the next year when your badass AI-driven FFT-masher-magic-plugin continues to make millions but this year you can no longer think of any more business expenses so, instead, you decide to spend it on a new mansion with platinum bathtubs, at which point, Cycling74 will tell you, “sorry, platinum bathtubs are not business expenses, you must pay us this much percentage of your millions this year for we have a very needy community of users who are barking at our door for more and you seem to be doing just fine now(platinum bathtubs, really? … you’re welcome, btw)”)
quick question if anyone has anytime to answer: how do i create a proper sidechain for a vst or au plugin? i can’t seem to use the usual in~ objects, nor the audio param~(…i also don’t see any special attribute to set for those to turn them into a sidechain)… just to explain the issue further:
some DAWs i use that take VST/AU allow routing a ‘sidechain’ bus to a plugin which is properly enabled with one. I can tell that i’m unable to build one with rnbo because Renoise tells me, no matter what i do with in~s and param~s in the plugins that i’ve exported, that the plugin ’doesn’t accept sidechains’(unlike others such as Fabfilter C2 which can have sidechain bus routed to them).
(if there’s no current way to build plugins with a proper sidechain feature, my first major feature request for rnbo would be to add the ability to create sidechain in plugins)
tl;dr-this thing is awesome(pricing & licensing is both understandable and fair(oh and for the question about servers, i’ve seen the public download links on this site long ago have URLs from Amazon’s AWS, and when i build my plugins in rnbo(without even paying for it so far), it has the speed comparable of some huge service like Amazon, so that would be my guess: you don’t need to worry about that side of it(anymore than you already worry about what Amazon does with your information, haha XD.. but srrsly i’m not worried))
i plan to buy it next year as my budget frees up(even if my issue with sidechains remains), but for now, it’s already giving so much even just for free, and i only have one question: how do we create a proper ‘sidechain’ bus/channel for plugins in rnbo?
if you have an idea how to make 1 million dollars with an fft mangler masher destroyer plug-in without GUI, then please let me know, so that i can compete with you in this field.
but we have to be quick, because in 2025 steinzwerg might switch to clap (because it allows fancy stuff like sidechain inputs)
(wanna see m new pluggo with GL graphics, multiple sidechains, linking option between plug-ins, TCP/IP remote control, parameter morphing and multiprocessor support?)
(wanna see m new pluggo with GL graphics, multiple sidechains, linking option between plug-ins, TCP/IP remote control, parameter morphing and multiprocessor support?)
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Yes i do 🙋♂️
it´s top secret, as usual.
(actually i just changed the license model 20 minutes ago.)
and multiprocessor support?
Um, yes, that's exactly what I want to see! It sounds very useful for my fft mangler.
This is odd.
^ha, nice find.
i think that might actually make sense, tho… MC is max/msp-specific: just a way to extend the number of channels on an msp object(a wrapper specific to the way msp-externals are written), to do something ‘multichannel’ in other areas, we just have to build our own channel mixing internally… but most of all, i think it’s because rnbo doesn’t handle messages and all those objects are severely controlled by messaging in ways that can’t be fixed with rnbo’s specific ‘set’ object for attributes and parameters(also, the ’set’ object doesn’t take lists and most of those objects involve some kind of list-processing internally for many of the event-messaging, including the mc-objects).
in the future, they might make ‘rnbo’-specific versions of those objects(but then, for example, the ‘rnbo’-specific ’subdiv~‘ object, while it could be made to take signals for subdivision(or have the subdivision number turned into an ‘attribute’ and then you can use the ‘set’ object within rnbo just for that one parameter), and then the rest of its messaging/control options would have to be removed(the ‘prob’ message takes lists, i don’t think they’ll ever do event-style lists in rnbo-world the way they are in max(because it’s a datatype/format specific to max) - so things like this just have to be removed), just so you have the standard subdiv~ functionality - at that point: would be just as easy to make in gen~ - i’m guessing this is what they’re thinking)
@👽R∆J∆ THE RESIDENT ∆LIEN👽
Crazy. Only an alien could possibly know that out of all those objects I was only wanting to use subdiv~ inside of RNBO and only need the attributes, not probably.