Software patents? Come on... - Matthew_Foust_971

To all who read this review, PLEASE READ THE MANUAL carefully when you download the disk image. It is unfair to write a review if you do not fully explore and test the application. (It is also unfair to title your post with a comment that has nothing to do with the functionality of the application. This is very unprofessional.)

If you type Shift-Command-P or select Processor from the Window menu, you will see that you can Change Gain, Normalize, Invert Phase, Trim, Stretch, Reverse, Swap Channels, MS Decode, Remove DC Offset, Convert Sample Rate, Convert Channels, and set Thresholds.

Wave Editor is COMPLETELY NON-DESTRUCTIVE. We are not missing any core features that a basic Wave Editor should have. Also, throughout the 2-year development of this application, including extensive feedback from well-respected people in the audio world and extensive private beta testing, we have not had one user complain about layers. Quite the contrary, we have received nothing but positive feedback.

We will most likely never bundle plug-ins with this application. This is what our competition does rather than actually improving the core functionality of their products.

Wave Editor is not a multi-track recorder and is not intended to be a multi-track recorder. Please do not look to it to replace the functionality of your favorite multi-track application. Wave Editor is the application you set in the preferences of your multi-track application as your default wave editor.

For what Wave Editor does, we believe layers to be considerably more powerful and easier to use than tracks (layers interact with each other, tracks do not). I guess that's obvious though since we developed the feature.

I struggle to understand the ability to move window sections as being "weird" and "useless eye candy". We implemented the feature based on feedback from users. I haven't met very many Macintosh users who dislike the ability to customize the interface of an application. Do you really want to be locked into one view of your document? Don't you want to be able to put the overview or file information on the bottom if you want it there?

Regarding the name, we chose the name "Wave Editor" because that is what the application is. Quite frankly, there is not one on Mac OS X that is worth using which made the name all that more appealing. Our goal with this company is to give Macintosh-based audio professionals the tools they require to do their jobs with the best possible user experience. How many other Pro Audio apps fully utilize Cocoa, AppleScript/Automator, and other core features of Mac OS X? The list is inexcusably small. At this point in time, the cursory tools on Windows are far better than those on the Macintosh and that is unacceptable.

It is important to note that Ev and I started Audiofile Engineering because we own a successful recording studio in Minneapolis and became increasingly frustrated with the slow adoption of Mac OS X in the audio world. Audio Professionals deserve better than Carbonized OS 9 apps.

It's interesting that one would think this is a cheap software hack, as opposed to the other options on the Macintosh which may have a more interesting names, but are very expensive hacks. Also, I am unsure as to how the name of our app contributes to its functionality. Finally, if developers spent more time making their applications better rather than thinking of cute names for them, we would all be better off.

VersionTracker is not intended to be a forum for the pros and cons of software patents. If anyone would like to discuss that with us, we would be happy to put a thread up on our forum. I will say, however, that if you don't believe in them, how can you support Apple?

Matthew Foust
Audiofile Engineering

Reply to This

Friday, July 22 2005 @ 12:06 PM PDT

Software patents? Come on... - skyo63

Well spoken, I find.

Reply to This

Monday, August 29 2005 @ 11:05 AM PDT

Software patents? Come on... - oscarruitt_dotmac

I haven't tried the software, but based on the fact that the reviewer didn't bother to discover the "Process" menu item, I'm guessing that he/she didn't spend much time with the program. As far as the obviousness of inventions, I have found over and over and over that people will say that a new idea is obvious right after they've first seen it explained--what a coincidence.

This looks like an innovative program, so let's wait for some more reviews, and hope that they are well-considered (way to rare for versiontracker, unfortunately).

Reply to This

Wednesday, December 14 2005 @ 03:05 PM PST