I'm sorry for those folks who purchased the download of MC2.8 or MC3, but when I purchased the upgrade (boxed 2.8) I expected to get what they offered... when I upgraded (free download) to 3.0 I expected to get MC3.0.

If anyone thought if they were going to get anything more... then too bad. There have been numerous posts of folks complaining that Avid slighted them in regards to the 3rd party software. When it was not Avid, but the consumers own speed that was the undoing. For those who decided NOT to wait until 3.0 was released and scrambled for the 2.8 (either download or boxed) do you actually know what you want?

Avid sell an editing program... they offer an editing program... folks wanted a better editing program than the original offerings...

It seems now that Avid has brought us, we shall see, a better editing program that encompasses a lot of what folks requested - people are complaining about for the sake of complaining. If you misread what was offered, then sorry.. you misread what was offered. Strange how it seems that it was so clear to numerous others... but those who are whining about not getting the most up-to-date 3rd party gear.

Why come on the boards and complain? You all know Avid will not make any official comment here. Why not contact Avid directly? Why not contact where you made the purchase (and if that was here, online, contact Avid [800.949.2843])?

"Understand however that for a lot of of people the so called "free" software IS part of the complete package."

And that is their mistake. By 'a lot of people's' logic if I read instructions wrong and damage my new video camera, I should hold the company responsible?

"My question is did I just throw away $295 upgrading to 2.8 because I did not wait 2 weeks? That's where I get upset. "

Answer, yes. You have absolutely no-one else to blame but yourself.

Ahh.... it's early, i'm punch-drunk sleepy, i'm leaving.

 Kent, I half agree with you.

I bought 2.8 and was happy knowing I would get 3 free and I'm very happy with what I've got. My only concern (and Avid are looking into it) I just feel Avid could have been more upfront about this at the time. In the FAQ for example (I cant remember the exact wording) it said there was no dissadvantage in upgrading early to 2.8, this more accuarately should have read there is no dissadvantage in upgrading to 2.8 early, you will get v3 for free, however you will be missing out on additional and newer versions of the TP software. I guess those boxes would have stayed on the shelves for 3 months and then had to go back.

I agree the download clearly says no TP software so there is no argument there. If I buy a new BMW and want leather seats and have to pay extra for them that is fine after all it is the car I want. That isn't to say I would not be best pleased to find out they were including leather seats for free the next month.

I thought these boards were for a whole host of things and people expressing their views can lead to change. I lost count of how many posts there bwere on the AXP forum re JVC 720 support, even on this forum there has been a run on Mojo DX Lite.

Any how I'm done with this now, will see what happens. Not sure if you had just got up or were just going to bed but I hope you're feeling better now

Graham

"it said there was no dissadvantage in upgrading early to 2.8,"

And there was none.

"this more accuarately should have read there is no dissadvantage in upgrading to 2.8 early, you will get v3 for free, however you will be missing out on additional and newer versions of the TP software."

Again, this is Avid's fault? No. It's the buyers fault. Avid sell editing solutions - not 3rd party software. What they sold  - including the boxed 2.8 - is what they sold.

"If I buy a new BMW and want leather seats and have to pay extra for them that is fine after all it is the car I want. That isn't to say I would not be best pleased to find out they were including leather seats for free the next month."

True... but do you blame BMW? Do you expect BMW should give you leather for free now? That is like going to a car dealership and buying a new car with 7% APR - but a month later they began offering 0% APR - if you REALLY need that car at the earlier time, then buy the car... yes, you missed out on a deal a month later.. again.. the car company should have anticipated you and offered the deal earlier? or should extend you the offer? No, of course not.

Now if all this complaining is merely a vent of frustration from those who decided to purchase early and are upset at themselves - then I have no issues with it... but stop blaming Avid - blame them for bad handling of 720 implementation... blame them for those erroneous errors that appear on approved systems that have no reason..

Good night to all and to all a good night.

 OK so in answer to my earlier question - you are just going to bed.

I guess we will just have to dissagree on this one, but if i were to some up my views in one word it would be 'integrity' and i believe in business you should have integrity and i believe on this occassion there is a big question mark over it on Avids part.

So in essence I, and others, have been penalised for purchasing early. First time in my life  I have ever come across such a situation. The questions I have asked remain unanswered but hey I have learned a valuable lesson, albeit the hard way, as in bitter taste in mouth not to be forgotten - Never, ever be too eager to buy an Avid product, you just don't know what is just around the corner!

No bad feelings, well not to anyone on this forum. This has taken far too much of my time already, if you can't change it move on and all that. No more will be said.

Graham

sasfog:

Never, ever be too eager to buy an Avid product, you just don't know what is just around the corner!

My friend, this is true about almost anything. There's always something bigger, cheaper, and better just around the corner. This is my life story when it comes to buying computers - if only I had waited a few more weeks . . So the next time you buy a new plasma TV, or a new Beamer, remember - there are still people watching 20 inch CRT's and driving '86 Fords in the world. My, aren't we the lucky ones?

Peace

Hi Graham,

There are a lot of instances where waiting just a bit longer would've been prudent.  For example, I bought a Sony mp3 player in January.  The only drawback to it was it only had 8gb of storage, which allows me to fit my entire music library on it with a little room to spare.  I'd have liked to get one with a larger capacity and more room for growth, but it didn't exist in January, so I got what I got.  Last month, Sony released a model with 16gb of storage.  Now, should Sony have to give me the 16gb model for free?  Should I get a credit for the one I bought 4 months earlier?

If you don't like that example, I bought an HP laptop in January (January was a good month for me, electronically ).  Here we are 5 months later and I can get a more powerful model for the same price I paid.  Should HP have to upgrade my laptop to what I can get today?

I fully understand your point, and I almost agree that people getting the free 3.0 upgrade should also get the third party add ons, but the third party add ons are a bonus no matter when you get Media Composer.  People who bought it 2 years ago and got BCC 3 (or whatever it was at the time) don't get upgrades, so why should you?

One thing I do agree with is you shouldn't ever rush into buying an Avid product.  I've been participating on Avid forums and email lists for about 9 years, and I can't count the number of times I've seen posts from people who bought a fully priced product which was heavily discounted 2 months later when a new version came out (I remember a whole lot of them in the Meridien to Adrenaline period).  When the email lists and forums are all buzzing about new products and changing attitudes, that's the time to wait and see what happens.

good luck,
Carl

 OK point taken, I just don't think I made mine very well.

Just off to polish the car.

Peace

 "this is Avid's fault? No. It's the buyers fault. Avid sell editing solutions - not 3rd party software."

Solopost,

First you defend Avid as if you defend your country, relax its only a business company that makes very good money from all of us including you.

Second when I buy a box I pay for ALL THAT IN IT INCLUDE 3rd PARTY. I dont care its Avid made or not. I pay to Avid and they are responsible.

One more thing Avid didnt lie to us they just didnt tell us the whole truth.You may say its ok but many of us do feel that we were deceived, and here in the forum is the right and only place we can talk about it and make a change. Maybe not this time maybe next time Avid will be more clear.  And you can keep on  complaining  on us because thats ok too.

I would like to know why everybody is calling the third party software "free"? I haven't seen anywhere on the Avid site where it bears that description. It is properly called "Bundled" software and the Avid Store doesn't even call it that. It is packaged with Avid software and as such, is being sold as a "package". You can get a 20% discount on your upgrade price if you choose a download only version without any 3rd party software or manuals.

As such, Avid really does have a moral obligation to at least let us know that the 3rd party "bundled" software will only be upgradeable with an upgrade charge (on 8 day old software!) when they tell us that there is "no reason not to buy now".  I agree with an earlier comment that Avid wouldn't sell many boxes of software with a FAQ that revealed that information. I do believe that the dissenters to a more open upgrade program are just feeling jilted by another Avid purchase they made in the past and are only trying to help us cope. I appreciate their efforts and support but the policy is still wrong. It is not out of Avid's control. Avid is a very large company and gives away lots of software every year and even makes a few bucks by doing so. They can also set up any agreement they want as far as Sorenson or Boris are concerned. We aren't talking about a huge number of systems here.

I would venture a guess that the price reductions and bundling are an effort to stop the flow of editors migrating to Final Cut Pro Studio 2 and that it would make the crowds scream bloody murder if Apple made users pay extra to upgrade Motion or Compressor or DVD Studio pro or any of the quality products that they sell in their rightly called "package". Before anybody becomes righteous and tells me to go edit on Final Cut, I already use both. Avid has to realize that there is competition out there and even a single lost customer can have deep and lasting impact on their long term survival. Ask any of the growing number of former Avid edit house that use Final Cut now!

Sorry for the long post but I hope I've kept you amused

Free or not, the point is you purchased a product and that what was delivered to you - nothing more nothing less. Now trying to some how say you are entitled to more is disengenous, especially when you considered the price you paid is heavily discounted (with or without the 'bundle).

That's ridiculous and a reflects an ignorance of business relationships. If you offer a client a heavily reduced rate, do you offer them substandard service or a product mastered on used tape or worse? Chances are that if you are a small-time, fly-by-night operator, you might. People who do major amounts of work for agencies and production companies often do work for discount prices or even break-even prices. We have to to keep our long-standing clients as clients and as such, our product has to reflect our dedication not to immediate profits but to lasting relationships. The price we paid makes no difference on our expectation of service. At least they should allow us to make informed decisions rather than withhold vital upgrade info. As a "bundle" or "package", the product I received was different from the product sold eight days later. Avid did not disclose the nature of the upgrade policy and even lead us to believe that their was no disadvantage to purchasing the "package" when in fact, the "package" was very different. There is not one incorrect fact in what I have wrote here and all you can offer is false information such as:

Now trying to some how say you are entitled to more is disengenous

Avid made the upgrade statements in their FAQ which I checked prior to purchase

the price you paid is heavily discounted

A completely irrelevant statement (see above)

As far as when I upgraded, I received my software eight days prior to V3 release and did so due to the timing of my work. I would also venture to say that the chip on your shoulder might be the result of a crappy decision to buy in the past that you are trying to validate here. I'm absolutely certain you fought tooth and nail when you lost your upgrade window.

camk:

That's ridiculous and a reflects an ignorance of business relationships.

Really? Do you offer additional products and services to your clients after the fact? Do you do this across the board.

camk:

price we paid makes no difference on our expectation of service.

But thos who purchased earlier and later ARE GETTING THE EXACT same service treatment. Everyone is getting what THEY WANTED and knowingly paid for.

camk:

the product I received was different from the product sold eight days later.

And? GM offers better deal after a 'sale event'. Do you go back to your dealer?

camk:

all you can offer is false information such as:

That is not false information - that is an observation.

camk:

the price you paid is heavily discounted

A completely irrelevant statement

Actually it is very relevant. Trying to frame this in a customer relationship, I don't see why the most important factor of a business relationship - price - is irrelevant

camk:

As far as when I upgraded, I received my software eight days prior to V3 release and did so due to the timing of my work.

You keep mentioning the date of your purchase. But unless Avid had a 'price guarantee' arrangement (I dont see one), your and my purchase date is irrelevant in this matter. When you change your pricing and services do you offer your client retro-active refund? Do you give your clients a heads up in upcoming changes in price and services? Any one here?

So - disengenous still stands.

Yes it may be good customer service to give some of you the updated package. But then again giving away anything for free or heavily lowered price is always good customer service. The 'moral obligation' comment is quite a strech.

Hello Carl,

do you know what is the academic pricing to upgrade from 2.7 to 3.0, and how to do it?

thanks,

Carlos Hervas

Yes I do offer alot after the fact. In fact, high-end post houses offer tens of thousands of dollars and more in price breaks after the fact. I have seen production companies and post houses even shell cash out of their pockets to send valued clients to other houses so that they don't destroy a relationship when deals go bad. We make a lot of money in post and sometimes we have to pay it back in what may seem unfair ways to us, the vendors. Apparently, you have a different business philosophy from mine and other high-end houses because your lack of knowledge of how they work seems foreign to you. Your analogies are faulty but I guess I have to accept that you will never see fairness as something detached from money.

camk:

In fact, high-end post houses offer tens of thousands of dollars and more in price breaks after the fact.

I'm sorry I don't buy it (stupid pun unintended). I'm never saying it never happens, but it is extremely rare. I have worked with a lot of production and post production and broadcasters to know that.

camk:

Apparently, you have a different business philosophy from mine and other high-end houses because your lack of knowledge of how they work seems foreign to you.

Basically, you are saying because I don't agree with you that I lack 'knowledge'. It is either a huge leap in logic, arrogance and/or ignorance.

You don't have to accept my analogy or my line of thinking and vice-versa. I don't see this as some kind of moral battle. To me it is a simple case of entitlement and customer service. But defintely not a 'moral' obligation as some have mentioned.

On a side note:I always find it interesting when the mass talks about moral obligations - it is usually a one way street.