Then it is logical to assume that they don't consider any regular user worth taking up. Personally I don't care, but it follows that the common gripe here that MOTU does not listen to its users has been thoroughly justified.KEVORKIAN wrote: I recognized it right away and I thought it was appropriately given. I'm not saying that your offer to assist Motu was unwarranted. I'm saying that them not taking you up on it was pretty logical.
WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. It's a myth spread by software companies to cover their incompetence. I don't mean anyone in particular but the industry as a whole with very few exceptions. It is technically possible to predict and prevent crashes from malformatted data. But those cases are considered rare and not worth as you say "taking up". I hope you'd agree that such an attitude does not make it not a bug.When software receives some unexpected input a crash is a pretty reasonable outcome. It would be cool it there were always warnings but you can't have an if/then call attached to every process. Sometimes the crash is your notification.
I wish it were like that. The only company I know that does actual compatibility tests is ProTools. As a result they list specific supported hardware and software configurations. The price of their products reflects the investments into testing. Now take the cost of running business for a small plugin company. Can you afford a complicated test environment for all possible software and hardware combinations? I doubt so. Some might even not have a copy of DP. In most cases they consider a plugin compatible if it passes AU validation under a specific host. And formally they are right because formally it is expected that the host validation should be enough for the plugin to work properly. Now, how much is to put "Digital Performer" into the list of supported hosts? Zero.I expect that when a plugin vendor lists "Digital Performer" as a supported host, that they both own a current copy of DP and have tested their application on it to see if it works properly in DP.
If all plugin vendors did proper compatibility tests, the cost structure would be like $20 for the plugin and $500 for testing.