Fender shenanigans

[NoBadMojo]

The music industry seems to be crumbling thanks in part to buy outs and private equity firms. For anyone not following what Fender is doing in their 'mainstream' guitar business sector. They are trying to get other competitors who make a Fender Strat type guitars to 'cease and desist'..Nice move there Fender..just alienate all the music people. In the US, the copyright on the body design expired several years ago, but evidently not so in Europe. So Fender has been trying to enforce some copyright on their headstock design, In the past they tried to do this on a minor level, but they seemed to have really ramped this up now especially in Europe

I bring this up in this Studio One forum because this might trickle down into the DAW in any number of ways if they are cash desperate, so they might downgrade Studio One services and development and drain the place of cash. Is Fender desperate or just arrogant like they were when the decided to slap the Fender name on Studio One? There are many companies out there these days who make a superior guitar to the Fender Strat at less money. This power move will surely backfire. Their success these days is mostly based on the legacy and people drinking the Kool Aid

Who knows what will become of Native Instruments products now that they are just a part of a large conglomerate? My hope is that they will upgrade many of the products already in the arsenal and at least become somewhat Linux friendly, but I doubt things like that will ever happen

 

[Vocalpoint]

So Fender has been trying to enforce some copyright on their headstock design, In the past they tried to do this on a minor level, but they seemed to have really ramped this up now especially in Europe

I really do not see this as an issue. It would be exactly the same (but with way more fury) if you decided to build an iPhone clone that looked identical (but "not really" according to you) to what Apple sells. They would put out your lights faster than you could say "copyright protection".

Practically any product in this world that has a unique (and very profitable) design - would probably have this occur eventually.

I bring this up in this Studio One forum because this might trickle down into the DAW in any number of ways if they are cash desperate, so they might downgrade Studio One services and development and drain the place of cash.

Fender is simply a "child" of a much larger corporation (Servco Pacific). And Servco is certainly not cash desperate that I am aware of.

Fender has also had control of Presonus for half a decade now - and in all that time - has consistently made the Studio One/Studio Pro product better and grown it's user base. If they really wanted to "drain the place of cash" - this is a bizarre way of doing it.

Is Fender desperate or just arrogant like they were when the decided to slap the Fender name on Studio One?

No. Fender owns the company (and has owned it since 2021) . Per normal marketing and branding rules - a company can put whatever name they want on any product they own - just as it always has been.

Who knows what will become of Native Instruments products now that they are just a part of a large conglomerate?

This is actually the third large "conglomerate" that NI has been a part of since 2019 - and nothing much has changed for them in the last 5-7 years.

I love my NI stuff and use it daily.

VP

 

[Cristofe]

Per normal marketing and branding rules - a company can put whatever name they want on any product they own - just as it always has been.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Neither Roland nor Yamaha were arrogant, (and/or stupid enough), to slap their names on Cakewalk and Cubase just because they had the right to. There's no profit for Fender/Servco whatever in doing that. All they've succeeded in doing is pissing off many long time loyal customers. Typical American arrogance. No wonder the rest of the world hates us.

 

[Cristofe]

This is actually the third large "conglomerate" that NI has been a part of since 2019 - and nothing much has changed for them in the last 5-7 years.

I love my NI stuff and use it daily.

I use my NI gear daily as well. But for the last five to seven years they've basically stopped innovating in order to crank out an endless stream of sample packs for "producers" that don't play musical instruments. And now that they've been absorbed by inMusic they will likely continue on the same path but instead of Machine and Kontakt libs they'll be cranking out expansions for inMusic's real moneymaker MPC. In fact, that's already started.

 

[Vocalpoint]

But for the last five to seven years they've basically stopped innovating in order to crank out an endless stream of sample packs for "producers" that don't play musical instruments.

Make that since about 2015. Won't disagree with you either.

But of the instruments that I need from them - none of which fall into your description above - they do the job and do it well.

VP

 

[Vocalpoint]

Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Neither Roland nor Yamaha were arrogant, (and/or stupid enough), to slap their names on Cakewalk and Cubase just because they had the right to. There's no profit for Fender/Servco whatever in doing that. All they've succeeded in doing is pissing off many long time loyal customers. Typical American arrogance. No wonder the rest of the world hates us.

Not really a great example - especially for Cubase since Steinberg remains it's active, viable (and totally separate) parent entity.

Naming that one "Yamaha Cubase" makes no sense.

In our case - the branding changed, company business units and divisions changed and decisions were made.

Presonus still exists - but is now a specialized hardware division. However - leaving our little DAW with it's "Studio One" handle would breed confusion and keep that (hard to shake) Presonus vibe going making people think Presonus is still DAW software (when it is not).

The Studio Pro product is the same dev team, same design, same this, same that - "same as it ever was" version of S1 that I have ever used.

As long as it does what it says on the tin - and does it well - do not really care what it's called.

VP

 

[Jemusic]

Tim explains it here rather well:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

What Fender has to start doing is making guitars as good as the guys in Europe are doing which generally is better than what Fender is doing.

 

[MisterE]

The music industry seems to be crumbling thanks in part to buy outs and private equity firms. For anyone not following what Fender is doing in their 'mainstream' guitar business sector. They are trying to get other competitors who make a Fender Strat type guitars to 'cease and desist'..Nice move there Fender..just alienate all the music people. In the US, the copyright on the body design expired several years ago, but evidently not so in Europe. So Fender has been trying to enforce some copyright on their headstock design, In the past they tried to do this on a minor level, but they seemed to have really ramped this up now especially in Europe

I bring this up in this Studio One forum because this might trickle down into the DAW in any number of ways if they are cash desperate, so they might downgrade Studio One services and development and drain the place of cash. Is Fender desperate or just arrogant like they were when the decided to slap the Fender name on Studio One? There are many companies out there these days who make a superior guitar to the Fender Strat at less money. This power move will surely backfire. Their success these days is mostly based on the legacy and people drinking the Kool Aid

Who knows what will become of Native Instruments products now that they are just a part of a large conglomerate? My hope is that they will upgrade many of the products already in the arsenal and at least become somewhat Linux friendly, but I doubt things like that will ever happen

There are plenty of people who've made it known they agree with you, Vocalpoint notwithstanding.

It's ironic that the present stewards of the Stratocaster are taking credit for an instrument designed by Leo Fender circa 1950, who moved away from the company to make his own strat-style guitars. No guitar innovation can be traced to the present owners, whoever they actually are when you consider all the corporate entities invovled. It's funny they've chosen the year 2026 to get their backs up, since other companies have been borrowning Leo's original idea for a good 50 years if not more. I suspect attorneys representing the companies being sued will bring this point up repeatedly once the courtroom dramas commence...and it won't look good for Fender and its parent companies.

There is nothing about the way this company interacts with its customers that appeals to anyone who doesn't relate to the corporate mindset. There's never been a single statement from a Fender higherup about the rebrand. They have no personality. Now they're joining the sue everyone culture which mimics the federal government's stance.

It's also worth noting that Fender's swing into amp sims is cannibalizing their own sales of big-price small-result reissue traditional guitar amps which also fail to innovate. So the company is suing everyone else for what they do themselves, constantly copying the same ideas and attempting to sell us on some supposed improvements that don't exist.

I find absolutely nothing likable about the present ownership. The present course of sue 'em all makes me even less likely to ever move off V6.61.

But I'm sure some kid from the School of Rock who lives to recreate "Back in Black" in FSP will take my place and the earth will continue to spin.

 

[Craig Anderton]

Is Fender desperate or just arrogant like they were when the decided to slap the Fender name on Studio One?

The Fender name has cachet, and almost every DAW company has tried to bring guitarists into their world. By and large, guitarists have been resistant. However, it seems that may be changing thanks to amp sims and hardware modelers. Fender might have decided they were in the right place at the time.

I think Fender has had some hits and misses with FSP. What they did right was not remaking the program, but adding the guitar stuff to it. The Note extraction is outstanding, and Mustang Native and Rumble Native supplemented Ampire with, let's face it, overall better tone. I've heard some guitarists complain that the Mustang amp doesn't have an IR loader, so it sucks. But Open AIR is a fabulous stereo IR loader, and can follow Mustang Native with its cab turned off. Many guitarists don't know enough about DAWs to realize these options exist.

Unfortunately, Fender's promotional efforts to guitarists seem titled toward promoting the sims and pedals in FSP, which won't mean much to people who already use mature sims like Helix Native, AmpliTube, Guitar Rig, etc. I don't see Fender undertaking an effort to educate guitarists about all the amazingly cool stuff that can be done in conjunction with guitar. (Presonal bias alert: This was totally the wrong time to kill an applications-oriented blog by someone who knows both guitars and DAWs intimately.)

As to branding, I would have kept PreSonus Studio One but added "by Fender" a a subhead. PreSonus loyalists wouldn't have felt thrown under the bus, and "by Fender" would have piqued the interest of guitarists. Then, give the program two or three years to establish its new identity. With the next major version after that time, change the name to Fender Studio One.

Tim explains it here rather well:

For what it's worth, I filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of PRS in the Gibson/PRS suit during the brief time I was working with Gibson (no, I wasn't fired), and have been an expert witness in several patent cases. There are often backstories in lawyer-land that seemingly make no sense on the surface (and often don't make sense under the surface). For example, people compare the Fender lawsuits to the Gibson ones. But Gibson was protecting trademarks, while Fender is making a case for protecting a copyright. Trademarks carry more legal weight and are easier to defend. I suspect what might happen eventually is a settlement where Fender tries to license the shape and collect a licensing fee. That would make the competition more expensive, generate income for Fender, and also suggest people should make every effort to come up with original designs (ahem). But what do I know?

 

[MisterE]

I suspect what might happen eventually is a settlement where Fender tries to license the shape and collect a licensing fee. That would make the competition more expensive, generate income for Fender, and also suggest people should make every effort to come up with original designs (ahem). But what do I know?

That would be a fair and potentially, depending on the percentage, reasonable outcome. Only thing is, have you noticed reasonableness being a growing or declining behavior? Those suits could drag on forever because the issue that the original owner is long gone and then there was CBS and then there wasn't and so on. Perhaps "cease and desist" is cryptic code for quickly settle for a licensing fee, but I greatly doubt Fender legal is in some commanding position and wouldn't be remotely surprised if most of these suits don't survive summary judgement. It's just not a good look for the company, especially while Fender and Squier Strats are still selling just fine--even to people who don't love how the company conducts itself like me (well pleased with an HSS Player II).