Going into the ‘redemption’ vs ‘activated’ issue - why aren’t Steinberg ‘Grace Period’ posts talking about redemption instead of activation? Steinberg are creating their own problems when they post things like this:
Any normal human being reading that would assume that someone activating Cubase 13 AFTER October 9th is eligible for a free update to Cubase 14 - because that’s what’s written in Steinberg’s material - but when you contact Cubase customer support, they tell you that you’re not eligible for the grace period because it’s based on product redemption. Completely different to what is advertised!
Now I’ve been very happy with Steinberg since I started off with their hardware - I’ve upgraded all the way up to Cubase Artist 13 and Cubasis latest version with almost all the IAP’s.
The problem with the situation above though, it feels like a bait and switch and causes totally unnecessary confusion and possible ill will. There is no point explaining here on this forum that the criteria are actually different from what you’ve readily posted elsewhere.
The reason I’ve created a new post for this, is because I wanted to focus on the use of both words by Steinberg, so that hopefully this issue isn’t repeated. They do need to sort their terminology with greater clarity and accuracy in the future. I do like Steinberg, so it’d be a shame to see this problem crop up again for other users at the next update.
Finally, please sort out this current mess for current users who have abided by your eligibility criteria, as you yourselves have posted them - the mistake is yours, not ours. Be big enough to stand by what you’ve written.
Yes, my computer has been unavailable for 5 months due to relocation to China. Everything has been updated now but the issue is still the same and hasn’t been resolved - Steinberg ads saying one thing, Steinberg customer service saying another.
Hello Steve, Thanks for your post and taking the time to look at this issue, I really do appreciate it. I will check through the forum to see if Steinberg have resolved this problem in another thread. It hasn’t been resolved for me.
As per your question, I don’t remember the exact process as my head has been elsewhere since then with a family relocation, but I just bought the update from the Steinberg site as per usual. I couldn’t activate it until October 19th because I didn’t have a computer to activate it on till then.
It still comes back to Steinberg saying one thing and doing another, which is both confusing and troubling and which I’d expect to be uncoupled from how a product is bought.
Hello Steve, I see. Well, as per my Steinberg account, it was activated on October 19th, 2024 (as per my scan of my Steinberg account, above). When I emailed Steinberg customer support, they said I was not entitled to an upgrade as my purchase was redeemed earlier, so for me, the redemption and the activation seems to have been uncoupled.
When I checked my Steinberg account on October 19th, it said it was not yet activated, so I activated it on that date. You can clearly see that on my account. I can only really tell you both what I did and what my account on the Steinberg website is telling me.
If it was activated earlier, then surely that would show on my Steinberg account? It isn’t, it’s showing that it was activated on October 19th, that’s why I raised this issue.
I don’t have enough expertise to know what happened, I’m just sharing what I do know about the way it works, which could be incomplete. ( I don’t work for Steinberg if that’s not already clear)
Redeeming and activating are two separate processes. Your account only shows the date of activation. This can be really confusing since there was a lot of talk about the date of activation being the sole criteria for the grace period update. As a matter of fact - it is not. I was under the same misconception and learned about it just the other week. Sorry, mate…
No problem, Steve. As stated earlier, I’m very grateful for your replies. Thank you for your time and effort on this. I find it pretty clear, really. Just wish Steinberg would both sort it out and also nip this issue in the bud so it doesn’t happen again for future users.
Hello Rec29,
That’s the issue - Steinberg have posted repeatedly (as per my example in the original post) about the criteria for grace period being activation. Its really clear.
If it, in fact, is not, I am saying that Steinberg could sort this issue out by using correct terminology in the future - it’s not difficult. And then they could also sort this current issue out for users like myself who are eligible by their own criteria as published over the past few weeks.
Personally I think you have a point.
If one has to use an Activation Manager it is very reasonable to assume that what you do with it is activating. And the marketing text uses the word “activated”.
What they mean to say is that it is about transferring a license to your MySteinberg account by means of entering a Download Access Code (which effectively is a kind of voucher, but since “voucher” is a term that is also used in your account we don’t want to call it that).
The Activation Manager is authorizing a computer to run the software.
