We're joining forces with iZotope - find out what that means

Provided there are at least 3 or 4 major entities offering similar music production ecosystems, it is very likely to good for users. This competitive scenario would keep monthly subscription rates low and push for which one has the best tools for a range of users.

Currently "ownership" model keeps some of best software tools out of the hands of many users due to huge upfront cost. Subscription model if well designed can greatly reduce the upfront cost in seeing how you like an ecosystem.. far beyond the "trial period" of the pricey ownership model.

And the ownership model creates a silly game of pricing and discounting... and a clumsy development cycle of an annual release schedule and feature set bloat vs product refinement.

 

Do you have any specific examples of software that is currently to expensive for consumers? I'm stressing consumers, as that's where the biggest market is, and probably also more budget-constraints, compared to prosumers.

In my own personal (hard-earned) experience, it's a totally different ballgame to run a services/SaaS organisation compared to a product-delivery org. Setting up, running and maintaining your own service-delivery infrastructure is hard, and expensive. Best bet is to acquire a proven company, i guess that's what interested NI most in Izotope..

 

You seem to promote a feudal economic model, maybe having bought into the "in the future you'll own nothing and be happy" non-sense.
It's a gigantic loss of individual power, and although 'ownership' probably still will be available in a transitory phase ... it will soon be gone for the 'greater good'. How you can see the reduction in ecosystems to 3/4 major entities as an 'competitive' environment is beyond me.

 

Isn't that the case with most music software?
I mean it's not like Komplete/Ableton/V-Collection and many more are considered affordable by most.

 

I have absolutely nothing against subscriptions, as long as perpetual licenses are still available and users of those are not penalised in any way because they are not willing to commit to subscription model.

 

I guess it depends how old you are LOL. First we only had hardware, and you needed to save up for it for at least a year to buy stuff as a high-schooler or student

Then software came, stuff like Sonar, Rebirth, Reason, Cubase etc. was several hundred <insert your currency> to purchase typically, if not more. Of course, there were "other ways" but still..

BTW, i'm not averse to a subscription model myself

 

Yes that was sort of where I was headed. If you have disposable income, this is never an issue but for the rest, you'll probably end up following "other ways". And we're also seeing prices increase.
Question is - subs or Komplete 13 Ultimate for 3,000 <insert your currency>

 

I'd love to do a poll to really get to the bottom of what people around here think but I don't want to cause mass panic.

 

In your head, possibly. Out in the real world the more entrenched a company becomes, the more corporate driven it seems to get where the most return for the least effort holds sway, often alongside stifling or buying and nuking any competition. Look at Adobe and Autodesk as examples of this, and to an extent some of Apples practices.

Look at the prices iZotope thinks is 'fair' for their subscriptions. Compare the average yearly costs of Adobe and Autodesk products before and after they became subscription only. Nothing wrong at all with subscription as a possible option, but mandatory is where a company feels there is not enough competition to form a viable alternative, and they can basically hold users captive and never stop paying. Why does the idea of robber Baron's spring to mind?

The ownership model means you can use your tools as long as there's an OS that will run it. Again, nothing wrong with offering a subscription or
'Rent to own' model to allow users who can't make the upfront cost. Again, the Plugin Alliance model is one that many find actually useful to users.

Companies discount because overall it increases sales and brand awareness. Any annual release cycle is done because the companies find it
expedient to do so, and many companies do not do this. They update when they have a development to put out. I can't think of many companies other than the more corporate that pursue an annual or bi annual pattern, and it is them that tend to introduce the most bloat.

 

I think you know that it's highly likely that most would vote for optional subs, but against subs only. The ensuing panic would be that it would make people more paranoid that the entity formerly known as NI was seriously considering sub only, which it has been scared of for a few years already anyway. Some might suggest that allaying those fears would calm any panic in those areas.

 

TBH i think most people buy the more expensive packages in the "discount periods", and then keep on updating. If you're a professional, spending 3k is not strange, especially as you can typically deduct VAT, and if you work together with other producers/writers it makes sense to standardise to save time and effort. If your hourly rates are high, this 3k is money well spend as its being repaid quickly with the gain in time and effort because of standardisations.

For regular consumers, of course a "lease" or subscription method is mostly more attractive.

 

Very easy question. Komplete 13 and many, many, many, many other examples. Music creators at large do not have disposable income to purchase software beyond small increments of $15-25.

If they scrimp and save to finally buy some $500-$1000 product, that's the point when in actuality, the expensive software owns them due to not having financial flexibility to jump ship if desired.

 

3-4 dominant entities is all that is likely as a plateau in the coming "ecosystem wars"... but it is enough to maintain a competitive price point between them.

 

Tell me where the flexibility is when you have a period with no income, and you can't open your files, or use any of your tools because you can't make the subscription that month or the next?

 

That is not how a well-designed subscription will work. For example, currently with iZotope sub, you can pause/end your sub and your sessions will still run with their processing, you just can't make changes to parameter settings.

 

And you can jump back in at anytime without any penalty for lapse. Small monthly $ is much more manageable for many on a budget rather than coming up with huge upfront cost that might prove to be a mistake.

 

Which means you still can't work on them.
Why do you appear to think people shouldn't have the options?... I'm very curious as to why you think not having them is in any way a boon to the user. It's almost like you're trolling for the 'new serfdom'.

 

I'm not saying we can't have options to buy. I just sincerely believe that the subscription model is better for all parties. I have thousands and thousands of dollars wasted on software that I barely use. I wish I could have subscribed to those products for a few months instead of buying.

 

But you are you and not anyone else, others will invariably have differing experiences. You seem to think you have a right to choose for others rather than allow them to choose for themselves, which some might think rather disturbing. No one, I think, is against subscriptions unless they are the only option.

 

Huh? When did I ever say that a sub should be the only option? I have NEVER said that.