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

Your posts to date have been extolling the virtues of subscription models whilst claiming ownership is almost bad for users. At no point have you called for options, as have most others, so it's hard to see you being pro-choice, as it were.

 

You have made false assumptions. I am certainly pro-subscription, but I am also pro-choice. It's not an either/or.

However I also think the fear of subscription being based on the past is short-sighted. The competition between 3-4 ecosystems will sort out bad sub polices.

 

No one is scared of subscription at all as long as it's optional. That's not short-sighted, it's based on a firm refusal from NI over the years to allay those fears, something iZotope's recent behaviour has in no way helped.
Whether your conjecture over future 'ecosystems' comes to pass or not doesn't mean companies are going to stop being belligerent towards their users if they think they can get away with it, and usually there's always some that are going to.

 

I don't know how to say this, but I see several potential negative aspects of even the existence of such a model for a 'product'. It lends itself to short term gain at longterm cost. I'm not sure I like the prospects of a product that needs to cater to an audience that don't have a greater commitment to it than a pack or two of cigarettes.

 

You call it commitment, I call it being owned by the software company. They have thousands of your dollars and now you can't easily walk away without taking a big financial hit. Software is NOT an investment.

Nonsense argument about "what if I'm in a weak financial position and I can't make my sub payment?". The "ownership model" has many buying their expensive software on credit and if they get a loss of income.. they still have those credit card payments to make. With a sub, you don't have that big debt to service. If you have been paying your sub with a credit card and paying off the MUCH smaller payment vs ownership, you can keep your sub going on credit for the period of time your income is down. MUCH better cashflow management for the ups and downs.

 

Whatever model, it is going to suit some more than others. It is true that unless there's some kind of sub to own, you are going are generally going to pay more in the long term than getting a perpetual licence. Buy off Waves, and they want you to pay for an upgrade plan too, which is often more than what you paid in the first place, which is why I won't buy anything off them any more. Sadly, some can't find a method to meet the upfront cost on some products, and some kind of instalment plan maybe the only way to have a legal copy.

Whilst selling software licences isn't often lucrative, it is an option. If you have paid subscription you walk away with nothing at all and if you need to ever use your files you have to pay and pay. At least with a perpetual licence you can use it as long as you have a hardware and OS solution to do so. Pursing music on a computer can even be done free with some compromises, so there is no need to spend thousands to pursue it. In fact it would be extremely unwise to spend large amounts on something you don't feel might be 'worth it'

Your perception of this seems to be totally self-referential, with no desire to see how what appears suitable for you might not be suitable for others.
Generally speaking, paying subscriptions for a few years often works out more expensive than buying perpetual licences. If that seems more suitable to some, what is wrong with them taking that option. Similarly, what is wrong with buying a perpetual licence if that works out better for you.

 

You are way off base. I totally support a choice. But why do you expect me to cheerlead for the ownership model? There are PLENTY of voices doing that. I am one of the very few trying to give a view in support of subscriptions.

 

Uhhhhh... you have all the music you created with it.

 

Most support subscriptions if they are optional, and preferably helpful to users. It is subscriptions replacing ownership that most are against. It is your cheerleading, seemingly against perpetual licences, that is leading to criticism.

 

As you do with a perpetual licence,

 

So it's only OK to criticize the subscription model, and don't anyone dare say anything bad about the ownership model? That's what's going on here.. that's the true lack of seeing another side.

 

With 'Owner ship' there is at least something to liquidate in case of an emergency, depending on the duration of ownership the financial hit might be less than the accumulated cost of subs over the same time period. Pro's own their tools, and only rent what is needed on a temporary basis. At least those who tend to stay in business

 

Music creation software is not a hammer.

Music creation software and the environment within which it is used is in constant and rapid development.

 

OK what are the so-called problems with the 'ownership' model?
You have to pay for it.
OK... true unless you get it as a present, or you use a *cough* 'educational' copy.
If its initial cost is prohibitive, there are various ways to spread the cost out.
You might get it via some sort of credit scheme.
If you do, but then decide it's not for you, you are then left with a licence you still have to pay for, whilst finding it's only use is to allow you to further practice the art of extreme sulking.
Fair point. Now, some kind 'demo' version is helpful here, but many are only for a limited period.
Some instead, have saving disabled, some have noise intrudes, some are Lite versions. Many find this approach more helpful.
Another alternative could be a subscription, but that is not the only potential solution.
If you spend a large amount without finding a way of testing the programme, it is not the programmes fault if you made an error of judgement. You can always sell it, but you will rarely get much for it.

OK what are the so-called problems with the subscription model?
Depending on the cost, it can be far less cost-effective than the ownership model over time.
If you can't make your subs, you can't use the products, can't usually open your files.
You will pay and pay and pay. If the company increase the subs, even 'unfairly,' you still have to stick with it or jump ship.
The only way you can keep working on your files is to keep paying or transfer them all into a format where you can work on them using other software.
Many do not find that approach helpful.

Yes there are benefits and detriments to both approaches which is why many are calling for options

If you are only going to use a hammer occasionally, you are going to borrow or lease one.
If you need one all the time you are going to buy one.
Music software is no different in that sense. It doesn't matter what the development is, they are all tools.
There are many who feel that tools are not a service and should not be treated as such.
Catering for both approaches seems to me to be the only way of appeasing the most people.
The companies who choose to only allow subscription are ignoring the wishes of many of their clients, and do you really want to support that company?

 

These two thoughts are related.

One huge problem with the "ownership" model is that music creation software is not a hammer. And the the development of it matters VERY much.

When they buy software, users have the expectation of receiving its ongoing "refinement" for free, and the developer has to provide this as an expense after the sale has been made. This transaction requires prediction from both the user and developer. User needs to predict the usefulness of the software and its value vs cost, and the developer needs to predict the ongoing costs after the sale in addition to recouping costs before the sale.

And further down the road, there is the conundrum of versioning. With the expectations of free "refinement", the user is primarily motivated to purchase a next version by new features. This creates an awkward incentive for the developer to spend resources on flashy features rather than boring refinement... let alone the bigger concept of creating an integrated ecosystem. We users are left with needless friction in our creative workflow as a result.

A subscription model reduces the predictive value/costs factors for both users and developers. In my opinion, a win for both.

The more friction free our creative workflow is, the better IMO. The ownership model is at odds in bringing this about.

3-4 dominant music creation subscription ecosystems will compete to offer the most fluid and affordable "tools".

Those who want to own their own fragmented puzzle pieces and cobble together a working system are welcome to do so. Enjoying the pride of ownership for whatever that is worth to them.

I'd rather focus on making music and taking pride in the music created rather than the tools.

 

I’ve always perceived subscriptions as an option for those who can’t buy software outright, not as a replacement for perpetual licenses altogether.

If I can buy a car outright, why would I like to pay for it in arrears with interest and what not?

At least with arrears , I would have owned it after all payments are done (not always though, depending on a contract) and although I would have paid at least 30-40% more for it than buying it for cash, but I would have owned it at the end.

Subscription model without option of perpetual license is basically like endless renting, and if that’s going to be the case with NI, I’m off.

And, I don’t want software to be updated for free forever. I’d rather pay for significant updates.

I won’t pay for bug fixes, though.

Look at Roland Cloud, they backed off from renting only and now offer perpetual licenses, too. I wonder why…

 

Very few who buy software expect free updates. No one can afford to work for free or be expected to.
If the reasons you used a hammer changed so that that hammer needed to be replaced, you'd expect to pay for it.
Ideally any company would have an ongoing good relationship with its users, so that development was in a mutually beneficial
direction. That is the case, surely, whether its financial return is from a perpetual licence or a subscription. You only have to look at the companies who have rabidly pursued subscription only to see development is mostly seen as profit led rather than requested feature led.

I don't know why you cannot understand that a lot of people prefer the perpetual licence model and don't find it as creating friction. You don't prefer it, and hopefully you will be catered for, but the world isn't built around purely your, or my, perception of it and what is wrong with trying to cater for both approaches?.

 

Why do you persist on thinking that I want to eliminate choice? I do not think that, and I have never stated that perpetual licenses should be eliminated. It is very strange that you keep doing this.

 

...
I consider the fact that Music Construction Software is not a Hammer, one of the big pluses of the 'Ownership' model. I'm very skeptical to what the outcome of a sub model would be. A plastic club ?

When I buy software, it is usually late in the development cycle. I buy from a WYSIWYG perspective, the only expectations I have is bug fixes of known outstanding issues. They are rarely all met, instead a new version appears. I doubt a sub model, as you suggest, will fix this problem.
What is important to me is to know my tool, and it's limitations. How to work around or resolve known issues. To have some new problem pop up during the creative process, maybe at the peak of inspiration, is a killer. For this reason I use some of my tools well beyond their expiry date.

A subscription model, with it's element of financial engineering adds to the overall cost. If profits are not to go down, this will have to be paid by the subscribers ... most likely it will also affect the price of the perpetual license holders ... and if the perpetual license side does not generate enough revenue it will be dropped. What you gonna do ? Dump your favorite tool ?

To believe that 3-4 globally dominant ecosystems is gonna provide competition, is simply Utopian. Under Industrial capitalism you would have a point, unfortunately we have devolved to the financial variant of it ... where the primary purpose is to make a profit ... not create value.

Ownership is power. And power is what separates free men from slaves. It's not about pride, but freedom and independence.

 

I would like a rent to own model for natives products, of course as a choice. I don't like to pay forever - only maybe it would make sense if you will get new stuff, hard and software, but how can you predict when new hardware is coming out, but that would be important to see if it's a good relationship between what I pay and what i get. So rent to own is a way to have a closed package hardware wise, you know exactly what you get. And if new hardware comes out i can decide to make a new contract for that.
And the argument that software development after a hardware sale is an expense for the developers is wrong. Cause hardware is sold normally a long period, you don't know before how much and when you will sell. But is is an argument for selling stuff, to keep sales up. Then it also all depends on, if you have software that you can use over some iterations of hardware and so on and so on. It has advantages for the company and also for the user if your hardware works all with the same/similar software cause you know it. It is in reality not that easy i would say.
But flexibility and choice is always good.


Uwe