Login / Register  0 items | $0.00 NewWhat is KVR? Submit News Advertise

Rent-to-own?

almazmusic
KVRist
 
66 posts since 18 Nov, 2011, from Ukraine

Postby almazmusic; Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:22 am Rent-to-own?

Didn't found this topic.

Any plans on subject?
User avatar
Urs
u-he
 
21155 posts since 7 Aug, 2002, from Berlin

Postby Urs; Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:49 am Re: Rent-to-own?

Thoughts, but no plans.
simmo75
KVRist
 
408 posts since 25 Mar, 2016, from Seattle

Postby simmo75; Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:05 am Re: Rent-to-own?

I'm a fan of it, I would definitely jump on board.
synth_punk
KVRer
 
16 posts since 14 Sep, 2017

Postby synth_punk; Thu Sep 21, 2017 4:37 am Re: Rent-to-own?

I think it's really helped Serum sales as well.
User avatar
antic604
KVRist
 
308 posts since 4 Jan, 2017, from Warsaw, Poland

Postby antic604; Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:40 am Re: Rent-to-own?

Urs wrote:Thoughts, but no plans.


Please find the time to think more & convert it into actual action plan ;)

Maybe partner with splice.com like Xfer did?

I think it's a win-win for both sides - I'm a hobbyist and it's difficult for me to justify spending 100+ EUR on something that I might not have a lot of time to use due to job & family stuff, but if that expenditure could be spread over time then it suddenly becomes a much more appealing proposition and easier to justify. Not sure how big of a problem piracy is for u-he's stuff, but I recall Steve Duda saying that for Serum more than 90% of users aren't legit. So, if just 10% of those would get encouraged to rent-to-own, then suddenly it's 2x more legit users.
User avatar
Urs
u-he
 
21155 posts since 7 Aug, 2002, from Berlin

Postby Urs; Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:58 am Re: Rent-to-own?

I think it's a lot of development work for a major business risk. It involves creating a challenge/response (or online activation) scheme, or it involves using a pre-made solution such as iLok. It also involves creating separate binaries for each platform and license model. Either way we would have to initially try it with one product, and it'll take a one or two year trial to see how it stacks up against our current scheme.

Thing is, an overall loss of 10% over the course of a year costs two jobs. I much rather spend time on developing new things than on such risks.
User avatar
antic604
KVRist
 
308 posts since 4 Jan, 2017, from Warsaw, Poland

Postby antic604; Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:15 am Re: Rent-to-own?

Urs wrote:I think it's a lot of development work for a major business risk. It involves creating a challenge/response (or online activation) scheme, or it involves using a pre-made solution such as iLok.


Oh, indeed! I've not thought about it - you need to be able to disable the plugin if someone stops paying :(

I'll start saving for that Repro-1 then :D
AnalogGuy1
KVRian
 
541 posts since 5 Mar, 2005, from USA

Postby AnalogGuy1; Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:50 am Re: Rent-to-own?

FWIW, my opinion is that profit margins against development time are so slim for VSTs (vs. most of the non-music software and hardware industry) that I'd rather see the man-hours that would take to make this a viable approach not be spent by the developer for the few users that want this, but by the few users that want this at work to earn the money to purchase the program. Then the developer takes that time to produce new products that could benefit everyone. Everyone wins (although the win for a few is delayed).

I'm sure 100 different people will have 100 different opinions on this, though. Mine comes as a developer of non-music software and hardware.
User avatar
Teksonik
KVRAF
 
11563 posts since 15 Sep, 2001, from Las Vegas,USA

Postby Teksonik; Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:34 am Re: Rent-to-own?

Please do not spend valuable development time on a "Rent to Own" scheme. If someone can't qualify for a Credit Card or doesn't have the discipline to save up for what they want then they should probably find a less expensive form of expression. I'm of the opinion that if you need a Rent to Own scheme for a ~$200 plugin then the least of your worries are the plugins in your folder.

But having said that if it could be done without any ill effect on existing customers (no new C/P method etc) and without one second being taken away from development of new and improved software then....ehhh why not. I understand that more sales could result in more development if it allows the hiring of new personnel but I question whether the additional sales from a RTO plan could cover the costs of new employees. :shrug:

In my opinion a company it's asking for a lot of headaches getting into the Credit Business but I guess it's worked for Serum.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
OreoSplitter
KVRist
 
96 posts since 6 Feb, 2017

Postby OreoSplitter; Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:53 am Re: Rent-to-own?

At least it isn't a physical product like a tv or couch where you would lose money when someone stops paying. If someone is given an option of rent to own vs buy, I am guessing most people who can afford the software (and it's reasonably priced) they would choose to buy it. So I doubt any sales would be lost even for those who eventually stop paying a few months in. After the initial work has been put in this could be seen as strait profit from a customer who wouldn't have bought the product otherwise. I refuse to buy omnisphere at it's insane asking price but as a payment plan at $50 a month, I could see me doing that. I wonder how well sweetwater does?

As far as taking away from development time, if version 3 is still years away, does it really matter?
User avatar
JJ_Jettflow
KVRian
 
647 posts since 23 Jan, 2011

Postby JJ_Jettflow; Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:54 am Re: Rent-to-own?

Teksonik wrote:Please do not spend valuable development time on a "Rent to Own" scheme. If someone can't qualify for a Credit Card or doesn't have the discipline to save up for what they want then they should probably find a less expensive form of expression. I'm of the opinion that if you need a Rent to Own scheme for a ~$200 plugin then the least of your worries are the plugins in your folder.

But having said that if it could be done without any ill effect on existing customers (no new C/P method etc) and without one second being taken away from development of new and improved software then....ehhh why not. I understand that more sales could result in more development if it allows the hiring of new personnel but I question whether the additional sales from a RTO plan could cover the costs of new employees. :shrug:

In my opinion a company it's asking for a lot of headaches getting into the Credit Business but I guess it's worked for Serum.


And for Lennart Digital as well since Sylenth 1 is also available as a rent to own as well.

If you slap it on a CC and do not pay it off before the due date you get hit with intrest and the longer you take to pay, the more it will cost you in the end. Neither Xfer or Lenard Digital charge a penny intrest so unless you intend to pay it off quickly or pay cash outright, the rent to own scheme makes sense.
User avatar
Russell Grand
KVRist
 
479 posts since 22 May, 2017

Postby Russell Grand; Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:10 am Re: Rent-to-own?

I'm guessing a u-he rent-to-own plan will never materialize, but mark me down as another for rent-to-own. I'm currently paying for Serum that way and I absolutely love it. I wish more developers had a rent-to-own plan available.
User avatar
antic604
KVRist
 
308 posts since 4 Jan, 2017, from Warsaw, Poland

Postby antic604; Fri Sep 29, 2017 1:23 am Re: Rent-to-own?

AnalogGuy1 wrote:FWIW, my opinion is that profit margins against development time are so slim for VSTs (vs. most of the non-music software and hardware industry) that I'd rather see the man-hours that would take to make this a viable approach not be spent by the developer for the few users that want this, but by the few users that want this at work to earn the money to purchase the program. Then the developer takes that time to produce new products that could benefit everyone. Everyone wins (although the win for a few is delayed).


Well, consider this:
- the profits are low, because over 90% of plugins is pirated (that's coming from S. Duda / Xfer),
- to combat that, plugins are actually quite expensive - many will cost similarly to real hardware synthesizer, that needs to be manufactured, shipped, retailed, etc.,
- if spreading the cost of plugin over time would encourage even a small portion of that 90% of users to get legal, then it could maybe double the actual profits for some of the developers - that's huge,
- the investment to build the challenge/response system to validate the license would be a one time expense and could be implemented to all new plugins and over time added to the old ones; I actually wouldn't be surprised if such solutions are already available for purchase / license from 3rd parties

Teksonik wrote:Please do not spend valuable development time on a "Rent to Own" scheme. If someone can't qualify for a Credit Card or doesn't have the discipline to save up for what they want then they should probably find a less expensive form of expression. I'm of the opinion that if you need a Rent to Own scheme for a ~$200 plugin then the least of your worries are the plugins in your folder.


Just go to the Facebook groups for DAWs or music styles and every day there are requests for cracks for plugins. Some do it because they don't care (so f**k them!), but a lot of them genuinely can't afford to spend $200 because they're either in a 3rd world country where it's month's salary, are students with no income, etc. If those guys were given other way to purchase their plugins, they would.

And there are others who can afford it, but music is just a hobby and it's difficult to justify spending $200+ monthly on a new plugin(s). It's much easier to swallow if its $10/month, which makes it an impulse purchase kind of thing.
CRAFTMATIX
KVRist
 
33 posts since 21 Sep, 2015

Postby CRAFTMATIX; Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:43 am Re: Rent-to-own?

User avatar
Urs
u-he
 
21155 posts since 7 Aug, 2002, from Berlin

Postby Urs; Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:45 am Re: Rent-to-own?

antic604 wrote:- to combat that, plugins are actually quite expensive

That isn't really true, at least not for us. For instance, we have a product that is only pirated on one platform, but not on the other. If it was true, we would need to compensate for losses on the pirated platform. But the sales are 60% this platform, 40% the other platform with a 10% margin of error, just like every other product.

Therefore, our experience is similar to most serious studies about software piracy. The effects are there, but they're nowhere near 20%. By accepting this, and by not going all paranoid with expensive/intrusive copy protection, we manage to keep prices low.
Next

Moderator: u-he Mods

Return to u-he