In my point of view there are only disadvantages to subscriptions. Developers have no incentive to fix bugs of older versions, frequent updates and "agile" development lead to more bugs and instability, you end up having to pay for bug fixes that ought to be free, and I generally see no advantage of frequent updates to audio editing software except for bug fixes.
I'm a Sonar user and must say that they lead by the worst example. They want to give users a feature every month or so, most of the features are unwanted or unnecessary and this is the wrong path anyway, because Sonar is already a relatively unstable DAW. Why don't they fix Bitbridge plugin crashes instead? IMHO, it is impossible to do adequate beta testing with such a huge product in a month. So I'll stick with Sonar X3 for the time being, at least then I know the bugs, and will switch to another DAW later.
I wish companies would return to solid engineering. Make major releases with new features and fix bugs with free minor updates until the software is rock stable. Answer to customer reports and reserve new features for the next major version, and if they are good features enough users will upgrade. What is so hard about that?
The real reason for subscription based models is really just that the software maker will earn more money. That's all there is to it, the software will not get 1 cent better.
So to answer the original question, the advantage of NOT having a subscription is to get better software at a lower price.
What are the pluses and minuses of NOT having a subscription based service for Daws?
-
- KVRist
- 107 posts since 28 Aug, 2014
-
beatmangler443 beatmangler443 https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=306784
- KVRist
- 421 posts since 11 Jun, 2013
Is the companies that can't keep up with the big dogs doing them just as extra cash maybe? Cakewalk nobody uses compared to cubase or logic. Now you have the steve slate who is a small developer. But yet steinberg, NI, or apple isn't doing it.
-
- KVRian
- 571 posts since 14 Nov, 2005 from León, Spain
Yep, Avid (Pro Tools), and Adobe must be small developers...beatmangler443 wrote:Is the companies that can't keep up with the big dogs doing them just as extra cash maybe? Cakewalk nobody uses compared to cubase or logic. Now you have the steve slate who is a small developer. But yet steinberg, NI, or apple isn't doing it.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 5175 posts since 29 Apr, 2006
Annoying is a good word 
-
- KVRAF
- 2677 posts since 20 Jun, 2012
It seems that for some companies going to subscription based model is inevitable because their products are so mature that it gets progressively harder to sell upgrades or to introduce new features that are appealing. Many of the developers have just ended up adding more bloat to their software by including more and more third party plugins and samples.
Subscription has two positives:
If you do not have a DAW and you do not have money you can still get started by subscribing to a low monthly price. Of course it is only a good investment if you can keep the software afterwards for unlimited time. I think Cakewalk got at least this right.
If you want to work with a particular software for a specific project. In that sense Slate Digital's model does make somewhat sense. For example you could decide that for a change you use particular plugins for a specific project. So you could pay for two months subscription, finish the project at that time and then go back working with the stuff you are used to. In a long term perspective paying Slate Digital's subscription would be a waste of money.
Besides the two I can not think of any other positives that a subscription model would bring to customers. There are only negatives of which two of the worst are rapid development and loss of financial flexibility.
Rapid development is not positive as some devs would like you to believe. Working with a software that is in a constant beta state is a real pain. I have seen this already with Adobe CC where after logging in and updating some of the features you were using previous day are not working as expected.
The other thing about subscription is that even though it bring a steady income to developer it takes flexibility away from customer. If you have the money you can pay for subscription. But if you need to optimize you finances due to lowering income or unexpected expenses then your software stops working. With perpetual license you can easily skip upgrade or two if you can not pay for it or if you do not need it and still get all your work done. With subscription you are screwed.
Subscription has two positives:
If you do not have a DAW and you do not have money you can still get started by subscribing to a low monthly price. Of course it is only a good investment if you can keep the software afterwards for unlimited time. I think Cakewalk got at least this right.
If you want to work with a particular software for a specific project. In that sense Slate Digital's model does make somewhat sense. For example you could decide that for a change you use particular plugins for a specific project. So you could pay for two months subscription, finish the project at that time and then go back working with the stuff you are used to. In a long term perspective paying Slate Digital's subscription would be a waste of money.
Besides the two I can not think of any other positives that a subscription model would bring to customers. There are only negatives of which two of the worst are rapid development and loss of financial flexibility.
Rapid development is not positive as some devs would like you to believe. Working with a software that is in a constant beta state is a real pain. I have seen this already with Adobe CC where after logging in and updating some of the features you were using previous day are not working as expected.
The other thing about subscription is that even though it bring a steady income to developer it takes flexibility away from customer. If you have the money you can pay for subscription. But if you need to optimize you finances due to lowering income or unexpected expenses then your software stops working. With perpetual license you can easily skip upgrade or two if you can not pay for it or if you do not need it and still get all your work done. With subscription you are screwed.
No signature here!
-
Winstontaneous Winstontaneous https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=98336
- KVRAF
- 2351 posts since 15 Feb, 2006 from Berkeley, CA
Yeah, I think Agile development usually benefits developers more than customers...it's an excuse for buggy, poorly-documented releases - but hey, at least people have a new toy to play with on a regular basis. There are some exceptions (u-he comes to mind).robotmonkey wrote: Besides the two I can not think of any other positives that a subscription model would bring to customers. There are only negatives of which two of the worst are rapid development and loss of financial flexibility.
Rapid development is not positive as some devs would like you to believe. Working with a software that is in a constant beta state is a real pain. I have seen this already with Adobe CC where after logging in and updating some of the features you were using previous day are not working as expected.
The other thing about subscription is that even though it bring a steady income to developer it takes flexibility away from customer. If you have the money you can pay for subscription. But if you need to optimize you finances due to lowering income or unexpected expenses then your software stops working. With perpetual license you can easily skip upgrade or two if you can not pay for it or if you do not need it and still get all your work done. With subscription you are screwed.
I don't see subscription DAWs doing very well in the consumer/hobbyist market. Adobe's target customer is the graphic & web design/marketing/ad/post-production markets, where companies have budgets, and freelancers can make a good living if they know their stuff. A subscription is a predictable expense that's also a tax deduction. Also, if you use at least 2 or 3 Adobe products regularly the monthly fee is actually reasonable IMO. Not an Adobe fanboi at all...I hate Flash with an unholy passion, and they could do a lot of work toward streamlining/unifying interfaces across programs.
-
- KVRist
- 245 posts since 11 May, 2014
You need to change your title, it should read
What are the pluses and minuses of NOT having a leasing based service for Daws?
This is "subscription" based.
http://www.musicradar.com/us/computermusic/
With Computer Music they work thier butts off so you get fresh content every month.
What Adobe is doing is "leasing" the software since you're not getting new fresh software every month, you're just paying to use it every month.
Any DAW that goes the route of pay by month, that's leasing because you're not getting a new copy of the software every month.
Before you could buy Adobe and you have your own copy and can use it for a very long time, now you get nothing if you lease it. If you don't pay by the next month you can't use the software.
In order for leasing to work, companies need to think about how to keep the customer paying.
For Office 365, Microsoft did something that got me to use it.
You can pay for a single copy and get to use if for a long time or if you pay for an year (leasing the software) you can install Office on 5 computers at a time and that includes Office for Windows and/or Mac.
But Microsoft did something else that could kill that, they now have Office on mobile devices like Surface RT (not Surface Pro) and iPad for FREE. So now you can edit on those devices and get readers for your Windows computer and you're good to go. Of course if you need Microsoft Access you need the Office 365.
So depending on the software company product, it's either leasing or subscription not just subscription.
What are the pluses and minuses of NOT having a leasing based service for Daws?
This is "subscription" based.
http://www.musicradar.com/us/computermusic/
With Computer Music they work thier butts off so you get fresh content every month.
What Adobe is doing is "leasing" the software since you're not getting new fresh software every month, you're just paying to use it every month.
Any DAW that goes the route of pay by month, that's leasing because you're not getting a new copy of the software every month.
Before you could buy Adobe and you have your own copy and can use it for a very long time, now you get nothing if you lease it. If you don't pay by the next month you can't use the software.
In order for leasing to work, companies need to think about how to keep the customer paying.
For Office 365, Microsoft did something that got me to use it.
You can pay for a single copy and get to use if for a long time or if you pay for an year (leasing the software) you can install Office on 5 computers at a time and that includes Office for Windows and/or Mac.
But Microsoft did something else that could kill that, they now have Office on mobile devices like Surface RT (not Surface Pro) and iPad for FREE. So now you can edit on those devices and get readers for your Windows computer and you're good to go. Of course if you need Microsoft Access you need the Office 365.
So depending on the software company product, it's either leasing or subscription not just subscription.
-
- KVRAF
- 2032 posts since 15 Mar, 2002 from Seattle, WA - USA
The motive seems pretty similar to carrier subsidized cellphone contracts: reduce the up-front sticker cost as a way to lure users into longterm locked-in business relationships. Companies much prefer steady income over spiky and monthly subscriptions ensure continual revenue throughout the course of a year. This is just the beginning though. I think the subscription based all-you-can-eat model is going to keep expanding into all sorts of business markets and the idea of "ownership" will fade away. It'll be more like longterm rental agreements.
-
- KVRAF
- 1782 posts since 4 Sep, 2011 from England
Subscription doesn't work for me. I'm always being made unemployed and then taking a while to find another short term job. Most of music software customers are doing it as a hobby. Most people are on minimum wage.
I use Ableton Live if they did subscription only, many months of the year I would have to watch Jeremy Kyle all day instead of learning and making music.
Option to subscribe and buy it is fine. People can buy it to use all the time no matter what happens to their job. If they can't afford it in the first place they can use it when they have the money to rent it.
____________________________________________
Now imagine all software is subscription only by the end of the year.
The total monthly bill would be too high for most people. So most would have to use piracy thus forcing developers to close.
I use Ableton Live if they did subscription only, many months of the year I would have to watch Jeremy Kyle all day instead of learning and making music.
Option to subscribe and buy it is fine. People can buy it to use all the time no matter what happens to their job. If they can't afford it in the first place they can use it when they have the money to rent it.
____________________________________________
Now imagine all software is subscription only by the end of the year.
The total monthly bill would be too high for most people. So most would have to use piracy thus forcing developers to close.
