Why don't developers offer payment in instalments?

[Nielzie]

Maybe it's too much of a hassle for smaller developers. Administration, website adjustments, people not paying, etc.

Which is mostly the counter-argument that everyone bar the OP is making.

But according to the OP, this stuff is irrelevant, no extra work, and only takes five minutes to do.

Which is bollocks.

Hmmm ok. I must confess that I didn't read most replies to the OP before posting

[trimph1]

Oh brother.

Does anyone want to guess how much it would cost the developers to put this together?

They would need to finance someone else wouldn't they?

Must be time for a weekend hoohaw....

[whyterabbyt]

So can I retitle this thread "Why don't OTHER developers offer payments in instalments, like Cakewalk does?"

If you do, you could maybe also change it to reflect the fact that you're not actually asking a question, and that you have no interest in why developers aren't doing it.
Indeed, it should really be indicated that its a proposal if what companies should do, and that any responses which are genuine attempts to point out that why companies might not do it will be treated with aggression, insults, and a fingers-in-ears-lalalala level refusal to engage in the possibility that said companies might have more insight into their own business than yourself.

Oh, and your scheme isnt quite like Cakewalk's. Large company with own store infrastructure rolling out 'command console' DRM/package delivery system to leverage contiguous monthly payments versus proposal for small companies handling 3 open-ended, unscheduled payments supposedly to be retrofitted via timed expiry and off-the-shelf ecommerce systems' voucher capabilities.

[SJ_Digriz]

So can I retitle this thread "Why don't OTHER developers offer payments in instalments, like Cakewalk does?"

And that's a good question ... of course other companies DO offer a payment system like that. But they are for software that typically costs well beyond 100 pounds. And, there is typically a cost penalty for dragging the purchase out. Or, they will couch it as incentive to pay up front or for a longer period due to marketing 101 laws.

What you don't see is a split payment program for a $50 plugin. It simply makes no sense to do so. I don't know what the magic $$ amount is. And it is probably going to be different for each company depending on the volume of sales. For example, Sonar seemed to be doing it to stop the flocking of their user base to other programs. Not to generate new customers. The Jury is out about if it will work .. which I highly doubt.

It's actually kind of funny..
USER: WE ARE TIRED OF THIS ANNUAL OR SEMI-ANNUAL GOUGING FOR UPGRADES
DEVELOPERS: uh? we need continuous revenue to pay for our devs?
MARKETERS: Hey, lets split that across 12 months!!
USERS: uh what? sounds fishy.
MARKETERS: No, trust us it's a good deal
USERS: But, it costs the same ... wait, it's actually a bit more expensive, especially in the long term
DEVELOPERS: Hey, this way we don't even have to develop anything and revenue continues!!!!
MARKETERS: STFU you devs ... what you mean is "we can focus on what the users think the important aspects of the program are!!!"
DEVELOPERS: oh right .. wink wink.
USERS: uhm hey, I've paid every month for 2 years and bug 28378912364819 is still broken. What gives.

etc..

[basslinemaster]

...What you don't see is a split payment program for a $50 plugin.

I said £99. Which isn't anywhere near $50. It's more than $150.
It's all very simple: Cakewalk are doing it, because they think it will make them more money. I can see the attraction in it.
As for smaller developers having to do it exactly the same way Cakewalk are - they don't have to. I've already explained how they can do it with any bog standard e-commerce package. It's standard stuff. It's just an idea. It's intended to help developers make more money, by giving customers another option. And yet nobody here even mentioned Cakewalk until Whyterabbyt foolishly tried to use that thread to make out I was saying I was actually against my own idea! LOL.

[basslinemaster]

So can I retitle this thread "Why don't OTHER developers offer payments in instalments, like Cakewalk does?"

If you do, you could maybe also change it to reflect the fact that you're not actually asking a question, and that you have no interest in why developers aren't doing it.
Indeed, it should really be indicated that its a proposal if what companies should do, and that any responses which are genuine attempts to point out that why companies might not do it will be treated with aggression, insults, and a fingers-in-ears-lalalala level refusal to engage in the possibility that said companies might have more insight into their own business than yourself.

Oh, and your scheme isnt quite like Cakewalk's. Large company with own store infrastructure rolling out 'command console' DRM/package delivery system to leverage contiguous monthly payments versus proposal for small companies handling 3 open-ended, unscheduled payments supposedly to be retrofitted via timed expiry and off-the-shelf ecommerce systems' voucher capabilities.

LOL. My 'scheme' is exactly like Cakewalk's - the pricing is the scheme, not how the software is delivered, etc. What are you talking about "timed expiry and off-the-shelf ecommerce systems' voucher capabilities'? Are you claiming that it won't work? You understand that Cryptolicense (and many others) offers timed expiry DRM? And that off the shelf ecommerce systems offer points if you buy product x? And if they don't, you can hire somebody for $100 tops to implement this in PHP?

And as for "treated with aggression, insults", I think you'll find that's your modus operandum... or don't you read anything you write on here?

So somehow this is a 'bad' idea, everybody should be using credit cards to buy stuff they can't afford, but none of those people mentioned Cakewalk doing exactly the same thing as I suggested. LOL.

[beely]

It's all very simple: Cakewalk are doing it, because they think it will make them more money. I can see the attraction in it.

It's not the same though - for instance, with your proposal, I could pay a few months for Sonar, then stop, then wait 9 months, pay a month, get the next version, stop, then 6 months later continue to pay so I've made 12 payments, and now my software won't time out.

With the Sonar thing, as I understand it*, if you drop out before the 12 months, that money is lost, and if I wanted to rejoin the membership scheme, I start again at month 1. It isn't really a pay by installments thing, but it *is* a way to begin to use the software without paying a large upfront cost (like all rent-to-use models).

Edit: *Yup. From the FAQ:

"If I choose Monthly Membership payments, can I cancel before 12 Months?

Yes, but 12 consecutive monthly payments are required to permanently activate SONAR and any updates you have received."

So no, the Cakewalk thing is not exactly like what the OP is suggesting, and nor is it marketed as such.

[beely]

And as for "treated with aggression, insults", I think you'll find that's your modus operandum... or don't you read anything you write on here?

So somehow this is a 'bad' idea, everybody should be using credit cards to buy stuff they can't afford, but none of those people mentioned Cakewalk doing exactly the same thing as I suggested. LOL.

You know, for a moment there I thought we might rescue this thread a bit and being able to have some adult, grown-up discussion about software pricing models and how it affects differing size businesses.

But now, all the OP wants is for everyone to agree he's brilliant and 100% correct and his idea is perfect and without any flaws. There must be a "yawn i'm bored of this" smiley somewhere...

[whyterabbyt]

...What you don't see is a split payment program for a $50 plugin.

I said £99. Which isn't anywhere near $50. It's more than $150.

Why are you fixated on your example price? is your scheme only supposed to be for companies selling at that one fixed price point?

It's all very simple: Cakewalk are doing it, because they think it will make them more money.

But Cakewalk are doing it over a minimum of 12 regular monthly payments. Not 3 payments scattered over an unspecified timespan.

(And for products which are not £99!)

And yet nobody here even mentioned Cakewalk until Whyterabbyt foolishly tried to use that thread to make out I was saying I was actually against my own idea! LOL.

Strawman. That's not even close to the point I was making.

[experimental.crow]

thus another successful venture is born ...

OP has identified a need ...
the board is virtually clamoring for this option ,
and filled w/ multiple threads weighing in on the pros ( many ) ,
and cons ( non-existent ) ...

OP has merely to pay each developer for a special time-release version
of their plugs , and purchase licenses for same in bulk ,
and then set up the e-commerce shop to re-sell to the wanting hoards ,
including a modest profit for him/her self ...
piece o' cake ...

i imagine the local bank would be happy to finance that venture ...
if not , perhaps the shark tank fellows ...

brill ...

[trimph1]

Why does this sound like a Columbia Records gambit?

3 payments over a year?

Who is financing the deal then? The company?

[whyterabbyt]

Why does this sound like a Columbia Records gambit?

why does it sound like the OP's other 'why dont X do Y' threads?

'why dont X do Y'
reply : because Z
you suck. Z doesnt count. X should do Y.

[trimph1]

Why does this sound like a Columbia Records gambit?

why does it sound like the OP's other 'why dont X do Y' threads?

'why dont X do Y'
reply : because Z
you suck. Z doesnt count. X should do Y.

[JonSolo]

Ok....

First, there are some devs that do offer installments- Kong Audio for example. I am sure it helps them to sell their product. However, they also have to send out a new license file every three months to keep it working. Once paid off you have to contact them to get a final license file. This is great, unless, like me, you are nine months in, the new file does not show and you have to wait for a new one to be sent to you.

Second, no matter what the cost, if a dev accepts installments this IS them giving you a loan. In essence they are loaning you the product until it is paid for. Most devs are not in the banking department. Keeping up with thousands of individuals doing this would be a headache...automated or not. There are a million things that can go wrong.

Finally, there ARE larger products out there- Komplete, Omnisphere, V Collection, etc. which are expensive out the door. By not offering a installment program they keep these products where the belong- in an elite place. If you can afford it, it is yours. If you cannot, you have to wait and save, or charge it. Either way someone has to hold money for a period of time before it is totally yours.

If the current devs went to installments as a whole, I think the end user would end up screwed.

No matter how much we love their products, and no matter how much devs love music and making their products...it is a business. They are there for the money. And they should be because as long as we are giving the money we can ask for bigger and better products. Lets keep it that way.

Jon

[BMoore]

Ponder this...

basslinemaster x 250 x tedious immaturity x no music skills, and then ask yourself why you think Props closed their forum.