$xxx life time update.

[jsp1979]

It would have more impact if you wrote it on a meme with Lawrence Fishborne from the Matrix.

"What if I told you..."

Didn't you just state the other day that:

An option where OP should lock out certain members from the thread would be great. Spare us some stupid wannabe comments which have nothing to do with the current discussion here.

a big +1 on this

viewtopic.php?f=43&t=465807&start=60

So why aren't you locked out of this thread, writing that kind of waffle

I mean the matrix, how far off topic do you plan to go

Once again, it's called a "joke". There's a difference between telling a joke that goes along with the flow of thread and being an annoying, "post whatever comes into your head", spouting nonsense contrarian asshole. That's a distinction you make clear over and over again on this forum that you don't understand.

[Numanoid]

Once again, it's called a "joke". There's a difference between telling a joke that goes along with the flow of thread and being an annoying, "post whatever comes into your head", spouting nonsense contrarian asshole. That's a distinction you make clear over and over again on this forum that you don't understand.

Is that the best you can come up with, when you go off topic it is a "joke", when others do it they are arseholes

If I annoy you, sure I shall be glad to continue posting, if it ruins your day, you got no life

[jsp1979]

Yes, *I'm* the one stewing over *your* posts because I clearly pulled a week old post of yours from the dustbin and posted it in a thread in which you posted, right?

Oh wait. That was you that did that.

The more you post, the more you prove me right...so please be my guest. Really. I invite anyone to read the thread he posted here and read this thread and see if they're comparable. After that, you can decide if my post derailed this thread or his.

[woggle]

With the utmost sincere respect to Scott and IL, just because a model works really well for one company doesn't mean it will work as well, or even at all, for every other company. They're all different companies, different sizes and many other obvious differences.

I'd say the same for Reaper. They have a great business model for them but it would probably be a financial disaster for Steinberg.

You're right. Actually, Steinberg wouldn't be able to pay their 150+ employees with a business model like Reaper. Justin Frankel has the money to pay his 1 or 2 other devs from his own pocket. I wouldn't even be sure if it creates any money. Would be a disaster for any other company. And i don't think that what Image-Line does would work for every other company out there either. In the end, they all pick the business model which fits best anyway. Or not.

I'm pretty sure Justin has said that Reaper makes money - he isn't running it as a charity

[deastman]

What if I told you guys that 70 ~ 80% of paid-for update DAW sales are from NEW customers.

Regards Scott

If I'm reading your post correctly, you're saying that 70-80% of your DAW sales are to new customers? Wouldn't they HAVE to be, given that you are offering free lifetime updates to existing customers? And since you brought it up, how DO you make that a sustainable model?

[incubus]

What if I told you guys that 70 ~ 80% of paid-for update DAW sales are from NEW customers.

Regards Scott

It would have more impact if you wrote it on a meme with Lawrence Fishborne from the Matrix.

"What if I told you..."

It's as if they need to prove something

[Image-Line]

What if I told you guys that 70 ~ 80% of paid-for update DAW sales are from NEW customers.

Regards Scott

If I'm reading your post correctly, you're saying that 70-80% of your DAW sales are to new customers? Wouldn't they HAVE to be, given that you are offering free lifetime updates to existing customers? And since you brought it up, how DO you make that a sustainable model?

No. 100% of our DAW sales are to new customers.

70-80% of paid-for-update DAWs are to new customers.

Regards Scott

[Image-Line]

It's as if they need to prove something

The fact we are still here and going strong after 19 years renders the argument moot.

This thread is about the sustainability of the Lifetime Free Update model. The argument that LFU does not bring in sufficient income to develop a product is being made without reference to the percentage of income that actually comes from paid updates.

Additionally, like other DAW developers, we make a significant income selling additional products to the existing customer base. So just as 100% of our income is not from selling a DAW, the same is true for others. This further reduces the importance of paid updates in the income mix.

A question for you, why do you think people keep saying it's a flawed model? Isn't this now how all mobile applications are now sold?

Regards Scott

[tooneba]

With the utmost sincere respect to Scott and IL, just because a model works really well for one company doesn't mean it will work as well, or even at all, for every other company. They're all different companies, different sizes and many other obvious differences.

I agree. I don't think this model can apply to Avid Sibelius or Nuendo for example. Because they aren't mass-market products.

[murnau]

I love IL for the free lifetime upgrade. That is an unbelievable value nowdays and when i compare their policy with others i love them even more! Of course strictly customer view here, nothing else.

[lectrixboogaloo]

They do well because they have a good product with wide appeal.

[thetechnobear]

What if I told you guys that 70 ~ 80% of paid-for update DAW sales are from NEW customers.

Regards Scott

If I'm reading your post correctly, you're saying that 70-80% of your DAW sales are to new customers? Wouldn't they HAVE to be, given that you are offering free lifetime updates to existing customers? And since you brought it up, how DO you make that a sustainable model?

No. 100% of our DAW sales are to new customers.

70-80% of paid-for-update DAWs are to new customers.

Regards Scott

sorry I don't understand what your saying?

your saying for when other DAWs release a new major version, only 20-30% are people are upgrading, 70-80% are new customers.
... so something like only 20% of people upgrade their daws?

this seems very surprising to me, is this because people don't bother upgrading? or don't use the daw anymore? or are concerned about upgrading affect projects?

also what percentage does this change to after , 2 major release, or 3 ?
e.g. what percentage of users are still on Ableton 7?

I do suspect, that some users, for some daws, might skill a version or two...
e.g. I'm still on Reason 7, as I'm not using it that much at the moment, and Im not overly impressed with the extra things in 8/9 they don't 'address' the things I need from it.


of course the contrast to this is Apple, with no upgrade offer for Logic Pro X...

[Image-Line]

sorry I don't understand what your saying?

your saying for when other DAWs release a new major version, only 20-30% are people are upgrading, 70-80% are new customers. ... so something like only 20% of people upgrade their daws?

this seems very surprising to me, is this because people don't bother upgrading? or don't use the daw anymore? or are concerned about upgrading affect projects?

Then be surprised

Each year 20-30% of DAW sales are to upgrade customers. It doesn't matter how many years you spread this over, it's still 20-30%. It's not difficult to understand once you realise that:

1. Every year 100,000's of (mainly) boys turn 14 and want to be the next 'insert favorite artist here' and start looking at DAW software.
2. Most people are happy with the functions they purchased and don't need anything else (modern DAWs have 99.5% of everything anyone will ever need and it has been this way for years).
3. The percentage of DAW owners who spend time in forums represents a very small proportion of the user population. This distorts online discussions about everything DAW related, including how vital upgrades are.
4. A good percentage of customers are coming from Warez, and after feeling they supported the company with a clean conscience, go back to it as they don't feel like spending $199 every year.
5. People get married, have kids and get generally distracted from the pointy end of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, where music exists
7. Churn. If you are going to drop $199 on an update, why not spend $399 and try something new?
8. ...plus 1000 other reasons people are slow to upgrade, if ever.

Put simply, the influx of new customers far outweighs the number of people who choose to upgrade. It's one reason Image-Line has done so well with FL Studio.

Have you ever watched a news story about an event or issue you knew a lot about? How long was it before you started throwing doritos at the screen because it was so far from the truth? That's what it's like reading forum posts is like when you are on the other side of this industry. It's, almost all, misinformed speculation.

Think about why all the paid-for update companies are now exploring subscription models. There are two reasons, but the one relevant here is that the majority of customers are not upgrading.

Regards Scott

[Zexila]

also what percentage does this change to after , 2 major release, or 3 ?
e.g. what percentage of users are still on Ableton 7?

I do suspect, that some users, for some daws, might skill a version or two...
e.g. I'm still on Reason 7, as I'm not using it that much at the moment, and Im not overly impressed with the extra things in 8/9 they don't 'address' the things I need from it.


of course the contrast to this is Apple, with no upgrade offer for Logic Pro X...

Time frame between updates should be taken into account, so naturally people may skip few frequent ones, but 3-4 years apart, you can bet there are more takers, especially if new brought fixed bugs from last.

Logic Pro X costs like an update anyways, you get Alchemy with it.

[incubus]

I dunno about Scott's comments.

But one thing just popped into my mind, I wonder now if companies (believing the warez users can contribute to their wallets) drop their own products into that market

People play musical chairs with hosts because a host doesn't do something for them (mostly stability). Maybe it's true that everyone wants to be a musician, but there are quite a few GOOD musicians that are still really frustrated with the software model....so, that neat box doesn't account for everyone, not sure of the exact percentage.