bitwig 2 is here

[.jon]

Total cost of ownership for a new user over a 3-year period

Ableton Live: 349e
BWS: 697e

or over a 10-year period:

FLS: 189e
BWS: 1987e

The model is fine, continuous cash flow is obviously good for development and the software is still exciting, but the actual price was not and won't be well accepted by the market. I don't know how they thought it would, with their release history and with the lack of subject matter in 2.0 release. Announcing a massive price hike positioning your product on a totally unprecedented level of premium while failing to deliver is not how you grow, succeed or even survive in a contested market as a newcomer.

Unfortunately this is the end of the road for BWS, was a beautiful dream.

[4damind]

Total cost of ownership for a new user over a 3-year period

Ableton Live: 349e
BWS: 697e

or over a 10-year period:

FLS: 189e
BWS: 1987e

The model is fine, continuous cash flow is obviously good for development and the software is still exciting, but the actual price was not and won't be well accepted by the market. I don't know how they thought it would, with their release history and with the lack of subject matter in 2.0 release. Announcing a massive price hike positioning your product on a totally unprecedented level of premium while failing to deliver is not how you grow, succeed or even survive in a contested market as a newcomer.

Unfortunately this is the end of the road for BWS, was a beautiful dream.

The problem is that Bitwig got a lot of money (state funding). We speak about 688.000€ (or more) and now they must follow their business plan to make some profit. They know their customer base and they know how much profit they can generate with such subscription model.
Bitwig doesn't play in the premium department and professionals still using Ableton Live (I have not seen a lot of movement in this department).
Maybe it's the only option they have not to run out of business?

[Taurus]

If they go really this way, the user will switch to more professional DAW or go with Reaper, like I do.

[Rappo Clappo]

@4damind

Yeah, but how can one live on EU taxpayers' money to create an exclusive DAW for exclusive producers? Because it doesn't take much intelligence to understand that is where it comes down to: furk the average user, who are they anyway, huh?

Well, they ARE the EU taxpayer. Doublefurk. Surprize, no surprize. Isn't that called corruption? As corrupted as one can be? That is.

[chk071]

Maybe it's the only option they have not to run out of business?

TBH, that's exactly how the new pricing model looks to me.

[exmatproton]

Maybe it's the only option they have not to run out of business?

TBH, that's exactly how the new pricing model looks to me.

They could've gone with a subscription based model per month (apart from the 1 time payment model). I am sure they would've gained more users that way...

[Rappo Clappo]

Maybe it's the only option they have not to run out of business?

TBH, that's exactly how the new pricing model looks to me.

They could've gone with a subscription based model per month (apart from the 1 time payment model). I am sure they would've gained more users that way...

Exactly, I don't have objections to such a subscription formula. At least I am having some choice; I can look for a while, and when I approve to BWS, nothing seems to hold me back. Now -again- I'm thrown into the deep. That's the difference.

[chk071]

Maybe it's the only option they have not to run out of business?

TBH, that's exactly how the new pricing model looks to me.

They could've gone with a subscription based model per month (apart from the 1 time payment model). I am sure they would've gained more users that way...

Maybe, but, fact is, they do more money with the new pricing model than they did before. Realistically, you'll have to say that people want the latest version of a software, so, there won't be many who wouldn't want to upgrade to the latest version at all time.

[moss]

The problem is that Bitwig got a lot of money (state funding). We speak about 688.000€ (or more) and now they must follow their business plan to make some profit.

That's just not true. They got a startup funding by the Berlin state about 370T€.
See:
https://www.berlin.de/sen/finanzen/serv ... rchresults

You can pay about 2 developers for 1 year with that amount of money. The development took 6 years.

If you can speak German, there is a very interesting radio interview. Bitwig was followed by a reporter during these years and get a very good impression how hard it is to start such a company. Here is a transcription (so you can also put it in Google translate):
https://www.ndr.de/ndrkultur/sendungen/ ... rum496.pdf

[exmatproton]

Maybe it's the only option they have not to run out of business?

TBH, that's exactly how the new pricing model looks to me.

They could've gone with a subscription based model per month (apart from the 1 time payment model). I am sure they would've gained more users that way...

Maybe, but, fact is, they do more money with the new pricing model than they did before. Realistically, you'll have to say that people want the latest version of a software, so, there won't be many who wouldn't want to upgrade to the latest version at all time.

To get the most users, provide the best service (bug hunting and resolving, etc...), to keep a loyal base and expand that base, the now introduced price scheme, is one of the worst. Maybe they will make a bit of money in the short term, but since nobody will update exactly at the same time, some people will get f*cked by this. They will stop updating, or update every couple of years. Or just move on to another DAW.

For Bitwig it would be best to be sold at 1 pricepoint (with lifetime updates), or with a subscription model.

[4damind]

That's just not true. They got a startup funding by the Berlin state about 370T€.
See:
https://www.berlin.de/sen/finanzen/serv ... rchresults

They got a lot more. Unfortunately this link is down http://www.staatlichefoerdermittel.org/ ... 98&t=float
There they had 2 positions 600.000€ and one with 88.000€. Maybe there are additional 370.000€ they got from Berlin.
Anyway, the money they got from some funds was good for the first time to start with developing without having sales. But after so many years, they must rethink their business model based on actual data. So this subscription idea makes sense. IMO they need more money to stay in business.

[parma]

I could stomach the comparatively expensive quasi-subsription model if the initial buy in wasn't so expensive. Having the initial price in line with the yearly (again, relatively expensive) update price would make sense to me.

But, I'm sure they've run through all the pros and cons of the pricing they've chosen and arrived at the solution that they think will work best for them. We'll see.

[olikana]

too expensive, i'm out

[liquidsound]

Yup, for example, here is a short one with an non-M4L alternative to the modulators thing, that Little Scale published recently (http://little-scale.blogspot.com.br/201 ... -2017.html):

Nice one!

[chk071]

That's just not true. They got a startup funding by the Berlin state about 370T€.
See:
https://www.berlin.de/sen/finanzen/serv ... rchresults

They got a lot more. Unfortunately this link is down http://www.staatlichefoerdermittel.org/ ... 98&t=float
There they had 2 positions 600.000€ and one with 88.000€. Maybe there are additional 370.000€ they got from Berlin.
Anyway, the money they got from some funds was good for the first time to start with developing without having sales. But after so many years, they must rethink their business model based on actual data. So this subscription idea makes sense. IMO they need more money to stay in business.

I wondered how they could finance the development a software for 6 years anyway. There's gotta be additional funds to the startup funding.