Traditional License? Or Subscription Based Model?

[memyselfandus]

What do you prefer when paying for a daw? And why?

[jabe]

Not a subscription. If I sometimes go for a few months without using a bit of software, I would seriously resent having to pay for those months. Also, if one could take payment holidays, I'd then seriously resent having to start paying again to access work I'd previously created but otherwise would be unable to access.

[rod_zero]

For aDAW a traditional license.

But for some virtual instruments subscription may work, for example If I have an orchestral project I may subscribe to EW for a couple of months.

[incubus]

Fish.

[pdxindy]

I refuse the subscription model...

[ontol]

No subs for me either. And double for Gobbler required services.

Haven't bought from Slate since they got Gobbled and won't start buying from Softube. There are plenty of alternatives so no need to be forced into something I don't want.

If all creative software goes sub/Gobbler, I'll go hardware.

Then they'll be sorry....

[incubus]

I couldn't give a rats either way. I've been around longer than dirt. "OMG, no dongles, OMG, no sub, OMG, no pace, OMG, not ilok2, OMG C/R sucks, OMG!!!!!"

AND, people (including me) change their mind

In the end you either have a need, and calculate your funds/vs/desire and pony up or not. The static "I don't like subscriptions" means as much to me as "my fleas are not my pickle"

[untimelyman]

Why not both?

[skyscape]

I don't think any user will ever tell you they want a subscription model. They're pretty much maligned everywhere. That said, they can be a good way for devs to have an ongoing income. But I would rather payed updates at major milestones than a subscription any day.

[Scotty]

Subscriptions make sense only when the value of the products is very high and where you can turn off and on the subscription easily. East West Composer's Cloud is an example. Another example is the Adobe Creative Cloud. There are several companies who are dabbling with subscription services whose product inventory is scant and they are ridiculous in my mind.

If I was starting over I'd be tempted to look at Slate as he continually is adding value to the line and the price is affordable.

Just remember to render out the audio files (or video files in Adobe's case) and you come out ahead.

I did the calculations on the East West Composer cloud and to buy their inventory at the monthly subscription rate would take over 40 years. Subscribing is a good deal if you are going to use their stuff.

I don't think any user will ever tell you they want a subscription model. They're pretty much maligned everywhere. That said, they can be a good way for devs to have an ongoing income. But I would rather payed updates at major milestones than a subscription any day.

[lfm]

It's a seasonal thing using any software - so no monthly subs for me.
And anything you've got that stops working when stop paying is no-no too - I guess that is pure subscription/renting thingy.

But a maintenance plan is ok, by annual voluntary sort.
Or payed version upgrades where usually some maintenance is included.

So far only Adobe CC stuff is no-no for me.
But they have some products in ...Elements category that serve well under acceptable options.
But discount on these when doing upgrades I discovered are about paying almost 80% of new price again.
So it's clear that Adobe want subscription stuff.

[KarmaShaman]

I despise the SAAS model. Presently have about five monthly subscriptions to various software I use. If my DAW went to this model I would seriously review other options. Although I could claim it as a business expense, but still.. its the principle of it. The vast majority of DAW users are hobbyists, so to slug them with a paymemt concept that is really suited for businesses is incredibly unfair.

[Jim Roseberry]

I think it depends on the exact circumstances.

In my case, the Adobe Creative Cloud makes good sense.
I use 5 of the applications (for business) on a weekly basis.
To purchase and maintain those would cost much more than $50/month.

In the case of Cakewalk Sonar, I was on their subscription plan (prior to purchasing Lifetime Updates).
The way their subscription plan is structured, it's really no different than the previous yearly updates.
The cost was essentially the same.
After paying for a year, you have a non-expiring copy.
If you decided Sonar isn't for you, you aren't obligated for the full year (no contract/etc).

I don't want all of my software on subscription basis, but sometimes subscriptions are a good solution.

[Jace-BeOS]

I will NEVER subscribe to software. If it comes to being a world where ALL software is subscription based, i will give up on computers entirely.

[sellyoursoul]

The business model of software subscriptions is hostile toward users. I don't want to deal with a company who is hostile toward me. Cloud computing, service as a software substitute, whatever you want to call it, is a business model for taking away freedom from users and placing users under the power of the company for the profits of the company. And if an otherwise ethical company can't work out an ethical business model which they can operate by, then it might be time to do some reevaluation of the business, rather than becoming a company who is hostile toward users.

I want to deal with companies who seek to make a living by empowering users, not companies who seek to hold power over users for higher profits.