Roland Cloud

[EnochLight]

Yes, a lot of people don't seem to like subscription models.

Considering how much stuff Roland adds to the Roland Cloud, a lot more seem to be actually fine with the subscription model.

This is an assumption we're making. All we do know is that Roland has went all-in on their business model. I can't slight them for that, but I certainly don't like it - Lol!

[chk071]

I don't like it too... but, considering how rell received subscriptions for movies and music are, i can only assume that this will work as well. Sadly. I'm still from a time where you actually owned your products, not rented them, thus i have a hard time with something like this.

[beely]

I'm still from a time where you actually owned your products, not rented them

You mean, when the license to use a piece of software you bought was a permanent one (for that version at least) and didn't have an expiration date, rather than buying a cheaper, time limited license every month...

...just to get the terminology of what we're actually paying for correct...

[chk071]

Sure. Although CD's were still a physical medium you actually DID own. Opposed to music streaming subscriptions nowadays.

[EnochLight]

Yes, but they are old versions that are no longer updated, and don't have the gui updates of the newer versions on the Cloud.

Speaking of GUI/UX... I'm not so fond of the Trapped and Sugar GUI that came out with the Roland Cloud 5.808 update. They look like a cheap VST design from 10 years ago, IMHO.

[EnochLight]

I'm still from a time where you actually owned your products, not rented them

You mean, when the license to use a piece of software you bought was a permanent one (for that version at least) and didn't have an expiration date, rather than buying a cheaper, time limited license every month...

...just to get the terminology of what we're actually paying for correct...

Since we're clarifying terminology, let's clarify the economics as well. In this context, a subscription service is certainly not cheaper than buying a one time license. At $19.95 USD, that's about $240 USD a year (which scores you just 1 "permanent" license). One could easily argue that (say for instance) a Roland Juno 106 or Jupiter 8 VST is not worth $240 when there are a plethora of alternatives for far less money.

[beely]

In this context, a subscription service is certainly not cheaper than buying a one time license.

I never suggested it was. I simply said the monthly, time limited license is cheaper than the full permanent license. Full licenses for plugins are typically £50-200, whereas a monthly, time limited license is usually £10-25.

That was what I meant - sorry if that wasn't obvious.

[EnochLight]

In this context, a subscription service is certainly not cheaper than buying a one time license.

I never suggested it was. I simply said the monthly, time limited license is cheaper than the full permanent license. Full licenses for plugins are typically £50-200, whereas a monthly, time limited license is usually £10-25.

That was what I meant - sorry if that wasn't obvious.

No worries, it's just how it came off. But the two are not the same. Paying a monthly subscription doesn't get you ownership. To make it the same, you have to use the yearly Roland Cloud "get 1 plugin of your choosing" metric, in which case it's far more expensive.

[beely]

But the two are not the same.

Again, I never suggested it was.

Paying a monthly subscription doesn't get you ownership.

Technically, buying a license to use software also doesn't get you "ownership" as such - it just specifies how you are legally able to use the software. The only differences (in license terms) are that one license expires and your right to use the software goes away unless you keep paying, and the other doesn't, and your right to use that software continues on.

Of course, we *think* of it as ownership of the product, or even ownership of the license, but in all cases, it's just that - you've paid for a license to use software you don't "own", under some set of constraints set out by the licence...

[EnochLight]

Technically, buying a license to use software also doesn't get you "ownership" as such - it just specifies how you are legally able to use the software. The only differences (in license terms) are that one license expires and your right to use the software goes away unless you keep paying, and the other doesn't, and your right to use that software continues on.

Of course, we *think* of it as ownership of the product, or even ownership of the license, but in all cases, it's just that - you've paid for a license to use software you don't "own", under some set of constraints set out by the licence...

Oh I totally agree, which is why I pointed out the necessity to clarify the economics part, since the way you wrote your post seemed to suggest subscriptions were cheaper than buying a non-expiring license (they're not, as I already explained).

It should also be pointed out that comparing plugin subscriptions services to the film industry (such as Netflix) is not a good comparison. Most people watch (use) a film once or twice at most, so a revolving library of content is valuable, a temporary "ownership" makes sense. Most music producers rely on (use) their tools constantly and need them perpetually, so a subscription service becomes quite a bit more expensive.

But the two are not the same.

Again, I never suggested it was.
.

As explained earlier, it appeared as though you were equating the two as being the same. No worries - often one's intended meaning gets lost in text.

[fluffy_little_something]

Sure. Although CD's were still a physical medium you actually DID own. Opposed to music streaming subscriptions nowadays.

It's the same as with software. You only own the medium (the CD's value is like 50 cents) and a license to listen to the music. But being a license, there are limitations to your usage of the music on your CD. As far as I know, for instance you are not allowed to put your CD into a ghetto blaster and entertain the public. Nor to make copies.

[EnochLight]

As far as I know, for instance you are not allowed to put your CD into a ghetto blaster and entertain the public. Nor to make copies.

It is perfectly legal to copy CD's you own for some purposes, such as backup. It's illegal to share copies, though. Public performances are technically illegal most of the time, especially if there's money involved (charging for the service, etc).

[chk071]

The point is that you own the license to use the software, forever. Opposed to renting the license to use the software, for a limited time.

[fluffy_little_something]

The point is that you own the license to use the software, forever. Opposed to renting the license to use the software, for a limited time.

Sure. I also prefer the old-skool pay-and-forget approach
I mean, what if you made projects and want to open them 3 years later when you have long cancelled your subscriptions?

[fluffy_little_something]

As far as I know, for instance you are not allowed to put your CD into a ghetto blaster and entertain the public. Nor to make copies.

It is perfectly legal to copy CD's you own for some purposes, such as backup. It's illegal to share copies, though. Public performances are technically illegal most of the time, especially if there's money involved (charging for the service, etc).

Yes, it also depends on the location, each country has its own laws.