U-He on Splice Rent-to-Own?

[steinhalvorsen]

Hey,

Is there any possibility of seeing U-He's synth available on Splice's Rent-to-Own? I think it'd make sense since it would make the synths more easily affordable to us since U-He rarely does sales. it also makes it seem more worth it compared to other manufacturers who have the rent-to-own, but then they discount their products at 60-80% several times a year.

Best,
Stein

[Urs]

The question comes up often. Any software rental requires some kind of online activation. However, we would like to keep things simple and stick to classic serial numbers and non-intrusive copy protection. Therefore we won't do software rental schemes. Never say never, but atm and in the foreseeable future, there are no plans.

[noiseresearch]

/* whitenoise */

[SneakyBeats]

we would like to keep things simple and stick to classic serial numbers and non-intrusive copy protection

Then why not do it like others do? They require Splice as long as it's not paid. After the final payment is done, the buyer receives a personal serial and kinda moves from Splice to your customer.

[SynapT!c]

we would like to keep things simple and stick to classic serial numbers and non-intrusive copy protection

Then why not do it like others do? They require Splice as long as it's not paid. After the final payment is done, the buyer receives a personal serial and kinda moves from Splice to your customer.

Agreed. It's a weak excuse. Splice is as simple as it can be.

[tony10000]

You can always play with the demo and learn it as you save up for the plugin and use U-He's free plugins in the meantime.

[SneakyBeats]

You can always play with the demo and learn it as you save up for the plugin and use U-He's free plugins in the meantime.

Or you can always use your credit card.. But that was not the question.

[AnX]

we would like to keep things simple and stick to classic serial numbers and non-intrusive copy protection

Then why not do it like others do? They require Splice as long as it's not paid. After the final payment is done, the buyer receives a personal serial and kinda moves from Splice to your customer.

Agreed. It's a weak excuse. Splice is as simple as it can be.

so is buying it outright

[SynapT!c]

we would like to keep things simple and stick to classic serial numbers and non-intrusive copy protection

Then why not do it like others do? They require Splice as long as it's not paid. After the final payment is done, the buyer receives a personal serial and kinda moves from Splice to your customer.

Agreed. It's a weak excuse. Splice is as simple as it can be.

so is buying it outright

Not an option

[drzhnn]

Rent-to-own is a weak excuse for not learning how to use a piggy bank.

"All others" who support rent-to-own on Splice, they are already bloated with their own online activation mechanics: Arturia, iZotope, D16, Softube... It's not so hard to add Splice or any other online service support if you already have your own online activation solution. The thing is, this is what many people don't like about these plugins. Personally, I hate those things. I don't want my plugins to have built-in watchdog to call home every time they feel like it. Because it never stops at just activation. Look at Native Instruments or any iLok protected plugins. They are connecting to random servers on the background several times a minute! Even if you don't use their plugins at the moment. And I don't enjoy the idea that I must have internet connection in order to activate and use my plugins. Required internet connection is just another form of dongle, that everybody hates. And rent-to-own thing is a sneaky way to get people on that train. After your final rant-to-own payment is done, and you don't need Spice anymore, you'll realize that you are a happy owner of an iLok protected plugin and you have 2 activations left.

[AnX]

we would like to keep things simple and stick to classic serial numbers and non-intrusive copy protection

Then why not do it like others do? They require Splice as long as it's not paid. After the final payment is done, the buyer receives a personal serial and kinda moves from Splice to your customer.

Agreed. It's a weak excuse. Splice is as simple as it can be.

so is buying it outright

Not an option

why? can't you save money?

[Urs]

*sigh*

I was really hoping that we could avoid going there, like alleging any wrong doing on our side.

We don't really need an "excuse" to define how we wish to conduct business. There's no financial downside for us not to do software rental, nor do we violate any kind of business laws if we don't.

I was hoping to preempt these two common false arguments that seem to permeate discussions about "rent to own" and similar schemes:

• "if we don't do rent to own, we lose business" - Some even say, we'll be "out of business soon".
• "there's some kind fo moral obligation to support people who can't afford to buy our software at once, and rent-to-own is the solution for that"

Both arguments are baseless, and they don't become true if repeated over and over. They are however made one way or another in each single discussion on the topic that I remember. They are definitely not suited to somehow persuade us to reconsider our business choices.

Therefore, saying "it requires online activation and our customers don't want us to do that" is a very tangible argument that is easy to grasp and very true. Unlike points made, it's absolutely not trivial to combine online activation with serial numbers as two alternative schemes for the same software. That's just not how this works, and that's the end of it right there.

[Urs]

Ok, I'm going to reopen this thread. Please remain calm.

I will close it again if anyone tries to make an argument about things they don't understand, particularly stuff like "but it would be easy for you to do, just look at Serum" whatsoever. Please don't try to lecture me how to be successful in business or about how easy it is to develop online activation.

Likewise, I totally understand and sympathize with people who do not have the money to afford our stuff. I get it, I have been there myself. Which is exactly why I would not encourage these people to pile up more debt, nor getting into schemes that don't allow to resell their assets due to outstanding payments. In the end, they have less money but they end up paying more.

[gondii]

I am also not a fan of rent to own, because in 9/10 cases you end up paying more. Although for bigger purchases instalments can be quite nice. Is there a difference between "rent to own" and "instalments" when it comes to licenses? Because there are several places that offer them even on hardware products, like Native Instruments, Sweetwater, Arturia. Musikhaus Korn used an external service for that ("Easy Credit" partner of Volksbank). I guess the difference would be that you can stop "renting" (causing issues with the license), but by paying in instalments you legally commit to the purchase.

I already own everything , so I don't have a dog in this fight. So for sure the most important thing is to not change the perfect licensing system as it's set up now! Love the hassle free activation, license transfer, multiple machines approach.

[SneakyBeats]

I am also not a fan of rent to own, because in 9/10 cases you end up paying more.

Rent to own has nothing to do with those services that have interest and account management fees etc etc.
If an item costs 149€ directly, it costs 149€ as rent to own.