Moan - THAT Slate email

[LeVzi]

I don't understand why companies aren't doing rent to own more often either. Seems the subscription way is the preferred method. Just glad Lennardigital and xfer offered that , or i'd be 2 synths down right now.

[Audiority]

It's not easy to develop a licensing system that allows you to use this kind of business model. The "easiest" way is PACE/iLok, but I don't think that would be loved very much by our customers.

[Urs]

Rent-to-own may work for some, but not for everybody. If we go with super standard statistical assumptions, then most people rent things for 1 month, and the number of contracts reaching 12 is substantially lower than the number of contracts never reaching the point of license ownership transfer. I don't know this of course, but I do base my assumptions on a few samples I have.

Rent-to-own systems with a 1 year type of scheme price the subscription rate at 1/12th of the retail price for a perpetual license. When I checked a few companies that do classic software rental without "to own", they price their subscriptions at roughly half that. More like 20-25 months.

Therefore I assume (but do not know) that the vast majority of rent to own contracts are simply more expensive for the individual than classic software rental.

[Teksonik]

To end up paying $500 for a $100 plugin and still not own a perpetual license for the plugin is madness to me. But again to each his own.

[plexuss]

I dont really understand companies that go sub-only

Shareholder value. Subscription based software companies are valued 10x more than companies selling perpetual licenses. Rule of thumb from what people tell me.

Makes sense for the shareholders from a revenue perspective and over-all business risk mitigation as long as you ignore the potential negative impact of going sub-only which could include insolvency. However if a business goes sub-only and adjusts it's finances to support the reality of it on the customer-base then it could work. But then you are talking about a company that values shareholders over customers... oh... wait... that's all companies... never mind. Dodge v. Ford 1919 set the tone for that... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

[Teksonik]

But then you are talking about a company that values shareholders over customers... oh... wait... that's all companies... never mind.

As someone who owns stocks of course I want my investment to have the maximum return but not at the cost of abusing the customers or the workforce. If a company becomes so focused on shareholders they may wake up one day and find they have no customers left and then my investment goes out the window. Catering to shareholders over everything else including the workforce and even the environment is a real problem at least in the U.S.
----
The argument people have against Challenge/Response copy protection is "what if the company goes out of business?"

What if a company that uses a subscription model goes out of business?

I think it's far more likely a company that uses C/R will provide a way to keep using their software over a company that uses a subscription model but that would just be speculation.

[hitherepeople]

Works for some, not for others. It's software. Use what works for you

[Teksonik]

Works for some, not for others. It's software. Use what works for you

Of course as I've said several times. As long as you've thoroughly thought through "what works for you".

[bk]

To end up paying $500 for a $100 plugin and still not own a perpetual license for the plugin is madness to me. But again to each his own.

I struggled with this as well concerning Spotify. Why should I pay them every month, but never own the music? The fact is, the benefits of Spotify far outweigh the cost, to me. I've discovered SO MANY more bands that I never would have known about before. Now I just look at it as the cost I have to pay to have access to the music I like.

That said, paying for subscription software seems nuts, to me. I'm curious if that will ever change.

[digitalboytn]

I dont really understand companies that go sub-only

Shareholder value. Subscription based software companies are valued 10x more than companies selling perpetual licenses. Rule of thumb from what people tell me.

There is no shareholder value in owning a license to use any digital product...

There may be a perception that you own the product as a subscriber or as a perpetual license holder,but that is not correct...

When you buy shares in a company,you do hold a percentage of the value of that company and the value of that holding is determined by the stock certificates...

But when you are a subscriber or perpetual user of a digital product,you only have a license to use it as determined by the user agreement and you do now own any shares in the company...

When someone subscribes to a service,that may indicate a greater sense of commitment,but it also increases their expectations as well...

So a subscriber may feel a greater sense of involvement in a company due to those expectations, but their actual monetary investment as a shareholder in the company is still the same as a perpetual license holder....

Zero

[hitherepeople]

To end up paying $500 for a $100 plugin and still not own a perpetual license for the plugin is madness to me. But again to each his own.

I struggled with this as well concerning Spotify. Why should I pay them every month, but never own the music? The fact is, the benefits of Spotify far outweigh the cost, to me. I've discovered SO MANY more bands that I never would have known about before. Now I just look at it as the cost I have to pay to have access to the music I like.

That said, paying for subscription software seems nuts, to me. I'm curious if that will ever change.

They are the same thing. Why would it be any different? I've got more toys than I'll ever need for a couple of bucks a month. It would take years to outdo the cost and by that time, there will likely be something new

Guess I'll bow out. This subject is the same on every forum. Just not worth trying to explain the other side, fish ain't biting

[Ploki]

To end up paying $500 for a $100 plugin and still not own a perpetual license for the plugin is madness to me. But again to each his own.

I struggled with this as well concerning Spotify. Why should I pay them every month, but never own the music? The fact is, the benefits of Spotify far outweigh the cost, to me. I've discovered SO MANY more bands that I never would have known about before. Now I just look at it as the cost I have to pay to have access to the music I like.

That said, paying for subscription software seems nuts, to me. I'm curious if that will ever change.

Now imagine paying 5$/month for EVERY artist you listen to.
That’s what software is right now.
If i want some plugins from 7 major sub vendors it will net ~150$/month.
If there were an all-vendor all-access pass for 5$ i’d also think “hey its ok”

But i doubt developers would be happy with money that spotify pays the artists.
“You get 0.0006€ per license”

[codec_spurt]

klklkl

[hitherepeople]

Like I said in the PM to the person who wrote. That is the main reason why forums are awful. Terrible posts by paranoid people who just like to put people down.

That's it, my 4 day experiment is over.

[briefcasemanx]

I refuse to give Slate money after he ripped me off with broken promises 15+ years ago and then told me we'd handle the problem over PM/email and then ghosted me. He's skeezy and manipulative and doesn't deserve any of my money when there's plenty of excellent alternatives from good people/companies. Including some who have posted in this thread!

More on topic: if something happens where I can't pay the subscription for awhile, I can't make new music using the tools I'm accustomed to, and I can't access old projects until I'm in a position to start paying again. This is the main reason I don't like subscriptions. *Some* of them make sense financially if you're 100% sure you'll never be in a position where you need to cancel the subscription, or just don't care if you can't access your stuff.