UVI go subscription!

[nightjar]

And the gym membership analogy from the start is a failed analogy. You can´t buy and sell the muscles you get in a gym.

Actually you can "buy and sell" the conditioned body you create in a gym... so the analogy holds.

Referencing that other subscription hinted at in this thread.

[ghettosynth]

........
So then, how about that Photoshop "freedom of choice?" In case you've forgotten, Adobe went sub in 2013. That may seem like forever, but it's not really that long ago. Prior to that, it was largely unheard of for consumer or prosumer products.
......
In related news, expect to see a lower priced ad driven option for your favorite plugins soon.

And yet fine alternatives to Adobe products exist for those who want to purchase. And old purchased versions of Adobe products will still run. So these two fears being whined about are unfounded.

Alternatives from other devs are not "freedom of choice" with respect to sub vs perpetual license from the same vendor. This is often touted as a reason why subs are ok. See Avid for a music related example.

Also, "old purchased versions of Adobe products" do not still run on a Mac. This is often touted as a counterpoint, but sub supporters don't realize that capital is in this for the long haul. This is exactly what was being discussed earlier, namely, that it doesn't have to be an explicit sunsetting of software, OS changes will eventually force it for you.

Moreover, you might find yourself in court for trying:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/a3xk3p/ ... -photoshop

These are neither fears nor whining. This is the reality of the clear and obvious trend towards the rental model in software. What is missing at the moment in audio is a clear dominant vendor. Don't kid yourself, all of these mergers and large infusions of investment capital are an attempt to form just that.

Will you likely always be able to buy some alternative? Sure, the Affinity products are great, until you need Adobe for something, then you don't have a choice but to rent it for a time. Professionals who have built their entire work life around a product suite have to think about whether or not it makes sense to continue to use that product or reinvent their workflows. There is no shortage of this discussion among photographers.

So, absolutely, the sky is not falling, and there's no reason to move into a cave. However, it's reasonable to point out that subscriptions are not consumer friendly and are designed to generate greater profits. It's reasonable to point out that it is a part of a larger trend of rent-seeking behavior that may eventually force you into a subscription should you want to keep using a specific vendor's products. It's reasonable to point out that subscriptions tend to change a vendor's behavior with respect to sales because it's in their interest for customers to switch to the rental model. It's reasonable to point out that this change moves you more towards an "always on-line" existence.

In May 2014 the service was interrupted for over a day due to a login outage leaving graphics professionals locked out of Creative Cloud.[45][46][47][48][49] Adobe apologized for this global Creative Cloud failure.[50][51] When initially asked whether customers would be compensated, the company's Customer Service responded: "We cannot offer compensation for the outage. I'm so sorry again for the frustration."[52][53] Adobe later announced that it would review compensation on "a case by case basis".[54] The outage was heavily criticized, as was Adobe's software as a service model in general.[55]

For me, it's a red flag. I'm not heavily invested into UVI, but now you can be sure that I won't be. Introducing a subscription model is now a red-flag like home-grown C/R, or a single activation on an iLok product. It's a bad smell that adds a clause to any purchase excitement. "Oh, that's a cool sample library, but..."

"... they only allow one iLok activation"
"... they are C/R and haven't been in business very long"
"... they are moving to subscription"

[noiseboyuk]

Oh we're doing this again. So I'll do this again.

During the last 10 years only 2 significant audio developers have gone full subscription after optional subscription - Adobe and Avid. No others. There is a clear and obvious trend to offer subs as an option (eg UVI) but very shaky evidence that it is a "slippery slope". The numbers who have done this can be counted on the fingers of two fingers.

Of the two that have done this:

1. Adobe. All existing permanent licenses still work, but they are not supported with OS updates etc. My Audition CS5.5 does still work and gets use, but Acon Acoustica will eventually replace it for me as CS5.5 is only 32 bit. (I bought Acoustica in a sale for about £35, it's terrific).

2. Avid. Although no new customers can buy permanent licenses directly from Avid, existing permanent licenses are not only still valid (of course), the company are offering sales to get them up to date with the latest versions. You can buy a reinstatement code that can be used at ANY TIME in the future, so you can update to the latest version for OS update or feature reasons. That's exactly what I've done, so my perpetual licenses are protected for many years to come.

Those two are the ONLY examples.

This whole foaming at the mouth over subscriptions is nuts. Put all that energy into something that's real and matters.

[nightjar]

However, it's reasonable to point out that subscriptions are not consumer friendly and are designed to generate greater profits.

Depends on which consumer. Many consumers want this. And profitability benefits both company and consumer.

It's reasonable to point out that it is a part of a larger trend of rent-seeking behavior that may eventually force you into a subscription should you want to keep using a specific vendor's products.

No one is forcing you to get the "wants" in your life.

It's reasonable to point out that subscriptions tend to change a vendor's behavior with respect to sales because it's in their interest for customers to switch to the rental model.

It's in the mutual interest of vendor and many customers.

It's reasonable to point out that this change moves you more towards an "always on-line" existence.

And "always on-line" brings benefits that many users want.

****************************

It's reasonable to point out that all of these points are dependent upon the needs and wants of the customer as much as the company. And a competitive marketplace fills these needs and wants as shaped by the market itself.

And markets changing is simply life and reality. When someone finds themselves on a waning edge of a market segment, they experience that simple reality.

[BenfordLaw]

Oh we're doing this again. So I'll do this again.

How gracious of you to lend us some of your great knowledge on this subject.

This whole foaming at the mouth over subscriptions is nuts. Put all that energy into something that's real and matters.

In other words, stop talking about, right?
"You'll own nothing, and be happy". LOL

I steer clear of VSTs that use challenge/response (or c/r for those who are too lazy to type in 'challenge/response' - some people are newcomers to computer music, why waste their time by not just writing out the full words?), because if the developer goes under, or sells out to Apple, etc. and I have to reinstall or upgrade my Windows installation, I can no longer use that synth ever again. Screw them.
We obviously ARE moving towards more and more subscription services for software, because companies think they can make more money that way. The best thing we can ALL do is to refuse to use these subscription services, then the companies will have to sell software like they used to, or go bust. Roland Cloud could have been stopped in its tracks if everybody just used their heads and refused to subscribe, instead flooding Roland with emails saying they wanted to buy the VSTs outright, or not at all.
Just look at PC games - in the old days, all games were on CDs and DVDs, you actually owned the disc and could install it at any time in the future, and sell it second hand, and buy games second hand. Now, with downloaded games, you don't have a physical copy of the game, it's either impossible or much more difficult to sell a game secondhand (which is what the game companies want - can't have people enjoying games that are ten or twenty years old, which were apparently great at the time they were released, but are now apparently not good enough so you just MUST buy a crappy new bloated game in 2022...)

As usual, the voice of wisdom, Noiseboyuk, tells us all to just stop talking about it. Haven't you got an Omnisphere thread to go police, Noiseboy?

[Trancit]

Oh we're doing this again. So I'll do this again.

How gracious of you to lend us some of your great knowledge on this subject.

This whole foaming at the mouth over subscriptions is nuts. Put all that energy into something that's real and matters.

...In other words, stop talking about, right?...

No... stop senseless whining about it...
1. It will never change anything except the patience of the others...
2. The claims are simply not true as noiseboyuk made clear very well!

"You'll own nothing, and be happy". LOL

Wow... somebody has read something even it seems you´ve read it but don´t understand...

How on earth can this be related as long as all companies which are offering subscriptions (except the 2 examples) still give you the option to buy license as before??

You don´t like subscriptions?? Fine buy your license as before and don´t nerve the others...
And all this other whining simply isn´t true... or so rare that the majority doesn´t need to care...

You guys act as if nearly every company starting subscriptions would have gone subscription only and this is simply a lie...

If it would have turned out that subscription would lead to one day subscription only I would be completely on your side but the experience of the last decade has proven the opposite and so there is just one conclusion: Stop whining and spamming these threads with your paranoia!

[SoftSynthLover99]

........
So then, how about that Photoshop "freedom of choice?" In case you've forgotten, Adobe went sub in 2013. That may seem like forever, but it's not really that long ago. Prior to that, it was largely unheard of for consumer or prosumer products.
......
In related news, expect to see a lower priced ad driven option for your favorite plugins soon.

And yet fine alternatives to Adobe products exist for those who want to purchase. And old purchased versions of Adobe products will still run. So these two fears being whined about are unfounded.

Alternatives from other devs are not "freedom of choice" with respect to sub vs perpetual license from the same vendor. This is often touted as a reason why subs are ok. See Avid for a music related example.

Also, "old purchased versions of Adobe products" do not still run on a Mac. This is often touted as a counterpoint, but sub supporters don't realize that capital is in this for the long haul. This is exactly what was being discussed earlier, namely, that it doesn't have to be an explicit sunsetting of software, OS changes will eventually force it for you.

Moreover, you might find yourself in court for trying:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/a3xk3p/ ... -photoshop

These are neither fears nor whining. This is the reality of the clear and obvious trend towards the rental model in software. What is missing at the moment in audio is a clear dominant vendor. Don't kid yourself, all of these mergers and large infusions of investment capital are an attempt to form just that.

Will you likely always be able to buy some alternative? Sure, the Affinity products are great, until you need Adobe for something, then you don't have a choice but to rent it for a time. Professionals who have built their entire work life around a product suite have to think about whether or not it makes sense to continue to use that product or reinvent their workflows. There is no shortage of this discussion among photographers.

So, absolutely, the sky is not falling, and there's no reason to move into a cave. However, it's reasonable to point out that subscriptions are not consumer friendly and are designed to generate greater profits. It's reasonable to point out that it is a part of a larger trend of rent-seeking behavior that may eventually force you into a subscription should you want to keep using a specific vendor's products. It's reasonable to point out that subscriptions tend to change a vendor's behavior with respect to sales because it's in their interest for customers to switch to the rental model. It's reasonable to point out that this change moves you more towards an "always on-line" existence.

In May 2014 the service was interrupted for over a day due to a login outage leaving graphics professionals locked out of Creative Cloud.[45][46][47][48][49] Adobe apologized for this global Creative Cloud failure.[50][51] When initially asked whether customers would be compensated, the company's Customer Service responded: "We cannot offer compensation for the outage. I'm so sorry again for the frustration."[52][53] Adobe later announced that it would review compensation on "a case by case basis".[54] The outage was heavily criticized, as was Adobe's software as a service model in general.[55]

For me, it's a red flag. I'm not heavily invested into UVI, but now you can be sure that I won't be. Introducing a subscription model is now a red-flag like home-grown C/R, or a single activation on an iLok product. It's a bad smell that adds a clause to any purchase excitement. "Oh, that's a cool sample library, but..."

"... they only allow one iLok activation"
"... they are C/R and haven't been in business very long"
"... they are moving to subscription"

Learning of an interesting development that could potentially be bad for users of Antares products actually.

So a lot of Antares new products (AutoTune Vocal EQ, Auto-Tune Vocodist) are not even for sale by perpetual license anymore. AND all of the subscription plugins received Apple M1 updates before perpetual.

I have a perpetual license for Auto Tune Pro (released before the big sub switch) and that one was conveniently left out of the recent apple M1 native updates from Antares (even though auto tune artist and may others are now M1 native).

But get this, seems they will be releasing a new Auto-Tune Pro X soon which seems to be only subscription based, and that version will be Apple M1 native and likely discontinue the current Auto-Tune Pro version so no M1 updates will come.

Very pissed to learn about this, so maybe you guys are not ALL the way wrong, maybe it’s some truth that subscription will lead to a bad business model.

This move from Antares is very shady as I’ve purchased and always upgraded my Auto Tune licenses. Not a Melodyne fan but will consider learning it if they make this move.

[hebex]

Oh we're doing this again. So I'll do this again.

How gracious of you to lend us some of your great knowledge on this subject.

This whole foaming at the mouth over subscriptions is nuts. Put all that energy into something that's real and matters.

...In other words, stop talking about, right?...

No... stop senseless whining about it...
1. It will never change anything except the patience of the others...
2. The claims are simply not true as noiseboyuk made clear very well!

"You'll own nothing, and be happy". LOL

Wow... somebody has read something even it seems you´ve read it but don´t understand...

How on earth can this be related as long as all companies which are offering subscriptions (except the 2 examples) still give you the option to buy license as before??

You don´t like subscriptions?? Fine buy your license as before and don´t nerve the others...
And all this other whining simply isn´t true... or so rare that the majority doesn´t need to care...

You guys act as if nearly every company starting subscriptions would have gone subscription only and this is simply a lie...

If it would have turned out that subscription would lead to one day subscription only I would be completely on your side but the experience of the last decade has proven the opposite and so there is just one conclusion: Stop whining and spamming these threads with your paranoia!

What makes you think you can come here and tell us to shut up and try to bully around those of us who don´t want to comply to the new VST-production serfscription business model, that big money execs through their paid shills try to ram down our throats, whether we want it or not?

There is a legitimate concern for the consumer interests in this matter. Some of us use our brains and don´t want to hand over control of VST-music production to the corrosive force of big money, but instead want to make people aware of and use consumer collective power to vote for the right thing with our wallets.

[vurt]

but just because you don't want a subscription, doesn't mean everyone feels the same. it doesn't make them shills just because they don't agree with you.

if enough people want to still buy perpetual licences, do you think the greedy corporation won't sell them?
and if some people want subscription, then they will offer that too.
maximising profit, means both markets will be tapped.

[ghettosynth]

if enough people want to still buy perpetual licences, do you think the greedy corporation won't sell them?

So go ahead and tell me about how we can get photoshop, pro-tools, and Antares autotune-vocodist permanent licenses?

You will have some choices from someone, but not necessarily the choices that you want.

So, yes, the "greedy corporation" won't sell them. Adobe made it quite clear that they were all in on the subscription model and stated explicitly what is well understood, namely, that offering permanent licenses is a distraction to their core vision of "creative cloud."

Also, it's not just about being able to obtain them, it's about how your costs will change whether you have a subscription or not. We are seeing fewer aggressive sales on permanent licenses as vendors shift their energies to pushing their subscription offerings. This is all part of the boilerplate for selling subscriptions, of course, it is disingenuous because they're well aware that consumers seeking a lower price on a permanent licenses aren't fooled by subscription pricing.

I recall the most recent Eventide upgrade and how, for the first time, Eventide pulled back old licenses for the discount. That will certainly have some small impact on the used market, no? Of course, now Eventide offers a subscription.

Again, to drive the point home, the ability of a firm to be this aggressive is, in part, a function of their domination of some aspect of the market. This will become easier for some firms once more merging and acquiring happens. I would definitely be watching the NI/Izotope/PA thing for signs of deeper subscription life. They have all of the right elements in place.

Another part of this is getting the customer base to accept the value (according to them) of subscriptions. That takes time. It's in the works now and so many of you are helping by marveling over the choice that you have, now.

I used to have to think really hard about who had subscriptions, now it's widespread and many major vendors are offering them. It's naïve to think that everything will always be the same and that large firms aren't thinking strategically.

[ghettosynth]

BTW: For those that think that shills and/or manipulating you isn't a part of the plan, their words, emphasis mine.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinem ... cdd79a52e8

6. Redefine engagement

When Adobe pivoted to a subscription model, the company went all in on engagement, because it had to win over vocal customers who were initially apprehensive about the business-model shift. “We conducted monthly customer studies which informed how to shape marketing efforts for every customer segment, including the biggest resistors. By looking at the data and understanding the customer insights that were driving their concerns, we leveraged blogs and community forums to own the change and educate customers on the benefits they would reap.” This experience mirrors the advice customer service advocate Jay Baer gives to companies to “hug your haters,” turning customers who have had a negative interaction into brand champions by addressing their concerns.

[vurt]

if enough people want to still buy perpetual licences, do you think the greedy corporation won't sell them?

So go ahead and tell me about how we can get photoshop, pro-tools, and Antares autotune-vocodist permanent licenses?

maybe there arent as many of those as there are willing to subscribe?
you do have a choice, subscribe, or dont, and, if enough people do the same, then there will be permanent licenses.
however, if more people want subscriptions, the market will go that way. and then you go for alternatives.
thats life, not everything comes packaged just for you.

[vurt]

also, this thread isnt about those companies, its about uvi, who are offering both sub and perpetual licenses.

[ghettosynth]

also, this thread isnt about those companies, its about uvi, who are offering both sub and perpetual licenses.

You brought up the point in a general context, so let's not start playing thread cop when your point gets shut down.

I am talking about how I feel about UVI going subscription. I think that it's part of a larger trend to move away from permanent licensing and that is certainly on topic in this general thread.

[vurt]

also, this thread isnt about those companies, its about uvi, who are offering both sub and perpetual licenses.

You brought up the point in a general context, so let's not start playing thread cop when your point gets shut down.

actually i didnt, i was replying in the uvi thread, so figured that would be taken as read

and hebex is worried about uvi, and losing his perpetual license.