Rent-to-own?

[Elektronisch]

I will share my expierience in past weeks with few of producers who use cracked software.

We didnt had a discussion about rent to own until we just started talking about software we are using and both of them said almost exactly the same thing

"im using sylenth1 cracked but i just recently saw they announced that theyr doing rent to own thing also i saw Serum doing that too, i will get them both"

Not word 1:1 but seing ability to have by payements does look atractive for people who cant sprare whole sum in whole time.

[Urs]

Well, I can't concern myself with a few dozen "maybes". As I said, if 50% of people prefer rent-2-own and we get 50% of these revenues half a year to a year late, we're dead. Can't accommodate a few freeloaders for that.

[Aspects of Tone]

Though I would not be interested in it, I have nothing against rent-to-own.

However, if rent-to-own means a change to the copy protection system then I would likely be a lost customer for u-he .

A big part of the reason I have most of the u-he stable of products is the non-intrusive copy protection

[AnalogGuy1]

Though I would not be interested in it, I have nothing against rent-to-own.

However, if rent-to-own means a change to the copy protection system then I would likely be a lost customer for u-he .

A big part of the reason I have most of the u-he stable of products is the non-intrusive copy protection

I'm not sure a good target audience for potential sales are people who say they would gladly regularly spend a sum of money each month to rent a product, yet say they are unable to save at the same rate to buy that product.

Clearly there are at least 3 manufacturers out of the several hundred that KVR lists who feel differently; time will tell if that number increases or decreases. If it increases, then it would be something to look into. But to divert development time when the developer is already behind his anticipated release dates, so that he can be one of the few first-adopters of a sales model adopted by less than 2% of the industry, that requires substantial changes to a copy protection system that is currently unintrusive yet has withstood attempts to hack, solely to gain the unable-to-save target market, seems unwise.

[JJ_Jettflow]

Though I would not be interested in it, I have nothing against rent-to-own.

However, if rent-to-own means a change to the copy protection system then I would likely be a lost customer for u-he .

A big part of the reason I have most of the u-he stable of products is the non-intrusive copy protection

I'm not sure a good target audience for potential sales are people who say they would gladly regularly spend a sum of money each month to rent a product, yet say they are unable to save at the same rate to buy that product.

Clearly there are at least 3 manufacturers out of the several hundred that KVR lists who feel differently; time will tell if that number increases or decreases. If it increases, then it would be something to look into. But to divert development time when the developer is already behind his anticipated release dates, so that he can be one of the few first-adopters of a sales model adopted by less than 2% of the industry, that requires substantial changes to a copy protection system that is currently unintrusive yet has withstood attempts to hack, solely to gain the unable-to-save target market, seems unwise.

It's not a rental program but a rent-to-own program. That means the price of the product is divided into equal payments, interest - free, and when you have completed the payments it's your to keep.

So in reality the only difference is that you either save for the product and buy it when you have saved enough OR give the dev the money in installments.
At least with the latter, you get to enjoy the product right away.

[Guenon]

I'm not sure a good target audience for potential sales are people who say they would gladly regularly spend a sum of money each month to rent a product, yet say they are unable to save at the same rate to buy that product.

When you're for example in high school, saving for a bunch of plugins at that rate can be really discouraging. If it's just one plugin you might save for it quicker, but it's still relevant to compare: it's something like 18-19 months to save for the full price of Serum at that rate, one and a half years during which you don't get to use the plugin. There's much more incentive when you actually get to use it in the mean time.

[Urs]

I guess times have changed, but back in my high school days there was only hardware. A friend and myself took two years of saving and some shit work to get some kind of decent setup, with two or three digital synths, a drum machine, sequencer software, reverb and stuff.

Growing up always sucked in that respect

[spunkmuffin]

Aah soul-destroying work, I know it well. Enjoy.

[pdxindy]

Just go to the Facebook groups for DAWs or music styles and every day there are requests for cracks for plugins. Some do it because they don't care (so f**k them!), but a lot of them genuinely can't afford to spend $200 because they're either in a 3rd world country where it's month's salary, are students with no income, etc. If those guys were given other way to purchase their plugins, they would.

And there are others who can afford it, but music is just a hobby and it's difficult to justify spending $200+ monthly on a new plugin(s). It's much easier to swallow if its $10/month, which makes it an impulse purchase kind of thing.

If someone cannot afford to spend $200, then they cannot afford it whether it is $200 at once or spread out over time. If they can afford it spread over time, then they can save their money and buy it.

Also, if you are calling it an impulse buy, then after 10 such impulse buys, the person is spending $100 per month.

Personally, I find it unethical to attempt to entice people into impulse buys that they cannot afford.

[pdxindy]

So in reality the only difference is that you either save for the product and buy it when you have saved enough OR give the dev the money in installments.
At least with the latter, you get to enjoy the product right away.

And with the former, the developer actually gets all the money

[OreoSplitter]

Just go to the Facebook groups for DAWs or music styles and every day there are requests for cracks for plugins. Some do it because they don't care (so f**k them!), but a lot of them genuinely can't afford to spend $200 because they're either in a 3rd world country where it's month's salary, are students with no income, etc. If those guys were given other way to purchase their plugins, they would.

And there are others who can afford it, but music is just a hobby and it's difficult to justify spending $200+ monthly on a new plugin(s). It's much easier to swallow if its $10/month, which makes it an impulse purchase kind of thing.

If someone cannot afford to spend $200, then they cannot afford it whether it is $200 at once or spread out over time. If they can afford it spread over time, then they can save their money and buy it.

Also, if you are calling it an impulse buy, then after 10 such impulse buys, the person is spending $100 per month.

Personally, I find it unethical to attempt to entice people into impulse buys that they cannot afford.

So are you going to say people shouldn't own cars because it's an impulse buy if they didn't buy it out right vs monthly payments? The end cost is relative. Sure a car costs a lot but same logic applies, as in, some people wouldn't have never owned it if it weren't for small monthly payments. Stop being so righteous thinking people must have X amount of $ in there pocket at all times. that is not real life. If your thinking was true, credit card companies would cease to exist. Financing wouldn't exist. Hell, even Adobe realized $20-50 a month is better then trying to get $1500 in an occasion sale. It has become affordable to every household. Professional leading products where 10 years ago would have been a few G's.

[spunkmuffin]

Why isn't food rent-to own? Hey OreoSplitter why not try to sell your credit/debt financialisation product to your local grocery store? If you can get them to sign up then surely u-he will. I would definitely be interested. I would like to rent-to-own a carrot. Maybe a tomato too.

[chk071]

I will share my expierience in past weeks with few of producers who use cracked software.

We didnt had a discussion about rent to own until we just started talking about software we are using and both of them said almost exactly the same thing

"im using sylenth1 cracked but i just recently saw they announced that theyr doing rent to own thing also i saw Serum doing that too, i will get them both"

Not word 1:1 but seing ability to have by payements does look atractive for people who cant sprare whole sum in whole time.

It's absolutely beyond me, how some can't afford a 170 € plugin once in a while. Even me, as a hobbyist, with very small budget to spend on these things, i'm able to afford the one or the other plugin, mostly during sales. If your 2 fellow producers weren't able to purchase Sylenth1 in the last winter sale, for 99 €, then i have no idea what they can afford...

[JJ_Jettflow]

So in reality the only difference is that you either save for the product and buy it when you have saved enough OR give the dev the money in installments.
At least with the latter, you get to enjoy the product right away.

And with the former, the developer actually gets all the money

And with the latter, the developer makes a sale he might not have done otherwise. No different than the deal devs make to sell at places like AudioDeluxe.

[pdxindy]

So are you going to say people shouldn't own cars because it's an impulse buy if they didn't buy it out right vs monthly payments? The end cost is relative. Sure a car costs a lot but same logic applies, as in, some people wouldn't have never owned it if it weren't for small monthly payments. Stop being so righteous thinking people must have X amount of $ in there pocket at all times. that is not real life. If your thinking was true, credit card companies would cease to exist. Financing wouldn't exist. Hell, even Adobe realized $20-50 a month is better then trying to get $1500 in an occasion sale. It has become affordable to every household. Professional leading products where 10 years ago would have been a few G's.

I doubt cars are an impulse buy for many poor people

Personally, I think the world would be a better place without credit card companies and financing. But that discussion is beyond the scope of this thread or forum.

I've been an Adobe customer for more than 20 years. I think the problem for Adobe is that their tools became mature and already served the needs of many professionals who then updated infrequently. It is not for the customer, it is to maintain the flow of money from our pockets to theirs.

If you pay $50 per month for Adobe, that is $12,000 over 20 years. As a professional photographer and graphic designer, I spent considerably less than that on Adobe products over the past 20 years because I only upgraded when it served my needs. The price has gone up a lot because you no longer have a choice of upgrading or not as is useful to you. And of course, Adobe can raise the rate at any time and you either pay, or stop being able to use what you have been paying for. I stopped using Adobe products once they switched. (I still use Lightroom cause it is still pre-subscription)

Anyway, Adobe's subscription model is not rent-to-own which is what is being talked about here. It is also not an option like rent-to own is. I can still go buy Serum in addition to a payment plan.

I have no problem with the rent-to-own option... except I do not want u-he to spend 5 minutes of development time on something that does not benefit me in the slightest.