cparmerlee

Anderton
Because it's your duty as a SONAR user to subsidize people who don't want to pay $9.99 or perform 9 steps to configure their own encoder.

That argument might have had some merit under the old Cakewalk pricing model.  But it is not a good argument under the subscription model.  Plain and simple, only a perversely short-sighted company would nickel and dime a customer over a $10 item when they want me to be on a long-term subscription that will be many hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars over the life of our relationship. I am not asking anybody else to pay more for the product.  I am saying that Cakewalk has the power to absorb this small cost item for the long-term benefit of a happy, growing customer base.  And in the context of a multi-year subscription, this item is insignificant to Cakewalk's P&L.
 
And for the record, I already paid that charge a long time ago.  My point is this is a dumb marketing position for a company pushing subscription-only service.
 
You are entitled to your opinion about how software products should be marketed.  I don't agree with that opinion in this case.  My suggestion is that you simply accept the fact that your opinion is not shared by everyone on this item and leave it at that.

What subscription model. You pay for your software and you own it. You want to pay for it in instalments? You can. But then you don't own it till you've made your last payment. It's credit if you take the monthly payment option not a subscription. It's just an additional choice to the previous model. What's changed is how Cakewlak deliver the updates. And even then you don't have to take them when they're offered, you can choose to install updates at monthly, 3 monthly, any monthly, or even annually if you want. The choice is yours.

That model has nothing to do with MP3 encoding and I for one don't want to pay for a feature I hardly use when I don't have to and have the choice to opt in or out or even have another option and install a free encoder. For which Cakewalk even provide instructions. Clearly it's not a money making exercise for Cakewalk.

Yup. I'm trying extremely hard, but finding it impossible to find any point of any merit here, even just to balance the arguement. Just a load of wrong assumptions whatever angle you look at it. Sorry...

Agreed on all counts

I don't get it...
 
There are regulars in the Coffee House who say in THIS THREAD that they can't tell the difference between cda/wav audio and mp3's.
 
I'm glad to see that my views to the contrary are shared by most of the contributors to this thread.

That's because they've been listening to Dark Side of the Moon on a washing machine.

mudgel
What subscription model. You pay for your software and you own it. You want to pay for it in instalments?

I suppose marketing is not really the point of this forum, but let me explain the basics here.  Cakewalk is sensitive to the loss of market share by moving to the subscription model, as they should be.  Because of that, they have carefully crafted a message to try to give comfort to those who struggle with that reality.  And in fact a whole lot of people have raised objections to the subscription model.  (Call it what you want.  It is in fact a subscription model.)
 
But here's the thing.  Don't confuse marketing spin with reality.  The reality is that Cakewalk wants people to continue with the subscription process.  That is the whole point.  If that wasn't their goal, then why go through all of the consternation by switching to the subscription plan.
 
In marketing, you don't deal with absolutes.  You deal with tendencies and you take steps to try to influence those tendencies.  In this case, the company is working hard to influence people that it is worthwhile to continue with their subscriptions, and they have done an exceptional job (even though few of the enhancements really affect me.)  The company wants you to keep subscribing.
 
And that being the case, a $10 investment to eliminate a sales objection that could potentially mess up a multi-year subscription is smart marketing IMHO.  It makes zero marketing sense to have this issue out there, even if it is a small one, because it is so easily solved.  The reality is that the situation is as it is because it has "always" been this way.  It made some sense in a non-subscription world.  It makes zero sense in a subscription world.  The company should simply make this issue go away.   That wouldn't affect any existing user in any possible way, so I simply don't understand why some folks are so invested in keeping that quirk out there for new users to roll their eyes at.  Don't y'all want to see Sonar have the widest acceptance possible?

IT IS NOT A SUBSCRIPTION MODEL

Falling on deaf ears Bob.
 
He thinks it's a subscription model, ergo that's what it is

If you buy 12 months it's bought outright and you own it, if you do it monthly for 12 months you are on a payment programme and own it afterwards. If you do it less than 12 months you are on a rental programme. All software manufacturers want you to continue to use their product and upgrade to the latest. Stop talking pointless tosh.

BobF
IT IS NOT A SUBSCRIPTION MODEL

It is a subscription model because the company wants you to keep subscribing.  That is the whole point.
 
Do you plan to extend your subscription in 2016?
 
I agree you don't have to, but obviously the point is to influence you to do that.  Are you going to or not?