Anderton
If you elect to pay monthly, the terms are that you are buying the software over a 12-month period. You can consider that as functionally equivalent to rent to own, but it is not a traditional rental agreement.

And in most rent to own schemes, you end up paying substantially more than you might otherwise.
The Cakewalk scheme is pretty modest, and is more similar to the split payment plans at Sweetwater and ZZounds. Yeah I pay a few extra bucks, but I can use it now. Otherwise, I would be saving up and waiting for it.
I don't feel that I am being ripped off at all.
Ironically, this sort of press might inspire people to check Cakewalk out. Once they see how it really works, they might think, as I did," hey, I can cover that".
And the rolling update thing is kind of cool.

Anderton

Sanderxpander
Or, just don't use the word "membership". Really, I don't mind, I'm at peace with the new model and think we older users are getting a good deal out of it at least for this upgrade. But it's clearly demonstrable that people mistake this easily. It's all fine to say they should read better but that doesn't solve the fact that it's causing Sonar undeserved bad press.

I still think it would have been a lot worse if we'd used "subscription" because that word alone had a negative connotation in peoples' minds. And really, what Cakewalk is doing is not following the traditional "subscription" model anyway, so I'm sure some people would have said it was misleading to call it such..."hey, my software doesn't die after a year, what is wrong with you people?!?" 
 
If you have any suggestions for a better term, nothing prevents us from using that going forward (it's not like Cakewalk printed up 30,000 "Cakewalk Membership" T-shirts), but "subscription" is not one of them.

Well, Waves goes with "Waves Update Plan". They offer a very similar deal. I'll be the first to admit that not everyone likes that construction either but it's an alternative at least. The way they sell it is you buy the software and get one year of WUP included. Separating the "year of updates" from the core program helps to clarify this. The only difference is that with Waves, you can't pay monthly and there is no chance for your product to sizzle and die if you don't complete 12 payments.

It is only confusing (to some) because CW has made it confusing by attempting to distance itself from the Adobe model.
If I pay something and receive something for one year and then pay again and receive again for one year, THAT IS A SUBSCRIPTION by definition!
Just because is is not Adobe's model of "renting" the "subscription" does not make it something else.
CW can try to call it anything they want, but it IS still a subscription.
 
 

It's definitely NOT a subscription by definition - it's a buy to own scheme.

KPerry,
How is that?
If I pay once a year for a magazine, and they send me a magazine each month that I get to keep, and after one year they ask me to pay again to receive the magazine each month for one more year. What is that called?
 
Now just substitute the word software for magazine.
I see absolutely NO DIFFERENCE. Enlighten me.

In a "rent to own" scheme, you make smaller monthly payments for something instead of paying for it all up front.
However, you do not expect to get newer versions (or fixes) of what you purchased each month.
 
Go down to your local "Rent-to-Own", pick out a new sofa or better yet that big flat screen TV.
Arrange a monthly payment plan. After a year maybe two, you own it. Stop paying and they take it back.
However, they are NOT going to give you an updated TV each month as newer models are released. If you always want the latest model, you would have to have some kind of "update subscription" for the new TV.
 
As I see CW's model, it is a subscription with a monthly payment plan.
And no, I am not confused.

Sanderxpander
The only difference is that with Waves, you can't pay monthly and there is no chance for your product to sizzle and die if you don't complete 12 payments.

Actually it's very similar...given that it's an update plan, you've already bought the software so it's not going to die if you don't renew. Same with CW. And if as with Waves you pay upfront, you don't have to be concerned about completing 12 payments.

jatoth
Just because is is not Adobe's model of "renting" the "subscription" does not make it something else.
CW can try to call it anything they want, but it IS still a subscription.

 
Here's the situation. Words can have different shades of meaning depending on context. "Subscription" is a very general term. Adobe has taken that term and applied it to a particular sales model. As the first to use the term in that context, and as a giant corporation that pretty much owns a particular industry, they "defined" what subscription as applied to a software purchasing model meant. If you google for a definition of subscription software, you'll find it referenced to Adobe's way of doing things where you don't get to keep what you bought unless you keep renewing. CW did not want to be confused with that.
 

Then CW could have advertized it as "Unlike the Adobe model, you can keep the software once it is paid for."
Which I believe they did.
But, we were also told repeatedly, mostly by fanboys in the forums, that "It is NOT a subscription."
Thus confusing some.

Anderton

Sanderxpander
The only difference is that with Waves, you can't pay monthly and there is no chance for your product to sizzle and die if you don't complete 12 payments.

Actually it's very similar...given that it's an update plan, you've already bought the software so it's not going to die if you don't renew. Same with CW. And if as with Waves you pay upfront, you don't have to be concerned about completing 12 payments.

I agree, I'm merely being pragmatic here and trying to offer (at your request) a better way of phrasing the current offer to avoid more undeserved bad press. I added the difference between the models only as an afterthought.

This would also address jatoth's interpretation because it implies not that you're receiving "the software" month by month, but rather that you buy the software and receive "updates and content" for a year.

I don't know, maybe the difference is too slight. Again, I'm not objecting to the deal we're getting at all. Just wondering if there would be a way to phrase it that doesn't make people jump to the wrong conclusion.