I was involved in writing a book on Audition Creative Cloud, and there was a huge amount of discussion about the way they were implementing the subscription model for all Adobe Creative Suite products. I wrote an article about subscription software for Pro Sound News, and an editorial for the Harmony Central newsletter.
 
I'm curious what you guys think of the subscription model. A lot of software companies, not just Cakewalk by any means, have improvements ready to go months before a "significant" update. A subscription model would let features roll out when they were ready.
 
When Adobe first announced the Creative Cloud it had a significant flaw: If you stopped subscribing, you were hosed and couldn't load old projects because the old software wouldn't work any more. Adobe is going to offer a solution, but I think the simplest one would be that you could pay a nominal "finalizing" fee that froze the software in whatever state it was in, and you could keep using it as long as the rest of your system was compatible.
 
However, that particular implementation turned a lot of people off to the concept, including me. But now that I've had a chance to think about it, I'm starting to feel that there's not a problem with the subscription model per se, it depends entirely on how it's implemented. If it's driven by marketing to maintain a constant cash flow, that's different than if it's driven by a software company to create happier users by getting updates into their hands sooner, and without them having to lay out a big bunch of cash all at once.
 
I think one advantage of a subscription-based system I never see mentioned is that it separates the learning curve into smaller, bite-size chunks. After you've figured out a new feature, then another one comes along.
 
I still have an open mind about this although I'm starting to lean more toward "If done right, the subscription model could be cool." So - what do you guys think? Good, bad, indifferent...and if a subscription model was implemented, how would that work from an ideal standpoint?

I abhor the idea.  

I don't know.  I dabble in 3D animation and a few years back I was learning to use Hash's A:M tool.  At any rate, they went to an annual subscription and I went the other direction.  The "what happens when I stop paying?" problem seems very difficult to get around.  I expected that the users of that program would see a significant drop in innovation and would have no real way to cut their losses.  Probably worth mentioning that two years on, they had raised the price 60% and (from a casual glance at the forum) really slowed down the pace of development.
 
That said, a maintenance model (which may be what you were getting at) would work for me.  As long as I send cake ~$100 a year, I keep getting bug fixes and new versions.  I license a few software development tools and they generally work this way.
 
However, I would be surprised if that was the reason that we don't see more frequent patches.  Releasing patches is an epic pain in the ass.  You have to put a lot of work into your process in order to be able to do these small releases.  Unfortunately, that work doesn't come with a pretty blinking light, so it can be very hard to get a person in charge of product priorities to invest in it.
 
 
 
 

 
I'm going to explore every option to the subscription model.
 
I have several Creative Suite licenses and I was always dismayed with the very short time they were open for upgrade before they were simply timed out. I still use some of that software.
 
I am dismayed to see that companies such as Adobe insist on spending resources merging all their technologies. For example; Photoshop doesn't really need 3d animation video output... especially if your subscription fee is already paying for After Effects. Why would I want to be forced to pay for that?
 
I have a box copy of Photoshop CS 6 that I bought just before I could not.
 
I still use my CS4 install because there's nothing in CS6 I need.
 
I went to install Audtion 3 on my new DAW 2 weeks ago. I couldn't authorize it because it was circa CS2. So I ended up speaking with an Adobe rep who told me how old and out dated Audition 3 was. I didn't bother explaining it was old because it didn't need anything I just insisted on my activation so they gave me a fresh .exe and a reg key.
 
I think some of these companies should start thinking about down sizing and remaining vital instead of insisting that we have to pay for them to continue to invent stuff beyond our needs.
 
I think the fact that Adobe was willing to see if we would tolerate the initial subscribe-or-die model before considering a change of policy is an indication of how short sighted and fool hardy the few that benefit from these sorts of policies can be.
 
The fee they ask is very reasonable for some end users and exorbitant for others.
 
As soon as they institute the policy you describe above, a person such as myself will be wondering how quickly I can opt out and get max use out of the software. My mentality will immediately shift back to the purchase or long term lease paradigm.
 
Square one.
 
They should make something people want to buy instead of hoping we'll be stupid enough to buy a subscription to more than we need.
 
Thanks for asking.
 
 
best regards,
mike

I have almost the identical feelings as Andy. I don't like the idea of leasing software. I fear that it will kill development and competition. With a once a year upgrade, I am basically paying for a subscription, but can stop upgrading if I choose, without my software stopping operation.

Subscription for software SUCK - well to me personally.
 
I refuse to upgrade any of my Adobe products in protest.
 
Autodesk uses a subscription model for their software and I refuse to use their products too.  No 3d Studio Max or Maya for me.

I won't do a subscription model.  The idea that users will/would see any significant development of the software thru the course of a year I think is BS. Bug fixes the user should be getting during the year for purchase of the software or upgrade as the case may be any way.  If Adobe in the end is going to let some one keep a version of the software when they decide to drop the subscription then they might as well offer the software for purchase in the first place, the money is the same whether paid over the course of a year or a 1 time fee.
 
Dan

I have mixed feelings on the topic. 
 
The bad...
I think software companies do it for two reasons:
 
1) To force customers who would otherwise pass on an upgrade to continuously pay.
i have always loathed Adobe's upgrade policies.  Those of us who owned Macromedia before the acquisition got blindsided by Adobe because we were used to being able to skip[ an upgrade without penalty.  You skip an upgrade with Adobe and you are screwed and may as well be a new customer.  Even that was not good enough for them because there were those who would simply rather sit with current version instead of paying high upgrade prices for what were often just more bloat.  The cloud ensures continual compliance with the Adobe Borg collective.
2) Another misguided attempt to combat piracy that affects paying customers more than it does pirates. Needless to say Photoshopped was cracked within a few days and was quickly followed by others.  In the meantime,i have had glitches cause my cloud subscription to go down twice while I was in the middle of a project. Not pretty
 
The good...
 
If you are a person who regularly upgrades and earn a living using this software, it works out to be cheaper.  mind you, i find this to be true of suites only.  A program like photoshop is a total ripoff because one could easdily earn a living doing the exact same work with photoshop that was several versions back.  I like the new features but there is nothing added in the last few versions that would significantly alter my workflow. Since I regularly use Premiere, After Effects, Audition, Photoshop and occasionally Dreamweaver and Illustrator for commercial use and will likely contoinue to do so for the foreseeable future, it is somewhat of a bargain.
 
The Meh...
 
I'm not that impressed with the regular updates.  They should be doing that anyway considering the high cost of their product.  Mocha  has released several upgrades with new amazing features they could easily charge for.  Allowing clients to continually beta test and giving them fixes for bugs is not particularly generous.  I'm grateful, but let's not pretend like Adobe is giving out anything that we will nto be continually paying for.
 
Conclusion...
 
I think Adobe will get away with this in the short term.  Having a large market share with certain products (Audition is very popular in the radio world and Premiere is solid in the indie video world) and damn near monopolies with other projects ( there is no real competitor for Photohop and After Effects is the only low cost compositing software available on Mac and PC).  Whether others follow them is debatable. Competitors could use this as a moment to strike by offering an alternative model.  Premiere was lagging greatly behind Final Cut with Mac users until Apple made a few missteps.  I have already calculated that aside from photoshop, much of what I do could be done with third party software.  Many of my plugins work with Adobe Licenses I own free and clear.  There are even free alternatives one could argue are superior.  Resolve lite is a better color correction option than anything Adobe offers (Speedgrade may get there but has shortcomings).  Lightworks is as a good of an editor as Premiere but has a much steeper learning curve.  I will continue to use my cloud service but I can't quite get myself to like the idea.  Maybe it comes down to just not trusting Adobe to do the right thing.
 
 

I've an Adobe Creative Cloud subsription for the simple reason it works out the cheapest and easiest way to keep up to date copies of the multiple Adobe applications I need to use/want to use. It is the cheapest way because of Adobe's high outright-purchase software prices.
 
Adobe has a huge advantage over any DAW maker in that several of Adobe's principal products (Photoshop/Dreamweaver/Flash/Acrobat) are the "industry standard" and you frequently need to combine two or three of them to do any particular job. In its main fields Adobe is a monopoly and can price and act accordingly.
 
No DAW maker is a monopoly in the same way, not even Pro Tools. So I can't imagine a subscription model being a valid way to go (though I suppose Pro Tools might manage it with the studos that refuse to contemplate anything else, pull in enough paying customers to be profitable and then write the cost off against tax anyway). In fact, were Sonar to go down that route I would not only be dead against it I would switch DAW. The last thing the world needs are more software near-monopolies tying us into paying endlessly for their products.
 
PS Any software company can release updates by means other than once-in-a-blue-moon mega patches, it doesn't need an Adobe Cloud-like setup to do that.

The way some companies are doing it (and this is the way it should be done, if you're going to offer a subscription) is to offer a yearly subscription fee. For that entire year you get any new versions/updates. If you stop paying, your software still works, forever. Plain and simple. Some also offer 6-months, etc.
 
Scott

--
Scott R. Garrigus - http://garrigus.com - SONAR X2 Power! - http://garrigus.com/?SonarX2Power
* Author of the Cakewalk Sonar and Sony Sound Forge Power book series: http://garrigus.com/?PowerBooks
* Author of the Cakewalk Sonar ProAudioTutor video tutorial series: http://garrigus.com/?ProAudioTutor
* Publisher of the DigiFreq free music technology newsletter: http://digifreq.com/?DigiFreq
* Publisher of the NewTechReview free consumer technology newsletter: http://newtechreview.com/?NewTechReview