As someone mentioned previously the model that MS uses for it's MSDN development tools can be subscription based which is what I have at my 'day gig'. It also doesn't require that I load up the latest version of the primary tool; if I'm happy with VS2010 I don't have to do an upgrade. They also provide me with the opportunity to preview a new version (forget what they call it something like "Public Preview") before the product gets RTM. This is all fine and good but I don't have to pay for any of this, my employer does so that yearly fee doesn't bother me.
 
On the other hand, MS also provides a 'standalone' licence purchase. Pay the fee and install the product. I purchase this for the work I do seperate from my employer. This works for me because I can analyse what the new product offers before spending any money. Of course the subscription I have at work helps me analyse what I want.
 
The thing about my relationship with MS is I honestly feel I have one. The preview editions allow me to test them out and provide input back to the company on an ongoing basis. As the name MSDN (MS Developers Network) implies it is a network of products and support forums that MS supports with not only their own personnel but contributors who can join the ranks MVPs that also support the network of users.
 
I'm uncertain if Cakewalk could provide that level of product, support and interaction based on their current fee structure nor am I convinced that a subscription model would necessarily help the issue. A subscription model does assist a company when they're forecasting revenue against resources though and that might be a good thing.
 
To sum up, I don't think this is a zero sum game. If Cakewalk could provide both subscription and single purchase models I think it could help everyone. In the end I think all of us want Cakewalk a profitable company...but we don't want to end up in poor house either.
 
Regards,

Heh. I never considered the support end of things. Imagine having to deal with Cake email support if you had a problem renewing. Considering the wait times that would be catastrophic to any pro studio and severely annoying for pretty much anyone. It's just a really bad idea with likely very little benefit to either side of the relationship. The software really isn't that expensive anyway especially if you go for some of the lower level packages. With Adobe stuff it makes a little more sense considering that stuff can cost thousands  and some people only need it occasionally for short periods. When you can get a Cake package that does pretty much most crucial functions for a couple hundred bucks there really isn't much need. With a credit card or financing from a music store you could easily set it up so you're only paying $20 or so a month anyway without maxing out your limit or incurring insane interest charges. For adobe their pro software is easily above many people's credit limits.

Anderton
 
 
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 bought what I have and don't own it anyway so I guess if I have to pay them a little every month so I don't have to wait a year for them to fix their stuff...sheesh...well something needs to change, no doubt about that.

I've been using Adobe Creative Suite for years, mainly Photoshop, Illustrator, Fireworks, and Dreamweaver for WEB development and general photo editing. I have CS5 and because of the Adobe's new Business Model, I will no longer be purchasing any upgrades. What I have works and I see no reason to rent the software. If they have a captured audience, what is the incentive for them to come up with fantastic new features. They already have your business...
 
Walt

Glyn Barnes
I must admit to being tempted by the Adobe subscription services. I use Lightroom but it would be nice to have access to Photoshop as well without a big up front payment, The other side of me says I wnat to own not rent. My jury is still very much out.
 
 

Hi Glyn
 
I find myself in much the same situation as you.
 
I absolutely love Lightroom 5 - the new and improved Lens Correction module was worth the price alone for me. I use it almost exclusively for developing my RAW files now.
 
For further image manipulation, and although I'm extremely tempted to pull the trigger, I can't really justify the cost of the full version of Photoshop, so my compromise has been to go with Photoshop Elements. I just upgraded to version 11, which has the latest version (albeit a slightly stripped-down version) of Adobe Camera RAW. PSE 11 also has the quite excellent new and improved Refine Edge feature, which again for me, was worth the price of admission on its own.
 
So for me, having Elements and Lightroom, plus the superb Canon Digital Photo Profession RAW editor that came with my EOS, I have 99% of my needs covered.
 
I just thought I'd mention it to you, as in my honest opinion, Elements is an incredibly powerful tool for the money.
 
 

I think that the subscription model will end up a money-pit for consumers. For one, it's extremely difficult to accurately evaluate subscription pricing and value vs the price, value, and usage of an outright purchase. There's also the economic value of permanency - I can access old project material using an old version as long I have a computer/OS that will run the application.
 
For short, one-off projects with a product you will likely not return too, a short lease would be good, if the rates are good. Assuming short term (i.e. one month) leases are available.
 
There is value in always having the latest version of a product as soon as it is released, i.e., simplified licensing, latest features, etc. However, there is risk too, and if one has to revert to an older version to work-around an incompatibility introduced in a newer version, the lease becomes less valuable.
 
The key here is value. How do we determine the economic value of a lease (given lease rate options) vs buy?
 
 
 

The subscription model was dreamed up by some marketing wonks as a way to assure an annuity income that will make stockholders happy and support share prices through more reliable revenue forecasts.
 
It certainly wasn't a response to any user demands. Some people do accept it, but I've never heard anyone say they'd prefer it over a one-time purchase and optional paid upgrades. I would never buy a software subscription, even though as a software vendor I actually offer them myself.
 
The subscription model is a good fit for software that requires frequent updates and intensive customer support/training. My own company works this way. We don't call it a subscription, we call it a maintenance contract. It's entirely voluntary and the software won't stop working if you don't buy a contract. But we will charge you an hourly rate if you need help, upgrades will cost extra, and technical services are pay-as-you-go.
 
95% of my customers buy a maintenance contract. No coercion needed.
 
Ours is a big, deep application. We service an industry with high turnover rates, so we're continually gaining new inexperienced users who have how-to questions. Most of our users are non-technical. Many sites have no IT staff, nor database or network administrators. Most sites require extensive report customization. All this means that the software itself is only part of the product, the rest is a substantial service component, which rightfully deserves ongoing payment.
 
But even though I sell subscriptions I cannot imagine such a model being applied to music software. The most complex application you have is your DAW. But you don't expect Cakewalk to come to your studio and set it up for you and teach you how to use it. You wouldn't expect them to customize it for you, provide 24-hour emergency bug fixes, manually repair a broken project file for you or calibrate your subwoofer.
 
The question is: would you pay for that service, knowing that it would be very expensive? And would you stay with that vendor if such payment was mandatory?
 
I have a real problem with mandatory subscriptions or heavy-handed coercion. When my Waves plugins stopped working (claiming I had no license) I wanted to ask the company why their products were failing. If the wheels had fallen off my new car, I'd be entitled to an explanation from the manufacturer. But I could neither call nor even email Waves, because I hadn't bought the WUP. 
 

Steve & Glyn,
 
have you tried Lightroom + paint shop pro?..
 
Since I adopted LR I found that 90-95% of my work is within that environment, and so for the nasty lil bits that you just have to sort out I can launch PSP from within LR, make the detail edits, and return to LR..  edit history is maintained correctly in LR so its a homogeneous solution to me... and bang/$ is off the charts..don't let the cost fool you into thinking its not much of a program.
 
Ian
 

SteveStrummerUK

Glyn Barnes
I must admit to being tempted by the Adobe subscription services. I use Lightroom but it would be nice to have access to Photoshop as well without a big up front payment, The other side of me says I wnat to own not rent. My jury is still very much out.
 
 

Hi Glyn
 
I find myself in much the same situation as you.
 
I absolutely love Lightroom 5 - the new and improved Lens Correction module was worth the price alone for me. I use it almost exclusively for developing my RAW files now.
 
 

Though I can see some advantage, I don't like the idea. Like many here, I have a number of different music SW products and I don't upgrade every one every year, and I don't want to be penalized significantly for skipping one or more releases. And even if I do upgrade almost every year, I want the ability to decide when, based on the availability of funds or time or whatever.
 
 
But the upside to a subscription model I see is not more frequent updates, but a different focus: if Cakewalk (or whoever) is not tied into adding new bells and whistles to attract upgraders, perhaps they can focus on improved core functionality instead. 
 
Though some would argue they can/should do this now, the reality is many people would not pay to upgrade for essentially bug fixes and some incremental changes (based on a longer term vision of where the SW is going). Instead most people will (understandably) whine that they should get those things for free, ignoring the business reality that the programmers rolling out those fixes have to get paid somehow.
 
The subscription model, if implemented as a resource allocation tool rather than a profit tool (he said naively and optimistically ) addresses this. But if it works, it's only because it's essentially the same as saying, "I'm going to continually pay for what I essentially already have and what I might get sometime in the future".
 
 
But in the real world, there's more incentive to both fix and improve things if they have to entice us to part with our money with a new version every year. 

MakeShift
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.

I don't think it would necessarily kill competition at all.  In fact it could have just the opposite effect.  Right now with for SONAR, for example, it costs you ~$400 to get started and ~$100 a year to stay current.
 
With a subscription, you might just get charged $150 annually.  If your first year isn't a happy experience, you choose to spend your money elsewhere.  The vendors will have to keep their product and support at a high level to retain your business for newer customers who haven't invested what they would have had an outright purchase been involved.
 
I'm not as opposed to the notion as much as most folks here, but only as long as we're talking about "mother ship" applications like a DAW.  If I had to juggle subscriptions for every odd VST synth and effect I've got, it would not be a pleasant experience ... and I'd have a lot fewer plug-ins as a result ... hey, maybe I just talked myself into it for plug-ins as well!