DeeringAmps
Am I the only one that feels that is exactly the business "model" we are in with Cake?
I pay my $99 or whatever every year, and as Scott said; "For that entire year you get any new versions/updates. If you stop paying, your software still works, forever"
What's the problem???
 
Tom

I was thinking the same thing but I would rather pay one fee and get all te PC modues and everything else. Also, I do not have Reaper but I like the way that they tell you how many updates/upgrades you are paying for... and it seems that they do not hold back on updates and/or tweaks. It seems like a subscription model under a different name but one where you don't have to worry about paying some monthly fee or your softare stops working. The subscription model has lost me to one company already: MasterWriter, it is good software but when it comes to paying every month for it... I end up using a spiral notebook (and do just fine).
I agree with Mike's first post. Iit isn't exactly what he said but the whole thing reminds me of the "so called" affordable Care Act... or insurance in general when someone starts setting mandates... I end up paying for things I don't want, will never use, or need in any way. I don't like that and I certainly do not want it in something I enjoy doing. Mike, I am not saying you said that... but that is what I thought of when I read your post.
 
I think if a company like Cakewalk wants to have a steady stream of money coming in they could switch to $8.00 (OK, $10.00) a month and include everything that comes along (including PC modules/VSTs), and keep it coming. Every tweak, bug fix, new feature... (maybe). From an accounting POV they would have to be prepared to not have the large influx of cash they are used to getting when they release a major upgrade.
 
I think the best business model, for the end user, is what Reaper offers. Pay a defined ammount and get a defined number of updates through a pre-defined upgrade upgrade number.
I prefer to own my software and I prefer NOT to have to purchase things I do not want, though Sonar already includes things I don't use but being a upgrade that is $100.00 or so annually or bi-annually I tend think of it as a total package. HOWEVER if I were paying monthly I would be looking at it less as a package and more as a collection of components and updates. I don't think I could help but compare the monthly fee to whatever updates, fixes, and goodies I am getting and how often I get them and how useful they are to me. Paying a monthly fee and getting things month after month one does not need or want... well, and that is going to apply to someone no matter how you slice it. One is going to be thrilled with what they get and someone else is going to be like.. pfffft.
It seems to me that a company like Cake would be asking for more complaintsthan they now have if they went to a monthly subscription fee. Some would leave Sonar on principle, just because they would not like feeling as if they don't own what they are paying for. I cannot imagine any new customers coming in because they have a subscription plan. I think it is a gamble but that is just my opinion and it could be wrong.
 
One thing is certain, if this is the wave of the future we wont have much to do with it one way or the other. Someone at Roland will decide on whatever business model they believe will generate the most income and that will be that (or I could be wrong, but I doubt it). Then... it will be left to the Bakers at Cakewalk to make sure whatever business model is decided upon... will be a good deal for the end user and customers will both buy it and like it. I don't know about big business but perhaps someone can step up and tell the bean counters, "WOAH... that wont work" or "Yes, but..."
 
If it were my decision I would shamelessly copy the business model of Reaper. Then again... constantly releasing "fixes" and small upgrades could cause constant problems for some users who would likely be very vocal.
Change is always hard and Cakewalk has been through enough major change since the release of the X series. Another major change might d more harm than good. There are a lot of different angles you can look at this from... and there is ALWAYS the "law of unintended consequenses". After considering everything I would wait and I would tread lightly. I think there may be a blues tune in here somewhere.
 
At least we aren't discussing iSonar.  
 
Julien

My first thought was that software subscriptions is a gateway to legitimizing buggy, incomplete releases, particularly if the code base and development team wasn't up to scratch.
 
Consider a theoretical company that is moving to a subscription-based revenue stream:
I don't believe updates will be on any more frequent release schedule, just because the revenue stream is subscription-based. I guess it depends on the company. If they are able to issue frequent, stable patch updates, then they have no reason not to do so, subscription or no. So if they aren't doing it now, they're not going to start doing it.
 
What about more frequent feature releases? That really depends on the nature of the software... and how modular the code-base is. In order for the release to be stable, I think they'd need to concentrate on a specific feature: For example, imagine Cakewalk spends the next 6 months working on improving the Score Editor (and nothing else). When it was baked, they could release it as a point feature release (like, say, 2.0 -> 2.1) free to subscribers.
 
Some of us would be over the Moon about it, providing the changes didn't de-stablize the rest of the product (that's what I mean about a modular code base). Others would probably complain bitterly that the point release contained nothing for them, and that their subscription $ was wasted. There'd be arguments and polls over what feature should receive development attention next time.
 
On the other hand, if the development team and code base allowed this kind of release schedule, then why wouldn't they be doing it now, as paid updates? Then only those users that cared about the feature would pay the money. The rest would wait for a "roll-up" release and pay the usual full upgrade price.
 
I'm not sure that subscriptions would alter how the software could be developed, so I don't see any benefit for end-users.
 
I know you weren't talking specifically about Cakewalk, Craig, but if Cakewalk changed to a subscription model, I'd go along with it because, as others have said, that's essentially what we do today (although I wish I'd sat out the X1 release). But a new company, with a new product? A subscription model would put them at the bottom of my list.
 
 

With the potential for "new features" in upgrades nearly exhausted AND the market probably saturated, I can't imagine how DAW developers can stay in business any other way. I am strictly referring to further debugging.
 
Keep new sales as is but updates, by subscription only. That might make everyone happy.  Hopefully that would end the necessity of filler "new features" that we all must endure  just in the hope of getting rid of bugs. But in version after version we all know that they zap a few old bugs and introduce dozens of new ones with new "features" - always and without fail. For the company that is a convenient sales model - until the people finally figure the game it out. From there - the only place to go is cheaper because you have killed off your core base. Well Duh!
 
For any user, it's a circular argument. I cannot understand why people haven't already figured that out.
 
I have been pleading for them to offer a subscription for years. Maybe they could develop this stuff to it's true potential.

I can tell you that so far every update I have received from a year from cloud Adobhe cloud usage were bug fixes that would have likely been updated anyway.  No remarkable new features or products that I would use.

Im living in a place where my desktop is not connected to internet ( no internet access ). Can i still subscribe with this set up?

Hi Craig,
 
Dig your work!
 
As for subscription software, I must say it makes me nervous.  I am a software engineer and I strongly encourage a strict release process where a running version is well tested and controlled.  Many sub-iterations can be difficult to control and support.  Just my 2 cents.

phrygiann
Im living in a place where my desktop is not connected to internet ( no internet access ). Can i still subscribe with this set up?

I'm not sure but you may be able to download the appropriate codes or whatever to unlock the program then transfer them over on a USB key. I think there are some subscription based services that actually require you to be on the internet while working though which would suck for resource intensive things like audio where internet can screw things up.

Anderton
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 think we miss the point that we are currently in somewhat of a subscription mode. We aren't paying to buy a finished product, were paying for the continued development of a product based on its current ass-is state...

I've been mentioning this in other threads as well. I think that marketing should make a point of this and possibly "add" some other payment schemes as options.

As to the regularity of update releases? <sigh>...

Keni

Mystic38
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
 

Thanks for reminding me I have a Paintshop Pro license somewhere, not that up to date, X I think. I stopped useing it because some of the  background programs were conflicting with Sonar. Now I have a dedicated DAW and the photo software is on a different box that should not be an issue. Its certainly worth investigating the integration and upgrade options. I liked the program and features.

phrygiann
Im living in a place where my desktop is not connected to internet ( no internet access ). Can i still subscribe with this set up?

You need to sign on at least once a month via internet.