Karyn

I admit I was a bit disturbed at first by Sonar switching to an annual subscription model,

 
Sonar is NOT subscription.  You can pay in full, or you can pay in instalments.  There is no subscription option.

I stand corrected, but feel free to substitute the word "Membership" for "Subscription" if I must use the official terminology.

lludwick

Karyn

I admit I was a bit disturbed at first by Sonar switching to an annual subscription model,

 
Sonar is NOT subscription.  You can pay in full, or you can pay in instalments.  There is no subscription option.

I stand corrected, but feel free to substitute the word "Membership" for "Subscription" if I must use the official terminology.

Didn't mean to sound like I was getting at you, but subscription is how Photoshop is "sold" and is nothing like the Cakewalk model.

Karyn

lludwick

Karyn

I admit I was a bit disturbed at first by Sonar switching to an annual subscription model,

 
Sonar is NOT subscription.  You can pay in full, or you can pay in instalments.  There is no subscription option.

I stand corrected, but feel free to substitute the word "Membership" for "Subscription" if I must use the official terminology.

Didn't mean to sound like I was getting at you, but subscription is how Photoshop is "sold" and is nothing like the Cakewalk model.

 
 
Agreed. That is why I am fully satisfied with the CW plan.  I understand these other companies don't want to offer their full line of software to people without proper compensation, but there always should be a point where you have paid enough, can end the plan and not have everything taken away from you.

bapu

BobF
You should hear what software engineers expect.  Yes, I agree.  

Ummmmmmm  I am a software engineer (for over 30 years).
 
Today, because they can, companies are pay 30-50% less than they did 5 years ago. I know from direct experience.
 
I am grateful that I am still in this field but the new standards for pay is tough.

I've been thru it too.  There was a time when a 'C' programmer could knock 'em down.  Then every school in the world had a program and cranked out 'C' programmers.  Result?  We all know ...
 
My point is that more important than the number of dollars is the steadiness of the stream of dollars.  You get half of your customers skipping every other or every third new release and suddenly you have cash flow problems.  It's tough out there.
 
Thing is IF CAKE GETS THEIR ACT TOGETHER, I'll happily pay some amount every year to keep them in the business of providing me with consistently fresh software.  I'm NOT going to be demanding and stingy at the same time.
 
20% is the minimum amount I tip and I visit my favorite eating establishments regularly.  I want them to stay in business.
 
I haven't lived in the northeast for many years and I've never lived in the Boston area.  Based on my experience in CT though, I can imagine that Boston isn't exactly a cheap place to live.  Rent, food, kidz, spouses, hobbies of their own ... yeah, the people that make the things I enjoy deserve to be able to afford the things they enjoy.
 
Take Rapture Pro as an example.  I'm not going to complain about $20 here or there on the price.  I will however complain about things that are just ... well, ignorant.  Like hiding PDF manuals 
 
I'm of the opinion that Cake has changed owners a couple of times now because they're NOT exactly a cash cow for the owners.  So they're trying a different model to see if they can achieve 'going concern' status.  I WANT them to succeed, so I'm going along with it until I feel like the value just isn't there.
 
It's not what the method of pricing is called that I look at.  It's the overall value of the return for my $$.  If the cost of keeping the top tier product current turns out to be $200/yr that might or might not end up being a good value.  We'll see.  It doesn't seem like it would be ahard mark to reach though.  Let's see, $200.  That's what, a tank of fuel in my truck a nice dinner with TLMBF?  Seems like a great deal to me as long as CAKE GETS THEIR ACT TOGETHER.
 
We'll see how it goes.

I don't know about the newest model for Sonar, but some variation on this model seems to be the way everyone is going. Can you believe what they tell you about the benefits? I don't know, but the reason I bought in to Platinum was to find out. Most of the great software I use has become less user friendly over time or has gone to a payment model that I don't care for.
 
I'm closely watching what happens with my 1 year membership. Ive seen a couple things that I don't like. For example, the Platinum releases are not cumulative, instead they are one-off's from what I can tell. Lets say I decide to sit out one year of membership and one day a feature comes out that I think is really cool. There's no way to tell if you get that feature when you buy in once again. That's the single biggest issue for me and I feel pressured into keeping the membership going to prevent this.
 
They should be a clear code telling us that this months update is a one off freebie or a change to the core program. When they blend it all together you don't know what you are supporting and that makes it hard for me to truly judge the value. IF a new user buys Platinum tomorrow, what do they get? 

BobF
I've been predicting the emergence of regular payment models for a long time. It's the only way software companies will be able to survive.

 
What has changed in the last fifty years that makes it impossible for a software developer to survive using the license purchase model? And what existential threat to the software business has suddenly arisen that requires a change to a subscription model? I can imagine one unlikely factor, but I would be interested in understanding your reasons for making this statement.
 

slartabartfast

BobF
I've been predicting the emergence of regular payment models for a long time. It's the only way software companies will be able to survive.

 
What has changed in the last fifty years that makes it impossible for a software developer to survive using the license purchase model? And what existential threat to the software business has suddenly arisen that requires a change to a subscription model? I can imagine one unlikely factor, but I would be interested in understanding your reasons for making this statement.

IMO it's a few things that have come together to bring us to where we are.  I think DAW software, like any niche market solution, is especially sensitive to these:
- available talent pool has grown exponentially, reducing expense and therefore the entry barrier to competition is also reduced.
- tools have become more productive and produce more efficient code, reducing talent requirements, reduced entry barrier.
- DAW software overall has matured to the point that incremental improvements in successive version are reduced; point of diminishing return on continued investment.  Less motivation for users to upgrade.
 
All of the top tier DAWs are feature rich and they are now competing with each other instead of hardware.  This makes the ROI much less by orders of magnitude. 
 
When enough people start skipping versions, the revenue stream is reduced.  The alternatives are to increase revenue from existing customers and/or increase market share.  Increasing market share in a market as fractured as the DAW market has got to require live sacrifice.
 
Seriously - every DAW out there has the ability to reliably capture what you play when you click REC.  Yes, there is workflow -we all hate avoidable repetitive motion- but how much in real dollars is workflow worth to amateurs, and how many pro studios are there out there to sell software to?  We're back to ROI again, and in the pro shops the time req'd to become proficient with new tools is real money.  There has to be a compelling case to make a switch ... so, how much of an increase in market share is realistic?
 
No, I don't really see an alternative that keeps them in business.  Bring enough value to the table to keep existing customers paying [relatively] small amounts on an ongoing basis.
 
The only question in my mind is whether or not the value will be there.  This will be tricky next year, and will continue to get trickier as memberships get staggered throughout the year.  '15 was easy to sell because there was a sizable initial drop.  In theory, the only new stuff in the future will be smaller monthly releases.  How will I feel about paying 2 bills to continue another year with nothing "big" right away?
 
I dunno ... that's why I keep saying "we'll see".  Not much time left in the first year to establish a rep that motivates people to continue without hesitation.
 
I really don't see an alternative to the model though short of a month to month 'right to use' fee that other companies have already adopted.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

ampfixer
 
I'm closely watching what happens with my 1 year membership. Ive seen a couple things that I don't like. For example, the Platinum releases are not cumulative, instead they are one-off's from what I can tell. Lets say I decide to sit out one year of membership and one day a feature comes out that I think is really cool. There's no way to tell if you get that feature when you buy in once again. That's the single biggest issue for me and I feel pressured into keeping the membership going to prevent this.
 

John I do not know how frequent you visit the SONAR forum but it has been stated by Cakewalk employees numerous times. If you stop after one year for any period of time (i.e. one month or 3.6 years) when you re-up SONAR is a cumulative release at that point. 
 
Here's an example. Say it's the end of your year now. You choose not to re-up. Three months down the road the Drum Replacer (which is in the works) is completed and delivered. Since this is considered a feature of SONAR and therefore part of the core product (for let's say SONAR Platinum) then anytime after that release when you re-up you WILL get the features previously released for the product you own.
 
Now in the same example. Cakewalk releases another group of presets from Craig Anderton and considers it a Membership perk. Let's say Craing creates a set of ProChannel presets set that make a singer sund like a basoon (in my case that would be preferable). Now that "membership perk" IS NOT cumulative, because as such
 
a) it was made for people who are active paid/paying members
b) it *may* be made available for a cost to nonpaying members at a future date
c) (most important) it is not a feature (i.e. essential for the operation) of the core product
 
Now you might say "But hey Ed, Drum Replacer is not essential". True that, but the Bakers can declare any feature as part of the core product and I believe I'm correct when I say the Bakers have declared it will be part of the product; hence why I used it in this example.
 
Final example. Someone has NOT yet got the new SONAR. They wait 14 months and two months prior to that the Bakers announced it will no longer be offering Addictive Drums 2 (two months hence). The guy/gal that waited 14 months will NOT be getting AD2 since CW is no longer partnered with XLN audio. This too has been stated by CW employees while acknowledging they currently have NO plans to discontinue AD2..... but at *some point* we all know it's a possibility.
 
Now, at one time one of my version upgrades included Lexicon Pantheon Reverb. It's not offered in SONAR Platinum (probably since X1 IIRC). Same difference with AD2 since it's a 3rd party product supplied with SONAR today.
 
And so, I say no one is held hostage to continue to buy annual upgrades (which is exactly like X3 and before) and the only "loss" anyone has for opting out for some period is the membership perks (which may or may not be available for purchase when one re-ups).
 
Bottom line, almost nothing has changed. Except for some sus-spish-us perceptions.
 

http://forum.cakewalk.com/FindPost/3209530
 
We are pretty much on the same page about the real problem with software sales. The lowered cost of development issue should result in less danger to survival. If you can produce a good product for a really low cost , you should be able to last forever, even if your competition is in the same boat.
 
The real issue is, as you note, that many types of software have reached the stage of development that nothing of any real critical functional value can be added. That level was reached with office suites at Office 2000, and DAW's are rapidly approaching this level. This stage in the development of the automobile came even before  electric windows became standard, and until something other than internal combustion becomes the new norm, most people can get where they are going with any automobile made since the 1930's on. The advantage that the auto industry has, is that they make a product that wears out and needs to be replaced, so they can sell new cars to old customers, and do not have to depend on new customers reaching driving age. Software just does not wear out, and it is likely that for a very reasonable cost we will be able to run Windows 7 and the software that it supports for the rest of our lives.
 
So, if the incentive to spend a lot of money on frequent upgrades is being lost as the basic function of the software reaches a practical limit, does the subscription model actually save the software industry? Will buyers be willing to pay forever (resulting eventually in many times the present cost for the same amount of use),  for something that has not increased in value? They will if they have no choice. So far the developers who have gone subscription, have had an effective monopoly on their product. That monopoly can be defined by the term "industry standard." If you are a professional in the image editing business, you will at some point be required to submit work or edit other's work using Adobe Photoshop. If you are running most kinds of business, you will need to use MS Office in a version compatible with the people you are trying to collaborate with. In music the analogous program is probably ProTools. It is not that you cannot use other programs for these functions (all word processors produce text and all DAW's produce wave and AIIF ), but that unless everyone you are working with professionally has access to the same software you will have trouble talking to each other, bothersome and costly glitches and incompatibilities. 
 
That does not mean that there are not a very large number of users who are interested more in the product than in the method of getting it. Hence the large number of image editors available for reasonable cost to amateur photographers, and the many DAW's competing mainly for amateur musicians. If the big names are willing to compete on cost they can probably drive out the rabble in a relatively short time and then squeeze the customers with the less product for much more money inherent in the subscription model. So far that has not been the case, prices for subscriptions are generally unconscionably high.  Some limited number of industry leading developers will do very well under the subscription model, but most of their competitors will not have this option available. They will have to compete with each other on price and features, and lower prices will result in less investment in new features, leaving them further behind the industry leader. It is a recipe for the development of a true monopoly and not at all good news for consumers.
 
The subscription model, touted as a way to always provide the newest features, is actually a very strong incentive to not add any extra features at all. The electric company does not have to provide a new version of peppier power every year, it just has to have the ability to turn off the lights if you do not pay the monthly bill. The only option available to customers who do not require the industry standard application is to avoid like the plague getting hooked on a lesser app that tries to sell them on a subscription.
 

slartabartfast
http://forum.cakewalk.com/FindPost/3209530
 
We are pretty much on the same page about the real problem with software sales. The lowered cost of development issue should result in less danger to survival. If you can produce a good product for a really low cost , you should be able to last forever, even if your competition is in the same boat.
 

 
My point is that lower cost development not only reduces cost for existing companies, but also lowers the entry barrier (cost) for new competitors.  More fragmentation of the available user pool.  Potentially.