Kenny, it was sent by email.  Easy to miss.  Check your spam

I didn't get this one either, and I seem to get all CW emails...    Was it in the subject line?
 
Regarding the "Would you rather pay $9.99 per month or $99 per year" question, I'd imagine it's more of a "am I better able to pay a smaller amount each month or a larger amount at one time, annually?" thing.  Planning for and getting accustomed to a small regular payment is easier for many.   I'm not sure it makes that much difference for me either way, so as an option, sure...  I'm just not a big fan of the idea of a subscription model as the only model available.
 

stevec
I didn't get this one either, and I seem to get all CW emails...    Was it in the subject line?

[Survey] Get $25 on the Cakewalk Store for your feedback

dubdisciple
Kenny, it was sent by email.  Easy to miss.  Check your spam

thanks  dubdisciple  
I checked and i never got the e mail …
i know they have my e mail since i still get the order confirmation e mails ..
something must be up ….
 
Kenny

ampfixer
The question on the survey was "Would you rather pay $9.99 per month or $99 per year". That's $119.88 per year on subscription or $99 outright. There seems to be a small savings if you bypass the subscription. Who let that get onto the questionnaire.

That is also a forced choice between two subscription models and a response says more about how the user gets his income than about how he wants to pay for his software, and certainly does not indicate that Cakewalk is going to offer this actual price. The annual income from the purchase model is basically new sales + upgrades by existing customers. New sales is more or less dependent on how buyers judge the value of the product compared to the competition, while upgrades depend on the value of new features or fixes compared to the old version. Subscribers or purchasers will both be locked in to Sonar by the fact that a proprietary project format prevents them from moving to a  competitor's platform unless they want to start over. Except for new buyers, it is not the cost of the software per se that makes the choice, but the value of the work they have done.
 
A subscription model will need to have sufficient subscribers at some price x over the year to equal the amount of customers paying full price of a new version plus the reduced price for the upgrade if it is to produce the same revenue. If only a small number of users are upgrading in a given year, the rental model is the likely winner. If the bulk of the income is from new purchasers then the purchase model may yield more revenue. The purchase model thus has more incentive for the developer to include more valuable features to compete, while the rental model has only limited incentives to do so.

 
 
There are many ways of looking at the subject of software subscription models.
 
As I see it, the main objection would seem to be that you never actually own the software (or licence), so that once you stop subscribing, you are left with nothing tangible to show for your payments. You have to weigh up the undoubted benefits of always having the most up-to-date and compatible version of the software against actually owning a bit of gear that will eventually become obsolete unless you eventually upgrade (or you manage to keep it running on an older computer).
 
I wonder, are there any examples of software products out there where the company actually gives you a choice between paying a lump sum every cycle to upgrade (and keeping the software) or paying a regular subscription to use the software?
 
I can't see how such a business model could be constructed with two separate payment options for identical software. If the benefit of subscribing for 'power' users means they get access to an advanced version with more features or improved service, but a purchase option allows we amateurs to own the 'standard' version, then you're no longer comparing like for like.
 
Another consideration has got to be the cost. If you can bring down the cost of a subscription plan to a point when it makes it almost impossible to resist, customers may feel that they are actually prepared to forego the option to keep the software. I'm certain that we would all consider that at a 'certain' price, the subscription model would appear then more appealing than the purchasing model.
 
As some of you will be aware, I've been facing a similar dilemma with Adobe, and I'm finding it very difficult to decide which route to go down.
 
What makes it easier to judge, however, is that at least (for the time being anyway) I have the choice between following the subscription route for the full versions of Photoshop CC and Lightroom (Adobe's 'Photography Plan'), or the purchase and upgrade route with Photoshop Elements and Lightroom.
 
I currently own Lightroom (LR) 5 and Photoshop Elements (PSE) 11. LR5 is the current version and my PSE is two versions behind the current version 13.
 
I've made a lot of 'back of a cigarette pack' calculations about the financial pros and cons of staying as I am, or opting for the subscription (Photography) plan.
 
As I upgrade PSE every two to three versions (I've bought #2, #5, #8, #10 & #11), and I intend to probably upgrade LR every version (I started with #4 and have added #5), I reckon that if I continue to follow that pattern, the upgrade costs work out almost the same as paying a subscription of $9.99 per month.
 
As having an up to date version of Lightroom is part of both options, my decision then comes down to a simple choice between using Photoshop instead of Elements for about the same price, but with the knowledge that the only software I'll end up owning are the current versions of LR and PSE.
 
It's a tough call, especially as the Nik Efex and Topaz plug-ins I own, as well as the wonderful Elements XXL software that integrates with PSE (and adds loads of PS features) already give me a great editing experience with the software I already have.
 
On the other hand, two of the biggest features I really want are only to be found in the full version of Photoshop; firstly, PS is a 64bit program and PSE is only a 32bit. Using the demo version of PS has opened my eyes to how much more efficient my workflow and the handling of complex projects is when the program can access 16 gig of RAM instead of 4 gig. Secondly, and this is the real crucial one for me, is that PSE only has very limited support for simple editing of 16bit image files, whereas PS can undertake any process with a 16bit file.
 
Arrrrgggggggghhhhhhhhhhh.... this is not easy
 
Going back to a possible subscription model for Cakewalk products, maybe they're thinking along similar lines?
 
What if Music Creator and say SONAR Xx might still be available to purchase, whereas SONAR Studio and SONAR Producer might move to a subscription service, with Producer obviously costing proportionately more per month/year.
 
And why stop there? In much the same way as one can add various parts of Adobe CC to one's subscription plan, Cakewalk could extend their model to include VSTs, Instruments and Pro Channel Modules.
 
I must admit that at this point, the analogy between Adobe and Cakewalk starts to break down. It could be argued that Adobe doesn't really have any serious competition in the marketplace. Much as seems to have been the case of the ubiquity of ProTools in commercial music studios, so the situation is similar with Adobe software in companies dealing in images. The direct corollary, I suppose, being that I'd imagine most, if not all, pro photographers will work on their images in Photoshop.
 
So, as Cakewalk actually do have some serious competition in the marketplace, the subscription route might not be so easy to implement as it has been for Adobe. If SONAR became a subscription only option, the real choice then would actually be between opting for a subscription plan with Cakewalk, or moving to a purchase/upgrade plan with another DAW manufacturer.
 
I suppose one way to look at such an eventuality might be that it would certainly confer on Cakewalk an incentive, if not a need, to offer both a product, and a subscription price point, that made SONAR appeal more not just as a product, but increasingly financially attractive too.
 
Thinking along those lines, it could be argued that, compared to the current model anyway, a subscription model might actually lead to a better product at a better price.
 
 

If it happens at all, it won't be for SONAR, but for some ancillary service or plugin. My guess, anyway.
 
Subscription models almost never work for anything other than very narrow vertical markets and highly specialized software such as oil exploration modeling. The history of the software industry is littered with the remains of defunct companies that tried to lock in their customer bases and failed. They failed because somebody else invariably came along to offer those customers a less restrictive and cheaper alternative.
 
Microsoft might have the clout to pull it off, but I doubt it. Up until a couple years ago, I would have said they were too smart for that. But then Windows 8 came along, and I could only conclude that the inmates had taken over the asylum.

SteveStrummerUK
 
   I'm certain that we would all consider that at a 'certain' price, the subscription model would appear then more appealing than the purchasing model.
 
 
 

If you think Cakewalk offering me a subscription and me saying no means that I've considered it, your right. Anything other than that and you are mistaken.
 
Reason being; X3e is the first stable version along with the first computer that has managed to process everything I wanted to be able to do.
But nothing lasts forever and since I can't tell the future and see no reason that I shouldn't be good for years with what I have there is no way I know what will be offered and/or what I'd consider.
 
I'm also not concerned about Cake going in that direction. I'm really more interested in what they can do with the new version/update to make the updating price worth it. They may have shot themselves in the foot making X3 so good.
It is the first time that I thought I might miss an update. I'm not in that group of needing to have a thousand plug-ins or a problem with the way X3 looks so they're going to have to implement something very sweet to even warrant me paying to update X3. 
Never had a DAW before that I didn't want it fooled with.
 
 
 

bitflipper
 
Subscription models almost never work for anything other than very narrow vertical markets and highly specialized software such as oil exploration modeling. The history of the software industry is littered with the remains of defunct companies that tried to lock in their customer bases and failed. They failed because somebody else invariably came along to offer those customers a less restrictive and cheaper alternative.

I have no experience at all with the inner workings of software companies so I bow to your 'inside' knowledge Dave.
 
Just out of interest though, do you have any insight into Adobe's current move to offering their flagship software as subscription only products?
 
As I mentioned in my previous post, although they arguably enjoy almost a monopoly in professional image software, I wouldn't imagine they have an overall market share compared to that of Microsoft/Windows?
 
I wonder how come it is that they seem to obviously believe they can buck the trend of failure you mention. I would say, that as far as I can make out, their pricing structure has entry points specifically and cleverly designed to appeal to the user groups they are trying to appeal to.
 
For example, there's the option I refer to above, where the ability to subscribe for $9.99 a month for the Photography Plan (Photoshop + Lightroom) is extremely seductive to guys like me, especially considering that buying/upgrading both products outright every 18 months to 2 years or so would work out much more expensive (LR5 is around $160, Photoshop CS6 was around $530).
 
At the other end of the scale, a professional photographer/graphic designer who would have probably shelled out for every new version of Photoshop Extended and Illustrator (plus others) can now get the complete Adobe Creative Cloud package for around $85 a month (and no doubt it works out a fair bit cheaper than that if they make it allowable as a business expense).
 
There's obviously no doubt that Adobe have done their homework extremely well, both before implementing the subscription model in the first place, and then in setting up a pricing structure that's not going to scare off too many of its users unwilling to follow them along that path.
 
I suppose one could also view these enticing price structures as the proverbial sprat to catch a mackerel, and that once you've bought into the model for a couple of years, Adobe can then feel confident enough to start ramping up the prices. Under those circumstances, it could become a difficult choice for users as there is no real competition out there for their product line, at least not at the current time. So if there are no comparable products out there, do you bite the bullet and pay up, or fall back on the last usable piece of software you actually still own, however outdated and possibly incompatible it might be.
 
 
 

spacey

SteveStrummerUK
 
   I'm certain that we would all consider that at a 'certain' price, the subscription model would appear then more appealing than the purchasing model.
 
 
 

If you think Cakewalk offering me a subscription and me saying no means that I've considered it, your right. Anything other than that and you are mistaken.
 
Reason being; X3e is the first stable version along with the first computer that has managed to process everything I wanted to be able to do.
But nothing lasts forever and since I can't tell the future and see no reason that I shouldn't be good for years with what I have there is no way I know what will be offered and/or what I'd consider.
 
I'm also not concerned about Cake going in that direction. I'm really more interested in what they can do with the new version/update to make the updating price worth it. They may have shot themselves in the foot making X3 so good.
It is the first time that I thought I might miss an update. I'm not in that group of needing to have a thousand plug-ins or a problem with the way X3 looks so they're going to have to implement something very sweet to even warrant me paying to update X3. 
Never had a DAW before that I didn't want it fooled with.
 
 
 

I appreciate what you're saying Mike, but surely there must be a monthly subscription price you'd eventually give in at? Even if you tried a new version out for a couple of months to see what it offers, as you say, you'd still have your version of X3 to fall back on.
 
Mind you, I still have my ancient, yet beloved version of Cakewalk Guitar Tracks 2 (from around 2002 if memory serves me correctly) running happily on this (Win 7) PC! Even though it's pretty basic by SONAR standards (we're talking just 8 tracks of audio, no bussing and no MIDI compatibility), I reckon I could still knock up a half-decent tune using it