"Just like electric service. Use more, pay more."

I'm not sure what it's like in other countries but in the UK over the last decade it's been a case of use less pay more year after year! Of course they use doublespeak to try to make us think otherwise.

CakeAlexS
"Will this reduce number of users? YES!!! Happily!"
" (Marketing 101: the cheaper the price the more support requests.)"

Hmm if that's the case might as well sell it to 100 people and charge them £250,000 :).

Remember we are dealing in an age where people expect either an app to be free or a few dollars at most, just like buying your music (no wonder the economy is screwed). There are the other terms "elasticity of demand", "scalability", "value for money". Reliability also a crucial factor for DAW software.

Yes. Raise prices, have fewer customers.  Thousands of examples of all types of viable businesses at all the price points for all products and services.
 
Why must CW play to the cheap seats because all the others are?
 
Market share is not the goal. Profit is.
 
My wife's business is considered the best dance studio in the area. And to continue to be so they charge more. And pay the teachers more. And the teachers are professional, and good, and continue to be so.
 
My car guy's business has always charged more than others in the area. They have significant loyalty from customers and employees. The work is always good.
 
Charge more, spend less on supporting fewer customers, pay more attention to product.
 
I do not want CW to be the walmart of DAWs.  I would prefer CW to be similar to Talbots. More expensive. More exclusive. More desirable.
 
But, I am an old guy who has prolly read too many business magazines, and books, and attended too many seminars, to really have any idea about how organizations learn to be great.
 
 
Great way to increase market share: Charge for license transfer: new customers without marketing expense. Total profit.

CakeAlexS
"Just like electric service. Use more, pay more."

I'm not sure what it's like in other countries but in the UK over the last decade it's been a case of use less pay more year after year! Of course they use doublespeak to try to make us think otherwise.

Nearly from the beginning all energy suppliers have been significantly tax subsidized. Both from direct government support and transfer of pollution costs to health care costs, and black/brown field remediation.  Same for the auto industry, the most subsidized industry in human history. That prices are increasing during our lifetime, that we get to clean-up the mess from excessive use is directly related to prices being too low because of the subsidies and transferred pollution provided for and allowed by our parents and grandparents.
 
But I still think those that use the software for primary income should pay more than those who do not.
 
 

Hmm become pro tools I think is what you are saying, they might already have a market share :). My view would be "be different" and find the gap in the market (I already feel Sonar fills it but it of course could always be better). There is a LOT of competiton however.

I know there are plenty more ways to be scalable (inc support), and sorry I disagree, number of customers does not necessarily mean more support nowadays with technology (there is a curve)/and I actually prefer Sonar to Pro Tools in most instances.

YouDontHasToCallMeJohnson

CakeAlexS
"Just like electric service. Use more, pay more."

I'm not sure what it's like in other countries but in the UK over the last decade it's been a case of use less pay more year after year! Of course they use doublespeak to try to make us think otherwise.

Nearly from the beginning all energy suppliers have been significantly tax subsidized. Both from direct government support and transfer of pollution costs to health care costs, and black/brown field remediation.  Same for the auto industry, the most subsidized industry in human history. That prices are increasing during our lifetime, that we get to clean-up the mess from excessive use is directly related to prices being too low because of the subsidies and transferred pollution provided for and allowed by our parents and grandparents.
 
But I still think those that use the software for primary income should pay more than those who do not.
 
 

Yup generally all makes sense until you get to look at their profit margins offset against their investment and tax breaks. Smoke and mirrors sadly! Also lack of competition and price fixing where there is.

Anyway I digress :) Back to topic sorry..

Updates for subscribers only have small problem... Bug fixes should be release for everyone since the (broken) functionality is in the initial advertizement/price. With such model, it is 2 versions parallel support: bug fixes for the old one and the main line. We could observe that CW is not releasing updates for previous  version (have not seen X2u update after X3 release), so such approach requires significant work flow change.

YouDontHasToCallMeJohnson

bz2838
Sorry guys, I disagree, when I put my money down, I want to own the license, I may want to cancel a subscription for some reason, and if I do, I still want to be able to use the software I paid for. 

A license is a non-exclusive, restricted, grant of use.   No ownership involved.
 
i figger most of us do not want to be riding in a pumpkin when the clock strikes 12.
 
And I doubt the CW managers would ever make it so.
 
 

A certain amount of ownership is involved when I buy a license (non-exclusive, restricted, grant of use, as you put it), but the license for that particular version does not expire, as in the case of Waves, Ni, Arteries, and most software vendors, where you can SELL these licenses to a third party under the agreed conditions.  So under these conditions, I consider that I do own these licenses.

Well just to be all legal about it, you don't own the intellectual property, but you have a license to use it.

Anderton
Well just to be all legal about it, you don't own the intellectual property, but you have a license to use it.

I never said or thought I owned the intellectual property, but I do believe I own the License to use the property, to use and dispose of it as I see fit under the agreed conditions.  I'm not trying to split hairs here, but if I buy an annual subscription to adobe Photoshop Cloud and other similar subscriptions, when my subscription ends, so do my rights of use, that's what I'm referring to.  If the license does not expire, such as with Waves, NI, and others, I have no objection to buying into that if I can live with the terms and conditions of the licensing agreement. 
 
 

I sometimes wonder how many actual programmers (and yes I include Noel in on this, even though he's the CTO, IIRC) and QA people there are. 
 
Probably doesn't really matter but if every poster of a "request/bug/problem" knew that there was a rather small pool of programmer vs. 100 programmers would they be more sensitive the list of known "bugs"?
 
I posit this because I assume it is a small pool of programmers and therefore even though I think my biggest aggravation/frustration/distaste is drum maps... I can see that they simply would not be higher priority than a hover car for the next release.