# Subscription licenses scare me



## Nick Batzdorf (May 14, 2019)

The main reason is that I've been through some tough times when I couldn't have afforded to pay the subscription fee. Not being able to use software tools I rely on would be *bad toilet* (to quote the late Koko the gorilla).

If you're a commercial facility then it's totally different - you want all the updates "deployed." Or if you need to use something once it makes sense.

But this is not good at all:

https://gizmodo.com/adobe-warns-usi...1yZeYoD-OQ-a6yBjqDwEAG97mMT7NBqVXKPXuSqc3vrEc


----------



## Desire Inspires (May 14, 2019)

Fear: the great motivator.


----------



## Dewdman42 (May 14, 2019)

In the end, the money will all work out the same in my opinion, if you tend to keep up with updates...then you will probably spend the same amount of money either way. What I don't like about subscription though is that if you ever decide you want to slow down, not update anything and just keep making music..you won't be able to. that's the first thing...but my main beef with subscription model is this:

With the subscription model we the consumer are paying the developer an ongoing fee before they have delivered a single update. The inverse of that would be, vendor updates software and we the consumer decide if its worth the cost to upgrade it and if so, then we pay them money for it. Vendor assumes the risk to develop the software and after they develop something and put their intelligence into making sure its good enough that people will pay for it, then we the consumer can be presented with something to see if we want to buy it. That relationship is critical for free enterprise to work as intended.

The subscription model is more like socialism. Everyone just pay into it the same amount and trust the government to continue delivering services. No thanks.


----------



## Dr.Quest (May 14, 2019)

This sounds like Adobe screwed up royally and now has to answer for it. The customers simply got in the way.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 14, 2019)

I have no problem with socialism. My objection is to time-bombed software licenses - which is really how I should have framed this, rather than to the subscription model in general.

Subscriptions to software updates are fine as long as the old software doesn't stop working if you don't pay.


----------



## Dewdman42 (May 14, 2019)

the very nature of the subscription model is that you have to keep paying if you want to keep using it. It just has a much lower barrier cost of entry.


----------



## ism (May 14, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> In the end, the money will all work out the same in my opinion



Absolutely not the case with the Adobe switch. In my experience it was a huge cash grab.


----------



## Dewdman42 (May 14, 2019)

I wasn't involved there so I believe you. What I meant is that let's say Adobe used a different approach, in the long run you would have paid let's say $1000 for the software and they would have tried to get another $1000 out of you over time in upgrades...etc.. if you keep with the updates, you would have paid and they would have made the revenue they need to get. 

But the cash grab you speak of...that is exactly the problem with a socialist model like this. They want the money up front while the consumer is supposed to trust the vendor to deliver later. That can easily turn into a cash grab that delivers nothing. IN order to keep vendors honest...don't ever give them money until they present something worth the price to you.

Now look at Steven Slate, his subscription model is, frankly speaking, quite cost effective. You can still buy his products outright for thousands of dollars, or for $100-200/year you can use them all. If you need them all, its a bargain, even if he never updates anything at all in the future, you get a lot of value. Then it becomes a question of whether you will want to keep using his products in 10 years from now even if he goes out of business or whatever... Its good value because you get a lot of product for a low cost of entry. But eventually...you will spend more then if you bought it outright...UNLESS he continues to update and add to the collection in ways that make it continue to be worth it in the long run... and that is the problem...you're the one taking the risk in that relationship as the consumer.


----------



## Land of Missing Parts (May 14, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> I have no problem with socialism. My objection is to time-bombed software licenses - which is really how I should have framed this, rather than to the subscription model in general.
> 
> Subscriptions to software updates are fine as long as the old software doesn't stop working if you don't pay.


Affinity Designer will open .psd, .ai, .eps and bunch of other Adobe formats. And you get to keep it.


----------



## Manuel Stumpf (May 14, 2019)

Subscription models can be a good idea for trying out products, when a developer has many. Also in case I want to use many of their products . At least as long as I as a user have the ability to decide when, how and if to update my tools.
The biggest downside is the developer can stop/update/remove/change products to their liking whenever they think the timing is right .
Which means they might render the software useless just at the moment when you are in the middle of your most important project ever. And they will not care. Thank you very much .

Sadly the truth often is (with few exceptions):
Formerly I paid 300 bucks for a perpetual software license I use 5+ years, until I decide to upgrade to a new version if I find it useful.
Now with subscription I pay 300 bucks per year subscription for exactly the same thing .
And the most craziest thing is: Do they fix their flaws and bugs? Nope. But I pay subscription for bugfixing. Instead you get many fancy updates you never wanted, which break your workflow all the time.
Not even thinking what happens when a company goes suddenly out of business .


----------



## Crowe (May 14, 2019)

I think socialism is fine. What Adobe does isn't socialism though, for many reasons. The main reason is that they've become increasingly greedy. Their subscription model *should* scare you, it's pretty terrible. Not every subscription is backed by an awful company, however.

I've long switched over to Clip Studio Paint, and I hear good things about Affinity.


----------



## Dewdman42 (May 14, 2019)

The problem is again, if you are trusting the company after feeding them first, then they will never deliver what you hoped. that is capitalism 101.


----------



## ism (May 14, 2019)

These are all capitalist models. Subscriptions are more like the capitalist who rents you a room at a rate per month vs the capitalist who sells you a 10 year lease.

There's an argument for open source models being more like socialism, but I'd argue that even this understand the actual flows of capital involved. There may be kind of libertarianism involved, but it's more the Ayn Rand kind of libertarianism than the Noam Chomsky variety.


----------



## Land of Missing Parts (May 14, 2019)

Shiirai said:


> I think socialism is fine.


----------



## Dewdman42 (May 14, 2019)

well all of you socialists should love Adobe then! That is what socialism brings you. Socialism depends on trusting the government to give you all what they think you need and you the consumer have to just trust them to do it. Sorry to use that word now as it is just getting us a bit into the weeds. Use any language you want.. If you are going to trust Adobe to continue to bring you up[dates and value while paying them ahead of time...well that is the subscription model. The non subscription model forces them to deliver features you will consider to purchase. Call it whatever you want to call it.


----------



## Crowe (May 14, 2019)

Land of Missing Parts said:


> What have those Democratic-Socialist countries got, other than high life expectancy, high literacy rates, low poverty rates, and the highest scores on the happiness index?



In my case, legal and reasonably priced Cannabis.


----------



## Crowe (May 14, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> well all of you socialists should love Adobe then! That is what socialism brings you. Socialism depends on trusting the government to give you all what they think you need and you the consumer have to just trust them to do it. Sorry to use that word now as it is just getting us a bit into the weeds. Use any language you want.. If you are going to trust Adobe to continue to bring you up[dates and value while paying them ahead of time...well that is the subscription model. The non subscription model forces them to deliver features you will consider to purchase. Call it whatever you want to call it.



Not every government is corrupt. Adobe certainly is a corrupt government in this example.

EDIT: ANYWAY. Let's leave the political metaphors for now.

Adobe is awful. Stay away. Go for Affinity or Clip Studio instead.


----------



## ism (May 14, 2019)

I'm with you on the subscription model often not being good for consumers.

But it's also clearly, literally, and like, literal in the most completely literal sense of the word 'literal', a thoroughly capitalist model of recognizing revenue.


Companies use subscription models to increase their revenues. Not because the want to help the poor.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 14, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> the very nature of the subscription model is that you have to keep paying if you want to keep using it



I believe Waves has or had an option to pay an annual fee for all their updates - not just to your software but to new plug-ins they came out with.

But I could be wrong.


----------



## Crowe (May 14, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> I believe Waves has or had an option to pay an annual fee for all their updates - not just to your software but to new plug-ins they came out with.
> 
> But I could be wrong.



That's true, but that's only a subscription if you want it to be. If you don't *have* to update, you can still use the older version until it breaks.


----------



## Dewdman42 (May 14, 2019)

from my point of view, every company is capable of becoming corrupt sooner or later. History has shown that to be the case repeatedly over thousands of years. Companies. are run by corruptible human beings. It is what it is. The human condition. 

That's why I will not ever pay a subscription for software. Software makers can sell me what they have made if its worth it to me I will buy it.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 14, 2019)

Obviously it's great for developers, because they have a level *revenue stream*, as it's called in the art world.

And that's fine. Again, my issue is with time-bombed software.


----------



## Land of Missing Parts (May 14, 2019)

I should really stay out of the Sanctus Cafe. Sorry if I irked anyone.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 14, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> and yes every government, is capable of becoming corrupt sooner or later. History has shown that to be the case repeatedly over thousands of years



Move that to the OT politics section, please. It's an argument against every form of government, one that the brilliant people who wrote our Constitution had in mind with every word... and not one against trusting a company to come out with updates.


----------



## re-peat (May 14, 2019)

ism said:


> Absolutely not the case with the Adobe switch. In my experience it was a huge cash grab.



It feels like that to me too, I must say. I'm paying significantly more for three years Creative Cloud subscription than I paid for all the Adobe software combined, which I purchased and worked with in the 22 years (as a graphic designer) prior to Creative Cloud.

What I find strange is that Adobe has picked a very bad time to start annoying its customers even more (with this "you can't use older versions of our software") than they already were doing, because once Affinity Publisher is released — any day now — and the Affinity triptych will be complete (and the printing houses begin to accept Affinity-generated material), masses of Adobe-reliant designers will make the switch, I'm sure of it. You'd think that, with this threat looming larger by the day, Adobe would do all it can to please its user base. But no, they're doing the exact opposite. Quark payed a very high price for its complacency and arrogance. If Adobe — at least, its graphic department — doesn't watch out, they might be in for a similar fate.

_


----------



## Dewdman42 (May 14, 2019)

ism said:


> I'm with you on the subscription model often not being good for consumers.
> 
> But it's also clearly, literally, and like, literal in the most completely literal sense of the word 'literal', a thoroughly capitalist model of recognizing revenue.
> 
> ...



You do not understand completely the meaning of capitalism, but that is ok, there is so much misinformation in the world now about it that is understandable. Capitalism and socialism have nothing to do with helping the poor or making rich people richer. They both deal with allocation of resources. One way does it by allowing free enterprise to automatically balance out the allocation of resources through capitalistic principles..the other uses some form of central planning to "engineer" social solutions. 

If you give your money ahead of time to the vendor and trust they will engineer the best solution for you, then yes you are following a socialized path. A capitalistic path puts more emphasis on the dynamic between producer and consumer to balance out the allocation of resources depending on people making things of value so that people will give them their money for it.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 14, 2019)

All pure ideology fails when applied to the real world.

Time-bombed software is not ideology, it's a business model that we as consumers have a choice to... subscribe to or not.


----------



## Crowe (May 14, 2019)

Can we please stop the capitalistic preaching?


----------



## Dewdman42 (May 14, 2019)

just responding to what people are responding to me. 

Sorry I used such scary words. 

Bottom line, I don't like paying software companies ahead of time for yet-unmade software. 

Does that work for you?


----------



## ism (May 14, 2019)

Shiirai said:


> Can we please stop the capitalistic preaching?



Especially when we're talking about two equally capitalist flavours of capitalism. Basically "the flavour of capitalism behind door number 1" vs "the flavour of capitalism behind door number 2".

(Ok, that's me out, enjoy the rest of the thread everyone).


----------



## DerGeist (May 14, 2019)

Shiirai said:


> In my case, legal and reasonably priced Cannabis.


Thanks for reminding me, got to pop into the store on my way home.


----------



## ism (May 14, 2019)

re-peat said:


> Publisher is released — any day now — and the Affinity triptych will be complete (and the printing houses begin to accept Affinity-generated material), masses of Adobe-reliant designers will make the switch, I'm sure of it. You'd think that, with this threat looming larger by the day, Adobe would do all it can to please its user base.




I hope you're right on this. Adobe went to the subscription model shortly after various acquisition gave it a kind of defacto natural monopoly based not so much on superior technology as much as things like the hight cost of even minor cross application incompatibility and such. Not really all that dissimilar from the other web 2.0 monopolies at root.

It would be great if Affinity can bring back some genuine (capitalist) competition to break this defacto monopoly.


----------



## Desire Inspires (May 14, 2019)

You have to get your money up if you want to remain a professional.


----------



## ManicMiner (May 14, 2019)

I really hope Adobe don't prosper from this Subscription policy, so others won't follow on. It really is not a good feeling to pay a chunk of money every month and still not really own the software.
They knew Photoshop & AE (their only two good products tbh) were widely depended.

With EastWest, Composer Cloud is a little different for me. EWCC if you have it and it can do a job for you for a certain piece of music, then good because you can seal that off and move on; you don't need yo go back to it generally speaking.
With Photoshop you've got your workstation set up (Actions/Brushes etc) and are sharing PSD files between everyone... ugh.

As for me I am still using CS6, and so far its doing the job. 

Slate Digital offer a subscription. Again, that's psychologically hard for me to pay money and not own it. Now, if they came out with a,"rent it for two years, and after that time you own it..." ...might be better.
Some vendors did this with the Serum synth etc. That appeals more.


----------



## Alex Fraser (May 14, 2019)

Can I quickly jump in on the Adobe bashing?

A couple of months back, I signed up for a free trial for Adobe stock pictures. When the trial ended, I forgot to cancel it and paid for a month's subscription. I didn't think anything of it and set a reminder to cancel it for good in 30 days time.

30 days later, I logged on to cancel the subscription, only to find that I was now committed to a "yearly" plan and would have to pay a cancellation fee of £160. Apparently, this is what I signed up for.

The year term certainly wasn't clear at signup. A quick Google revealed I wasn't the first to be fooled by far. The same search revealed that others had contacted Adobe online chat to have the cancellation fee waived, with success. So I tried the same, following the same playbook whilst receiving exactly the same canned responses from Adobe.

The worst (or best) bit? Adobe agreed to completely cancel the subscription and waive the entire fee. All it took was a 3 minute chat online and it was done. I'm not sure what's worse: The predatory signup model or the fact that Adobe can't or won't enforce their own payment penalties and instead rely on people not to complain.

So yep, Adobe = Charlatans. I've hated them forever.
Rant over.


----------



## MartinH. (May 14, 2019)

Fuck Adobe!




ManicMiner said:


> I really hope Adobe don't prosper from this Subscription policy, so others won't follow on.



:(


----------



## ism (May 14, 2019)

Ok, I think there might be a way to constructive roll this into something that's actually relevant ...



Dewdman42 said:


> You do not understand completely the meaning of capitalism, but that is ok, there is so much misinformation in the world now about it that is understandable. Capitalism and socialism have nothing to do with helping the poor or making rich people richer. They both deal with allocation of resources. One way does it by allowing free enterprise to automatically balance out the allocation of resources through capitalistic principles..the other uses some form of central planning to "engineer" social solutions.
> 
> If you give your money ahead of time to the vendor and trust they will engineer the best solution for you, then yes you are following a socialized path. A capitalistic path puts more emphasis on the dynamic between producer and consumer to balance out the allocation of resources depending on people making things of value so that people will give them their money for it.




Listen, sorry if I've been needling you - it was really intended to be good natured, but I really don't know where you're coming from.

I do agree with your general point, but I think were we're getting derailed here is that you're comparing two perfectly normal models of capitalist revenue of the modern software industry, which are legitimately compared and critiqued for their relative merits for the company vs the consumer, and injecting the word "socialist" - where there's absolutely no socialism happening in any literal sense , so you're invoking "socialism" as a metaphor for inefficiency in capitalism.

On its own, the subscription model itself can benefit or hurt consumers, consider

Composer cloud - can certainly benefit a certain type of beginner, effectively renting access to software that once cost 1000s of dollars in manageable instalments. It's not all that different from some of the micro purchasing schemes I've seen in parts of the developing world, and it can certainly be good for consumers. Significantly of course you can still buy the original products, and there probably aren't that many cases where there isn't a competing product that doesn't more or less the same thing.

Creative cloud, however, fundamentally different. It's only launched once the company has established an kind of natural monopoly, although this maybe isn't completely obvious at the time as its also right at the moment the extent of the other natural monopolies of silicon valley are just coming clearly into focus. Also - you can no longer buy licenses outright, and for technical reasons not necessarily involving actual functionality, there is often effectively no viable competition.

Now, I think this is a clear failure of market related to a new kind of monopoly dyanamic. It's a different kind of monopoly than Standard Oil, but I'd still argue that a kind of state regulation might well be the antidote because while it would be nice if consumers walking away would solve this issue through natural market processes, the nature of the web 2.0 monopolies (and the network dynamics therein) make it sometime hard for policy makers to get their heads around the nature of these monopolies.

So yes, I think you correctly perceive a failure or at least an efficiency of markets. And yes there are parallels to the dynamics by which inefficiencies appear in socialist systems. But as there's no pretence that any kind of socialist principle is at work here, invoking the word "socialist" to describe a perfectly normal capitalist market failure is really just using the work "socialist" as a metaphor of inefficient or disincentive.

(Leftists do this too, of course. There's a large stand of modern (post)-Trotskyism that dismisses the failures of the Stalinist regimes as "state capitalism" - which, at least arguably, is really just using the word "capitalism" as a metaphor for ruthlessness and cruelty.


So again, sorry if I've been needling you, but I think left or right, invoking the other team as a metaphor for what doesn't work in your own system only muddies discussions in unhelpful ways, and isn't really an argument one way or the other in good faith.


In any event, where this pontification might actually be relevant to us as consumers of sample libraries, is that, accepting the above analysis, the one place we see a threat of a creative cloud like model is from NI. Maybe they'll keep innovating and all will be good. But if Kontakt starts to update every year, and they move to a subscription model require, that's a concern.

That said, NI have generally been good citizens so I don't think there's any need to panic.

But except for maybe older VSL content, or pending the formation of a VSL - SF - OT cartel, I also don't think that subscription models make much sense to most of the industry at the moment.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 14, 2019)

ism said:


> Also - you can no longer buy licenses outright



That's the problem, plus they're threatening to send militias in Black Hawk helicopters to break down your door and take away your old licenses.

Totally different from *offering* a subscription as one option.


----------



## ism (May 14, 2019)

Alex Fraser said:


> So yep, Adobe = Charlatans. I've hated them forever.



See, I think the trick is to see them as in the web 2.0 monopoly club, sitting quietly behind Mark Zuckerberg and trying not to be seen, but definitely there.


----------



## ism (May 14, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> That's the problem, plus they're threatening to send militias in Black Hawk helicopters to break down your door and take away your old licenses.
> 
> Totally different from *offering* a subscription as one option.



The helicopters are only one tiny part of everything that's wrong with creative cloud.


----------



## Alex Fraser (May 14, 2019)

ism said:


> In any event, where this pontification might actually be relevant to us as consumers of sample libraries, is that, accepting the above analysis, the one place we see a threat of a creative cloud like model is from NI. Maybe they'll keep innovating and all will be good. But if Kontakt starts to update every year, and they move to a subscription model require, that's a concert.
> 
> That said, NI have generally been good citizens so I don't think there's any need to panic.


Well, there was that snafu with the Symphony Series that "won't ever be included in Komplete..."

But I do agree. NI seem to be driving forwards still and don't appear to be stalling on development. When they haven't added anything to the Komplete lineup for years, that's when we ought to worry.

Edit: Just remembered. CH talked about Spitfire Subscriptions not so long ago on Twitter. He mentioned that it "had been discussed" (paraphrase) but didn't seem totally enthralled with the idea.


----------



## CGR (May 14, 2019)

re-peat said:


> It feels like that to me too, I must say. I'm paying significantly more for three years Creative Cloud subscription than I paid for all the Adobe software combined, which I purchased and worked with in the 22 years (as a graphic designer) prior to Creative Cloud.
> 
> What I find strange is that Adobe has picked a very bad time to start annoying its customers even more (with this "you can't use older versions of our software") than they already were doing, because once Affinity Publisher is released — any day now — and the Affinity triptych will be complete (and the printing houses begin to accept Affinity-generated material), masses of Adobe-reliant designers will make the switch, I'm sure of it. You'd think that, with this threat looming larger by the day, Adobe would do all it can to please its user base. But no, they're doing the exact opposite. Quark payed a very high price for its complacency and arrogance. If Adobe — at least, its graphic department — doesn't watch out, they might be in for a similar fate.
> 
> _


This is the first I've heard about Affinity Publisher - thanks for the heads up. My background is also as a Graphic Designer of 25+ years, and as an Adobe CC subscriber, I am of a similar opinion. I received the Adobe notification last week about using older versions of CC apps (namely Photoshop & Adobe Audition), and some nonsense about being in breach of copyright if I continue to use them. Nice way to get a long term loyal customer off-side Adobe!


----------



## NYC Composer (May 14, 2019)

The Adobe situation looks dire. Thankfully, I don't need anything from them.

Being a longtime EW user, I have to say some of the deals I've seen are really very reasonable for a composer starting out, though most of the best software they sell is pretty old by now, and all done in the EW special "Heaven/Hell" mode-great sounding stuff with loose QT and time consuming to set up. Still.

I recently started my only subscription, the Output "Arcade" service. I don't know how long I'll keep it, but here were some of the interesting aspects:

1. They give you a free month to try it.
2. They say they are always developing new samples (and in my thirty day trial period, some indeed showed up.)
3. Though they are basically all time synced loops, they have an interesting amount of mutability (easy key changes, etc)
4. I was looking for some edgier, more modern sounds and these seemed to fit the bill.
5. Cancel anytime.
6. Inexpensive:$10 a month
7. Now, Output says this, but I wonder if they'll stay true to it: _if you cancel your subscription, you can still use their engine to run the stuff you downloaded rather than having to print it all to audio. _Interesting model, no?


----------



## wst3 (May 15, 2019)

There are dozens of variations on the subscription model, many for products I do not use<G>!

I did sign up for the Cakewalk subscription because I felt it was pretty fair. You subscribed for a year, at the end of the year you "kept" everything they had delivered during that year. If Sonar was working exactly as you liked you just jumped off the bus.

No hard feelings, and if you later wish to re-subscribe you could do that too. I don't recall a penalty fee but it has been a while.

This is an excellent model, and I don't know how they did it, but they delivered on their promise of monthly updates. A few were fluff, but most were quite worthwhile - either important bug fixes or cool new features. No complaints.

What makes this case even more interesting is that Gibson shut the doors on Cakewalk. That did not prevent me from continuing to use Sonar - in fact I'm still using the version that was current when they were shut down. More out of laziness than anything else, Bandcamp has taken over the reins, and from what I can tell they are doing a great job. Just none of the fixes or new features are enough to encourage me to upset the apple cart.

Subscription models can work - but it requires mutual trust and respect from both sides.


----------



## ism (May 15, 2019)

Alex Fraser said:


> Well, there was that snafu with the Symphony Series that "won't ever be included in Komplete..."
> 
> But I do agree. NI seem to be driving forwards still and don't appear to be stalling on development. When they haven't added anything to the Komplete lineup for years, that's when we ought to worry.
> 
> Edit: Just remembered. CH talked about Spitfire Subscriptions not so long ago on Twitter. He mentioned that it "had been discussed" (paraphrase) but didn't seem totally enthralled with the idea.



And now that I think of it the Kore debacle did not endear me to NI either. I was looking at my shiny Kore hardware yesterday, for which there no longer exists drivers and wondering if I should just bin it, or if there's a door somewhere needing to be held open where Kore might still be able to do something useful.


----------



## kitekrazy (May 18, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> The main reason is that I've been through some tough times when I couldn't have afforded to pay the subscription fee. Not being able to use software tools I rely on would be *bad toilet* (to quote the late Koko the gorilla).
> 
> If you're a commercial facility then it's totally different - you want all the updates "deployed." Or if you need to use something once it makes sense.
> 
> ...



What it is really about is Dolby going after lost royalties and they are suing Apple. I'm not sure why Adobe put out this warning. It seems stupid after being butthurt from all of the potential from vulnerabilities in their software. 
Their PhotoShop/Lightroom subscription is popular and very affordable. For some this is more logical than paying upfront.


----------



## kitekrazy (May 18, 2019)

wst3 said:


> There are dozens of variations on the subscription model, many for products I do not use<G>!
> 
> I did sign up for the Cakewalk subscription because I felt it was pretty fair. You subscribed for a year, at the end of the year you "kept" everything they had delivered during that year. If Sonar was working exactly as you liked you just jumped off the bus.
> 
> ...



That really wasn't a subscription as much as rent to own. I forked over $199 for lifetime updates only to have gotten a year out of it. Gibson lived up to its reputation as a software killer. Gibson was in financial trouble and thought software would be their savior.


----------



## kitekrazy (May 18, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> *The main reason is that I've been through some tough times when I couldn't have afforded to pay the subscription fee*. Not being able to use software tools I rely on would be *bad toilet* (to quote the late Koko the gorilla).
> 
> If you're a commercial facility then it's totally different - you want all the updates "deployed." Or if you need to use something once it makes sense.
> 
> ...



I've stopped doing subscriptions because if you get too many you don't always keep track and 3-4 of them might drain more money than you think. This is even with magazines. I think at one time I was 4 magazines a month.

I took up 2 deals rarely offered from Groove3 and MacProVideo that don't expire. I can deal with that.


----------



## AllanH (May 18, 2019)

If done right, a subscription model lets the developer focus on developing without needing to focus on scheduled/annual releases. The most fair subscription model I've experienced was Cakewalk, but of course they went under. I have no music-related subscriptions, unless I count the "annual" Cubase upgrade cycle.


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 18, 2019)

lol hyperbolic fear mongering...wouldnt be VI-Control without a little bit of it...

in my experience, I've enjoyed subscription services from all of the services that did not get too big. Every one I have regretted were ones that considered themselves the industry standard, so they provide lesser support, and basically charge you the right to enter. Avid with pro-tools, Adobe, and just the overall pricing and methods of Native Instruments make me feel like they know that if they piss off a few customers, it won't matter, so they can squeeze dry everyone without too much concern for competitive proactive service toward their customers. 

Smaller companies that provide subscriptions have generally been generous, consistent with their updates and new products, and really proved that the value was in supporting their growth, and value in using their products. For those companies, there's a sense that we're a team. They're working to make useful products for me, and I'm buying in to help them make more products that I might find useful down the line. 

with the big guys, I feel like I'm paying for the generous honor of a airport security rectal exam, and when its all over, they expect me to thank them for it.


----------



## Michael Antrum (May 18, 2019)

Well, I'm still on Adobe CS6 Master Collection, and it still does everything I need or want. Adobe completely shafted me - I'd given them nearly £ 1.5k in the 18 months before CC became compulsory, and they offered me £10 a month off for the first year.

I look forward to Affinity taking their market from them just as Adobe took out Quark - though I think that will take a long time. But Adobe always were a bunch of shysters. There was a video of their CEO in Australia trying to justify why their products were nearly double the price than in the USA. Slimy.

I do like things like EW composer cloud where you get the choice of rental or purchase, but as soon as I am told a product is 'subscription only' any interest in it instantly evaporates.

I have every Output product, but zero interest in Arcade. I do have Sibelius (I hate the non-sensical interface), but I am waiting for the sale on Dorico that has been promised and will be moving to that (However, that is as much to do with the Dorico interface as it is with Avid Subscriptions).

But I am a Yorkshireman, so maybe that explains my pathological dislike of software rental.....


----------



## re-peat (May 19, 2019)

Michael Antrum said:


> Well, I'm still on Adobe CS6 Master Collection, and it still does everything I need or want.



Try and tell the young people of today that, and they won't believe ya'. (*)

_


----------



## NYC Composer (May 19, 2019)

Richard Jeni, in the same vein:


----------



## Pudge (May 21, 2019)

The ONLY subscription plans I agree with, are the ones that let you own the product after you've payed X-amount of money over X-amount of time. The idea of having a perpetual subscription that ties you into an Anual fee (that if you cancel short of the agreement have to pay the full remainded for) is a shady and not very fair.

Subscriptions should be simple... If a product is £120, subscription is £10 a month for 12 months then you keep the product. Simple. Free patch updates and if they upgrade the product to a new version, you pay a cheap fee to upgrade. 

If the upgrade is super significant ( almost like a new product entirelly) offer an upgrade path where you pay the fee directly (lets say it's £100) OR pay the fee through monthly plan that you choose with NO interest applied.


----------



## Morning Coffee (May 21, 2019)

When software companies start screwing their customers or treating them like fools, it makes me want to go into, full on, software pirate mode.

By the way, Pixelmator Pro (Mac only) is another option for photo editing, but at a more affordable price.


----------



## MA-Simon (May 21, 2019)

I am still on CS6 too! (I never needed much of the features after CS3)

Adobe recently acquired allegorithmic 3D.
(Substance Designer, Substance Painter)

That... shocked, disgusted and annoyed a lot of people.

I paid about 130€ to own both.
Then they changed to a yearly feature upgrade fee of ~80€ per program.
Which was fine-ish, they have to earn money, I get that.
I was still pissed because they heavily suggested it as a lifetime thing.

Now Adobe bough them.
I fear for one of my favorite software bundles.
Will it still exist in a year?
It became practically industry standard for gamedesign.

I can already smell the substance suite as a 35€ Monthly subscription looming in my future. And it will not be pay-to-own. Unfortunately other then Photoshop and Audition, 3D Software has to be pretty much up to date to do anything. 420€ is more then the 160€ I would be paying without a subscription model.

I love my ZBrush lifetime update license so much!


----------



## mouse (May 21, 2019)

LOL everyone bashing Adobe. Did anyone actually read any indepth articles about why they're saying "people might be sued if they use older versions of Photoshop"?

Its not Adobe threatening that - its them saying that it uses parts of software from other companies and they no longer have the licenses for that anymore. Thus people using the older software may be liable to be sued by the other companies. Its just Adobe telling people their liabilities, not threatening to sue them.

But no, everone reads it as "horrible Adobe threatening to sue people for using older versions of their software".


----------



## storyteller (May 21, 2019)

I echo the sentiment of most everyone in here. I ditched Adobe when Adobe ditched their customers and chose to serve money instead. Affinity Designer & Photo are incredible programs with a great company behind them.


----------



## Michael Antrum (May 21, 2019)

mouse said:


> LOL everyone bashing Adobe. Did anyone actually read any indepth articles about why they're saying "people might be sued if they use older versions of Photoshop"?
> 
> Its not Adobe threatening that - its them saying that it uses parts of software from other companies and they no longer have the licenses for that anymore. Thus people using the older software may be liable to be sued by the other companies. Its just Adobe telling people their liabilities, not threatening to sue them.
> 
> But no, everone reads it as "horrible Adobe threatening to sue people for using older versions of their software".



If Adobe did not have the licensing of their technology partners fully sorted out, then they had no business in selling anyone a perpetual licence.

Imagine you bought an amplifier with Dolby digital decoding in it from Sony. And then they send you a letter 4 years later that states that their Dolby licence agreement has run out and that you have to stop using the amp....


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 21, 2019)

mouse said:


> LOL



LOL = "I laugh in your face"

Incredibly rude. Hell with that.


----------



## mouse (May 21, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> LOL = "I laugh in your face"
> 
> Incredibly rude. Hell with that.



Way to find offense in a generic statement. Well done.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 21, 2019)

I'm going to PM you.


----------



## MartinH. (May 21, 2019)

MA-Simon said:


> I am still on CS6 too! (I never needed much of the features after CS3)
> 
> Adobe recently acquired allegorithmic 3D.
> (Substance Designer, Substance Painter)
> ...



Yeah that was a serious letdown and really pissed me off too. I just hope Adobe doesn't do this to all of their actual competition like Affinity. Money-wise they could just buy everyone who gets even close to offering an alternative, they're that big. It would take people that can't be bought and have the ideological persuasion that they're doing the right thing by competing directly with Adobe. And even then Adobe could probably bankrupt them by tying them up in unfounded lawsuits for years if they wanted to. The situation just sucks...



mouse said:


> Its not Adobe threatening that - its them saying that it uses parts of software from other companies and they no longer have the licenses for that anymore. Thus people using the older software may be liable to be sued by the other companies. Its just Adobe telling people their liabilities, not threatening to sue them.
> 
> But no, everone reads it as "horrible Adobe threatening to sue people for using older versions of their software".



No, I actually read it as Adobe fucked over Dolby and sold software that uses their tech without paying the agreed upon license fees to Dolby, or at least they were bending the interpretation of their license agreement overly in their favour. I belief it is one of those cases where they knew it could happen and calculated that it's cheaper to get caught and sued, than to err on the side of caution and pay more for the licensed IP.


----------



## re-peat (May 21, 2019)

MA-Simon said:


> That... shocked, disgusted and annoyed a lot of people.


Another **very** disturbing example of that occurred *when Adobe announced axing Muse* last year.

Some reactions:
_- "I don't know if what they are doing is illegal, but it sure is immoral."
- "This is an outrage!!! My whole business and I have over 20 client websites built on the Adobe Muse platform."
- "Adobe: you STINK!"
- "You can't just pull the rug from underneath my company like this and I am sure hundreds and thousands of others around the world???"
- "Enough already. What are the threshold requirements before a class action can be commenced?"_
_- "My business is now at real risk, my whole infrastructure has Muse at the epicentre."_
_- "I have no words.... Actually, I do but they are all expletives, so I leave it up for imagination. I can only echo other people's comments here, because I am still aghast and shocked about Adobe's complete lack of customer loyalty and concern." _
_- "I am outraged, I have set up many web sites and spent a great deal of time with Muse and now all my investment will go down the drain. What am I going to tell all my clients?"_

_


----------



## Fredeke (May 28, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> The main reason is that I've been through some tough times when I couldn't have afforded to pay the subscription fee. Not being able to use software tools I rely on would be *bad toilet* (to quote the late Koko the gorilla).
> 
> If you're a commercial facility then it's totally different - you want all the updates "deployed." Or if you need to use something once it makes sense.
> 
> ...



Yep they scare me too. 

For the reason you mention, and also because I don't want my main computer connected to the internet.


----------



## richard kurek (May 28, 2019)

with so many options , i never buy into subscriptions , just what i need a other monthly payment


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 28, 2019)

richard kurek said:


> just what i need a other monthly payment



That's how I feel.


----------



## José Herring (May 28, 2019)

Monthly payments=kiss of death for most freelance musicians. Monthly payments were designed for people with 9-5 jobs. 

For us, either we have the money to pay for our stuff or we don't. Painfully stretching it out indefinitely on a monthly basis is risky. On the other hand rent to own might work out okay. But, for me personally I would never risk growing dependent on a subscription in perpetuity till death do they charge.

That a lot of companies have resorted to a monthly payment plan means to me that most of their income doesn't come from pro level users but the part time hobbyist with a stable day job. That and the App market I think are the biggest threat to pro-level music tools. 

Luckily for us many of the major music software developers and VI developers are still promoting their flagship products for pros but in the end if they can't stay solvent then they will start to look for other markets to peddle their wares as has happened with so many major companies in the past.

Companies that use to bang out 2-4 major products a year to compete are now relying on subscription markets of their old wares and apps. Not really innovating new stuff. Luckily for us though other companies and boutique companies that still care are starting to replace them.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 28, 2019)

josejherring said:


> That a lot of companies have resorted to a monthly payment plan means to me that most of their income doesn't come from pro level users but the part time hobbyist with a stable day job



...assuming anyone is making a lot of money from subscriptions, which I'm skeptical about.

But sure, full-time professional musicians are a very small market.


----------



## José Herring (May 28, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> ...assuming anyone is making a lot of money from subscriptions, which I'm skeptical about.
> 
> But sure, full-time professional musicians are a very small market.


I think some companies are killin' it in that market. I was told by an insider of a particular company that this particular company is fully focused on that as their main revenue stream now. Sad.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 28, 2019)

josejherring said:


> I think some companies are killin' it in that market. I was told by an insider of a particular company that this particular company is fully focused on that as their main revenue stream now. Sad.



I see you're not an avid enthusiast of that.


----------



## José Herring (May 28, 2019)

I've avoided them like the plague. I literally have so many workarounds for not using PT it's hilarious.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 28, 2019)

josejherring said:


> I've avoided them like the plague. I literally have so many workarounds for not using PT it's hilarious.



I still use PT 10, even with its screen redrawing issues in current macOS versions.


----------

