# Everything I learned reviewing Composer Cloud from EastWest / Soundsonline.com



## donbodin

ComposerCloud is a paradigm shift that levels the playing field. With so many advantages it is hard to pass up this subscription service.
Full written review here: http://bit.ly/1QJ5BSA



ComposerCloud is available from EastWest at from http://www.SoundsOnline.com


----------



## Ethos

I never understood this payment model for something like sample libraries. I have libraries that are 7 or more years old that are still mainstays in my templates that cost a few hundred dollars at the time. At $320 per year, for 7 years is over $2200. I understand you get a lot more than a single library for that cost, but the idea of needing to keep my subscription up to date just to load up old projects makes me cringe. I'm not sure what other features could convince me that there is anything better than outright owning a product.


----------



## donbodin

Hi Ethos
I was feeling the same way about "owning" the libraries at first myself.
Just curious - do you own/ use any EW/QL libs?

I do and found that even if I do want to own all my libs, subscribing to CC a month or 2 here and there is a great way to test out everything prior to purchase or utilize a specific lib for a project.

Technically you would need to subscribe to CC for about 37 years to pay the $12,500 retail cost of all the EW/QL libraries - not including the new releases they are putting out (or we can say 18 years if you time purchasing libs at 50% on sale)

I understand that needing to keep a subscription just to load up old projects is not ideal, if that is all you are using it for. All I hope is that the video and review helps those who want to know more about the subscription model and see if it is a good choice for them


----------



## Ethos

I do own a ton of their libraries. Just not the newer stuff. EWQLSO Platinum, VOP, MOR, QL Pianos, Gypsy, and a few others. I guess it didn't occur to me that you could subscribe here and there, on and off, as needed. Am I right in assuming there are no contracts or required length of subscription?


----------



## proxima

donbodin said:


> Technically you would need to subscribe to CC for about 37 years to pay the $12,500 retail cost of all the EW/QL libraries - not including the new releases they are putting out (or we can say 18 years if you time purchasing libs at 50% on sale)


I just added everything to the CCC Pro and came up with $4832.50 + $99 hard drive. One wonders if they mean it this time that, "Our Complete Composers Collection Special Offer Will End February 20 And Will Not Be Replaced", but whatever. But that's CCC Diamond. So you'd have to compare it to ComposerCloud Plus, which is $700/year. That's 7 years, within the lifespan of major products (heck, lots of people still use EWQLSO routinely). 

A major question for buy vs. subscribe is what EastWest has coming down the road. 

My CCC gold choices were < $900, so about 30 months of the gold cloud.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Ethos said:


> I do own a ton of their libraries. Just not the newer stuff. EWQLSO Platinum, VOP, MOR, QL Pianos, Gypsy, and a few others. I guess it didn't occur to me that you could subscribe here and there, on and off, as needed. Am I right in assuming there are no contracts or required length of subscription?



Correct, you can subscribe monthly (which auto-renews unless you cancel) and start, stop, then start again, stop again, etc. or subscribe yearly.


----------



## Zardoz

There are definitely pros and cons to the subscription model, but for those just starting out asking the eternal question "what library should I buy first?", I think Composer Cloud should be the default recommendation. $30 and a fast computer will let them compose music in any style they want, with no "saving up to buy that articulation later" compromises. Once they're more experienced they may decide to purchase these libraries or others. But in the meantime this gets them on the field with the pros.


----------



## Parsifal666

I think any composer needs to at least give the Cloud a try. The Hollywood Strings, Brass, Ghostwriter, Gypsy...all will prove undeniable. Don't listen to naysayers, most of them are just being cantankerous. Yes, there are still problems with hanging notes in the play software. No, that is most freeking certainly NOT a dealbreaker. Try it, listen for yourself. No, I don't work for EW (lol!), but I have used these sample libraries for two years and they, along with and at times quite happily complementary _*to*_ the Albions, are the elite.


----------



## donbodin

proxima said:


> A major question for buy vs. subscribe is what EastWest has coming down the road.



Agreed! Will be very interesting to see what the future releases are like after the solo Vln, Vlc & Harp


----------



## WindcryMusic

I personally would never, ever use a subscription model for music software or sample libraries. The thing is, right now I am making good money outside of the music field, so I can afford to invest in sample libraries and such, or in a subscription if I was so inclined. But at some point in the future, if I stop making money and turn back to composing music on a full-time basis, then I won't have money anymore, at least not for a while. And I can't think of anything dumber than to suddenly lose access to my sample libraries right when I might need them the most.

Another thing: the comparisons of the subscription cost per year to the retail cost of the total set of libraries seem to assume that one would otherwise be buying every last one of those libraries at retail cost. But I buy the majority of my sample libraries when they go on sale, not at full retail price. And there is no way I'd ever need or want every last library in the Composer Cloud. BT Breakz? Public Enemy? Phat and Funky? Funky A** Loops? You couldn't pay me enough to work on stuff like that. Guitar and Bass? I am an actual guitarist and bassist, and wouldn't ever use samples of those instruments when I have the option of playing them live. Etc, etc. So the actual value to me (and to most people, I suspect) of something like Composer Cloud is dramatically lower than what has been postulated elsewhere in this thread.

Finally, since I expect to be using my existing (and expanding) suite of sample libraries for many years, and probably decades, I definitely believe I am getting a far, far better deal in the long run by buying them outright than I would with Composer Cloud.

And don't even get me started on the Play engine, or on the requirement for iLok software or dongle ... either one is unacceptable since I will not allow PACE software anywhere near my computers (not since that garbage that PACE dares to call "software" converted my first MacBook from a solid and usable machine to an unstable, crash-prone piece of junk about ten years ago).

Sorry to go on a bit of a rant. Upwards of a couple of decades ago East West was the first company I purchased sample libraries from, but for a long time now because of all of the above policies, they've moved to the top of my "avoid at all costs" short list. I don't imagine East West has noticed, but I think it is worth saying aloud that they lost this customer a long time ago because of the directions they have taken, and I never recommend their products to anyone anymore.


----------



## creativeforge

I used Adobe Creative Cloud and found really practical to have access to some software I could download and test and use once or twice, while retaining access to the latest version. It's like having "free updates" for life...


----------



## procreative

creativeforge said:


> I used Adobe Creative Cloud and found really practical to have access to some software I could download and test and use once or twice, while retaining access to the latest version. It's like having "free updates" for life...



Only if you decide to end your subscription your files will not open in anything else.

Been on Creative Suite 6 since before Creative Cloud and the only detrimental aspect is when others send me files I cannot open. Luckily though its only Illustrator that causes me problems, as InDesign can open if there are saved as Interchange files.

I object to subscriptions for 2 reasons:

1. If you stop subscribing your files cannot be opened (in EWs case only bounced audio plays).

2. They could raise the price anytime and you either pay up or find yourself at point 1.

Sure its a great way to try before you buy, but given EWs price policies who knows if that is the best use of money.


----------



## Michael Rajecki

As a composer who is starting out, has a day job, but doesn't have a ton of savings, the EWQL composer cloud is fantastic. I get access to a ton of high quality libraries and I don't have to spend a ton of money upfront to get that access. Sure, in a couple of years I'd like to think I'll have the spare income to purchase these long term so I don't have to worry about any shenanigans down the line, but as someone who is making money but doesn't have a ton of it to spend right now, it works super well. 

I'd imagine my situation might not be the norm for a lot of composers so I'm not sure what I think of the model outside these specifics - I can definitely understand the apprehension that some people have about not owning their samples long term. I suppose a lot of trust/faith will come out of how EWQL handles this in the upcoming year or two. I'd like to think they put a great deal of thought/effort into the financial viability of a subscription based service so they don't need to mess around with the pricing in the future but who knows. It certainly doesn't take a lot to leave a bad taste in people's mouth in a situation like this.


----------



## lokotus

Michael Rajecki said:


> As a composer who is starting out, has a day job, but doesn't have a ton of savings, the EWQL composer cloud is fantastic. I get access to a ton of high quality libraries and I don't have to spend a ton of money upfront to get that access. Sure, in a couple of years I'd like to think I'll have the spare income to purchase these long term so I don't have to worry about any shenanigans down the line, but as someone who is making money but doesn't have a ton of it to spend right now, it works super well.
> 
> I'd imagine my situation might not be the norm for a lot of composers so I'm not sure what I think of the model outside these specifics - I can definitely understand the apprehension that some people have about not owning their samples long term. I suppose a lot of trust/faith will come out of how EWQL handles this in the upcoming year or two. I'd like to think they put a great deal of thought/effort into the financial viability of a subscription based service so they don't need to mess around with the pricing in the future but who knows. It certainly doesn't take a lot to leave a bad taste in people's mouth in a situation like this.



I can understand the arguments. But EW will probably only offer subscription service in the future, so if you need the sounds, you will need to pay forever.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

My perception is that like it or not, folks, this is indeed the business model that more and more companies will be moving to.


----------



## lokotus

Michael Rajecki said:


> As a composer who is starting out, has a day job, but doesn't have a ton of savings, the EWQL composer cloud is fantastic. I get access to a ton of high quality libraries and I don't have to spend a ton of money upfront to get that access. Sure, in a couple of years I'd like to think I'll have the spare income to purchase these long term so I don't have to worry about any shenanigans down the line, but as someone who is making money but doesn't have a ton of it to spend right now, it works super well.
> 
> I'd imagine my situation might not be the norm for a lot of composers so I'm not sure what I think of the model outside these specifics - I can definitely understand the apprehension that some people have about not owning their samples long term. I suppose a lot of trust/faith will come out of how EWQL handles this in the upcoming year or two. I'd like to think they put a great deal of thought/effort into the financial viability of a subscription based service so they don't need to mess around with the pricing in the future but who knows. It certainly doesn't take a lot to leave a bad taste in people's mouth in a situation like this.



I can understand the arguments. But EW will probably only offer subscription service in the future, so if you need the sounds, you will need to pay forever.


----------



## mc_deli

I am not such a fan of subs models.
The numbers mentioned by the OP are self serving statistics that I find nonsensical.
On one hand I agree with Jay, more and more companies will move to this model... because investors like it.
But I don't believe it is sustainable model in competitive markets where technologies are well developed.

EW software is proven and works (which is big differentiator from most SaaS) and you know what you are getting into.
With most SaaS you are buying into a development cycle and that has massive hidden costs.

The biggest hidden cost is future migration. The big advantage cited about cloud SaaS is low running costs (i.e. subs fees) and no capital expenditure (OK, not true if you need a monster PC to run your strings  ).

But the big hidden cost of future migration will come when your OS is not supported by a cloud upgrade, or your hardware has its lifespan curtailed. Just look at Avid. With subs, the model, costs, the SLA can change any time!!! You have not actually bought anything. You do not own anything. When you have to switch or want to switch then you really pay - especially in lost backwards compatibility.

(OK strictly speaking most software is licensed but the reality is if you have non-subs-based software the developer cannot magically revoke or delete your license (rare exceptions)).

*All you have is an SLA that the developer can re-write on the first day of every month. Your rights as a buyer, consumer, user are totally eroded.
*
Developers of music libs and other software are great. But you only have to work in a few start up/dev environments to know that most are a house of cards. The more SaaS models there are, more will fail. I wish them luck of course. I am happy to risk Netflix by the month for my child to watch cartoons - but bet on my work tools, highly unlikely.


I can understand Avid needing to get every dollar out of their top tier customers, and educationals who cannot switch now.
I can understand that EW have legacy products where any sales now are pure profit and a SaaS subs model gives them access to a massive long tail of users and extra revenue.

But it is not sustainable. And it is terrible for users. IMHO of course. 

(Love Stormdrum. Still want Ra!)


----------



## mc_deli

lokotus said:


> I can understand the arguments. But EW will probably only offer subscription service in the future, so if you need the sounds, you will need to pay forever.


Only if consumers blindly follow.
If we let Apple carry on reducing the lifespan of their products they will keep doing it.
If we let freight companies dump at sea they will carry on doing it.

Money talks. B****** walks 
The only real power you have as a 21st century citizen is in your wallet
(I'm gonna "do the dead bird" now)


----------



## EastWest Lurker

mc_deli said:


> Only if consumers blindly follow.
> If we let Apple carry on reducing the lifespan of their products they will keep doing it.
> If we let freight companies dump at sea they will carry on doing it.
> 
> Money talks. B****** walks
> The only real power you have as a 21st century citizen is in your wallet
> (I'm gonna "do the dead bird" now)



That is true, you vote with your wallet. But so far I am told that the CC has been successful considerably beyond expectations.

And I disagree that it is terrible for ALL users. The devil is in the details, and Doug keeps adding customer friendly options that in the beginning he told me that he did not intend to do. So apocalyptic predictions are unwarranted thus far IMHO.

But I have zero problem with those who do not like it and demur and am happy for those who could not afford much before who are now happy with what they can use.


----------



## stevetwist

The thing about subscription models that I don't see many people discussing is how the change in revenue stream for the company can potentially have very positive results for existing customers.

The previous business model relies on continually releasing new 'cool' stuff - stuff that makes marketing departments happy. Stuff that brings in new revenue by selling to new customers. Once you've paid for software, you're less important to the business people at that company than new customers who have yet to pay - the company already has your money. They only make more money if they sell to new people, or sell you new stuff. Thus, old software doesn't get supported very well. Bugs don't get fixed. Once they have your money, a company has a tendency to not care about you any more (not every company - but in general I have found this to be true).

With this business model, we get frustrating situations such as Cubase. I have a love/hate relationship with Cubase. It's a great DAW, but with each subsequent version, it seems most time is spent on adding bells and whistles that 90% of us won't use, because they look good on paper and they make the marketing department happy. Very little time is spent improving the existing software - fixing bugs, tending to feature requests from existing customers. Why? Because they need to sell their update to as many people as possible, and they want to convert as many users of existing DAWs to their software as possible. Cool flashy features sell software, unfortunately.

However, with a subscription model, the existing customers become just as important as new customers. If a company wants to keep your money coming in, month after month, they need to be providing you value. And, in order to do that, the smart companies had better start investing heavily in improving their customer support, fixing problems with their existing software, offering continual value to their existing customers.

Thus, if Cubase ever moved to subscription, I'd be quite happy - if that meant they spent most of their time fixing bugs and addressing feature requests from their users, and very little time adding a new version of a bundled synth that nobody actually uses. That would be great.

Extrapolate that hypothetical to something like EW, and I think it could be very good for customers in the long run. If this gives EW the revenue stream to address the problems that people have with their existing products - to improve on those older libraries, rather than having to continually release new libraries, because they need to keep selling new things to new people... I think most would agree that this would be better for everyone in the long run.

Of course, it depends on the company to make the change. Just because they're charging you a subscription doesn't mean that they'll start changing where they focus their time... but, I hope that the companies that succeed from offering subscription models, are the ones that care about keeping their existing customers happy.

Steve


----------



## mc_deli

stevetwist said:


> The thing about subscription models that I don't see many people discussing is how the change in revenue stream for the company can potentially have very positive results for existing customers.
> 
> The previous business model relies on continually releasing new 'cool' stuff - stuff that makes marketing departments happy. Stuff that brings in new revenue by selling to new customers. Once you've paid for software, you're less important to the business people at that company than new customers who have yet to pay - the company already has your money. They only make more money if they sell to new people, or sell you new stuff. Thus, old software doesn't get supported very well. Bugs don't get fixed. Once they have your money, a company has a tendency to not care about you any more (not every company - but in general I have found this to be true).



I don't agree with this but I respect your opinion on it. 
The EW case is quite idiosyncratic because it is really about selling off old stuff - and it is profitable.
That makes it very different from e.g. Slate.
I think the strange thing about the software development world is how much unfinished code and half baked services there are out there. It is very different world now from ten years ago where product development was more concrete. 

Interesting point about bug fixes. Whether or not there are subs models, perhaps what I feel is unsustainable is how software is currently developed and funded (often by subsidies and funds in Europe). Perhaps we are just waiting for it all to be automated (though that is a laugh considering the current state of automation that seems to lead straight to Mechanical Turk!). Software development seems about the path of least resistance most of the time. What we really want is vision, completion, developers who have the cojones to take great ideas to completion. Did VSL actually do that with VEPro?


----------



## Ethos

EastWest Lurker said:


> My perception is that like it or not, folks, this is indeed the business model that more and more companies will be moving to.



I don't know. That's what EW said when they decided to move to PLAY from Kontakt. Nobody else followed suit in developing custom Romplers or whatever you want to call it. And I specifically despise Play and will only buy Kobtakt libraries at this point.


----------



## procreative

1. If Adobe or East West cease to trade or are bought out by a hedge fund or rival (as Adobe did to Macromedia) then your subscription might cease to exist and hence no more access to the software all your projects rely on.

2. Many subscriptions do not add that many new features and are under no pressure to do so. They know you need the subscription just to be able to open older projects.

As someone who owned Adobe Creative Suite from before it existed when it was called something else, the last time Adobe had any money from me was CS6. It still works fine and any new features are not ones I cannot do without.

I was offered half price Adobe CC for the first year, but object on principle as I like to know what future costs might be and had I subscribed would have by now paid probably what I paid for CS6. I just did not feel their "offer" for existing owners was anywhere near good enough or the risk worth it.

I do appreciate someone starting totally from scratch might consider Composer Cloud a great idea, but do the maths. Taking out all the very old titles thrown in and stuff you might never need?

My view is that the only reason they are threatening the end of CCC is that not enough people are jumping aboard not the opposite. After all 2 years of subscription and on current prices you have most of the good stuff. And its not like they keep adding features like some of the other developers?

East West stuff is good, some of it the best. But not the only choice. And while outright ownership is available its what I would stick with.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Excellent points, Steve.


----------



## Kaufmanmoon

I've just joined up for the Composer Cloud for a month as I needed some instruments that were just too expensive to buy outright at this time.
It was a choice of committing on an instrument that might not work for $70 or paying $30 £20 for me here in the UK and having access everything East West has for a month.
The software and installation software works well enough and I'm currently downloading some of the Storm Drum stuff to write and compare against my Albion Percussion/Drums of War libraries.

Have to admit the Hollywood Cello was quickly removed off my drive and I doubt I will stick out the Composer cloud for month than a month.
It is however a handy option to have and delve into when needed for certain projects.


----------



## Ashermusic

I think the cello sounds great and is very playable. I do wish however, I could control the vibrato instead of having to switch articulations when I don't want as much.


----------



## Kaufmanmoon

I have the attention span of a Gnat Jay, so like most of the libraries, I probably never give them the attention and patience they deserve.


----------



## Kaufmanmoon

Having played with SD 2 & 3 this evening, it really still stands up against some of the other libraries I have.
So yes Composer Cloud will work for me for a couple of months.


----------



## lucky909091

I own most of the EW instruments and I feel a little bit pissed off because I fear that EW will keep their forthcoming products exclusively in their cloud.
What advantage do I have to join their cloud just for the benefit of using some more new instruments?
I do not own them and I cannot resell them.....

_"Time machine back":_
_Some years ago, I was not happy with the upcoming "habit" of downloading software-instruments without a box. The boxed-versions were something like "hardware" to me and (as an example) I could resell every boxed version on Ebay by transferring the licence and mailing the box to the customer.
O.K. - these times are gone nowadays...._

Today, I would prefer an additional option to purchase a new EW-instrument the old-fashioned way as a download or a boxed version.


----------



## Ashermusic

lucky909091 said:


> I own most of the EW instruments and I feel a little bit pissed off because I fear that EW will keep their forthcoming products exclusively in their cloud.
> What advantage do I have to join their cloud just for the benefit of using some more new instruments?
> I do not own them and I cannot resell them.....



Well, one of the last things Doug told me is that presently (a month ago) he has no plans to make new products Composer Cloud _only_, just Composer Cloud _first_.


----------



## lucky909091

Oh no.


----------



## alanb

I am personally horrified by the subscription model, and I am flabbergasted by its wide, rapid acceptance. The general populace is being trained to not to expect 'own' things anymore. It's creepy enough watching people subscribe to music streaming services that may not get past the IPO stage, or reading e-books that could disappear without notice, as this extremely ironic situation demonstrates... but the recent move by software developers like Adobe to a subscription-only model is beyond the pale.

Anyone who has ever fallen on hard times, financially, can understand all too well the nightmare of suddenly not being able to afford the very tools that s/he needs to get back on his/her feet again (even if only for a single month). 

Under the subscription model, not only do you lose the use of your _software_, you lose the ability to extrapolate and exploit _works that you've already created_. I can open, edit, resave, print, and do whatever I want with WordPerfect documents that I created in 1990 but, if I moved to Adobe CC and two months later could no longer afford the subscription . . . or if Adobe went belly-up or got bought out, or whatever . . . too bad. 



procreative said:


> As someone who owned Adobe Creative Suite from before it existed when it was called something else, the last time Adobe had any money from me was CS6. It still works fine and any new features are not ones I cannot do without.



I've read varying reports about people experiencing problems large-and-small with CS6 programs under Windows 10 . . . to which PC owners are being pushed and will eventually have to migrate. No matter how many positive indications there are at the moment, there is always this to worry about:



> On behalf of Adobe ...
> 
> You can reasonably assume that all _current shipping _versions of Adobe software will either directly work with Windows 10 (not necessarily any beta test versions of Windows 10) or will receive an update if any glitches are found. Adobe is currently testing its current version applications with developer builds of Windows 10. Interestingly enough, most of the issues we have tended to find with new OS versions have had to do with installers, file paths, and esoteric system services as opposed to the application software itself post-installation. Also, in the case of Acrobat, there have been issues with browser plug-ins and the AdobePDF PostScript printer driver plug-in DLL. Generally speaking, Microsoft maintains application compatibility from one Windows version to the next compared to Apple which purposely breaks such compatibility.
> 
> *On the other hand, if you have any version of Acrobat earlier than Acrobat DC or InDesign / Illustrator / Photoshop version earlier than the “Creative Cloud” subscription versions, if there are any compatibility issues, you should assume that there will be no OS-compatibility updates for said older versions.*
> 
> All that having been said, a prudent application software user, especially one relying on software to get one's work done, would wait a little before upgrading the OS to Windows 10, monitor the experiences of other users, and possibly wait for any application updates if there are problems, even if all your Adobe applications are at the latest version!!!



So the full use of one's own creations — and, perhaps, access to one's livelihood — will always be potentially one Windows update away.

I'm *very* grateful that EastWest continues to sell perpetual licenses in addition to their CC subscriptions, and I hope that they keep this dual-mode business running for at least as long as I'm kicking around.....


----------



## procreative

Over the years I have lost the use of many pieces of software that were either not updated or the company was bought out/folded. Its a fact of life. The trick is to keep an older computer when you upgrade hardware.

I use Adobe CS6 on a Mac and as a test installed the latest OS on one machine to see what worked and it still runs fine (albeit using an older patch of one system component).

I agree with you on subscription only models 100%. However I get that investors love this idea as there are constant "revenue streams". As a permanent solution it stinks as its a very expensive way to use any software long term.

At least currently EW offer a choice, Adobe do not. Its a different world though, as you can create great work using older graphic tools however 2005 orchestral strings vs 2016? 

At least on the Kontakt platform its virtually impossible for 3rd party developers to follow this model (at the moment).


----------



## woodsdenis

Does anyone know if the 25 Anniversary collection is included in the composer cloud, I can't see it in the East West Intallation Centre.


----------



## Ashermusic

woodsdenis said:


> Does anyone know if the 25 Anniversary collection is included in the composer cloud, I can't see it in the East West Intallation Centre.




I think that collection is history.


----------



## woodsdenis

Ashermusic said:


> I think that collection is history.


or the individual libraries, they are still being sold on the EW site. They do not appear on my computer EW installation centre. I just got an answer from support saying they were listed as individual libraries but they are not there.


----------



## Ashermusic

woodsdenis said:


> or the individual libraries, they are still being sold on the EW site. They do not appear on my computer EW installation centre. I just got an answer from support saying they were listed as individual libraries but they are not there.



Do you have the latest Installation Center?


----------



## woodsdenis

Ashermusic said:


> Do you have the latest Installation Center?


Yes the latest 1.1.5 , I am still running the demo period but all the other libraries Hollywood Strings etc are there. I looked at Don's video and he has all of the anniversary collection in there. Just want to make sure before I commit to it. Maybe a demo period thing ?


----------



## Ashermusic

woodsdenis said:


> Yes the latest 1.1.5 , I am still running the demo period but all the other libraries Hollywood Strings etc are there. I looked at Don's video and he has all of the anniversary collection in there. Just want to make sure before I commit to it. Maybe a demo period thing ?



Perhaps, not sure.


----------



## woodsdenis

Ashermusic said:


> Perhaps, not sure.


Thanks for your help, not EWLurker just when I need you LOL


----------



## Ashermusic

woodsdenis said:


> Thanks for your help, not EWLurker just when I need you LOL


----------



## Markus S

I think it's an important discussion to have and I was wondering when the subscription model would hit the music industry.

I am relieved as well that for now we are given a choice, but the perspective of subscription only is really rather worrying to me.

How many different libraries are we using - how many subscription models would we have to manage? That might get quite chaotic. If in addition we need to subscribe for the DAW, the plug-ins, the synths, etc. I think it would become quickly, very expensive and also very hard to handle.

Sure it's not so expensive when you think how many libs you get from EW for the price. But do you really need them all? And do you need all the libs from all the other developers (and all the plug-ins from all the developers)?

Anyway, I think it's a valid model and a good alternative for some, especially if you want to just use one single brand or try the sounds out a bit before buying. But I really hope this is not becoming in any way a long term trend and that we will be provided with a choice.


----------



## Ashermusic

Markus S said:


> I think it's an important discussion to have and I was wondering when the subscription model would hit the music industry.
> 
> I am relieved as well that for now we are given a choice, but the perspective of subscription only is really rather worrying to me.
> 
> How many different libraries are we using - how many subscription models would we have to manage? That might get quite chaotic. If in addition we need to subscribe for the DAW, the plug-ins, the synths, etc. I think it would become quickly, very expensive and also very hard to handle.
> 
> Sure it's not so expensive when you think how many libs you get from EW for the price. But do you really need them all? And do you need all the libs from all the other developers (and all the plug-ins from all the developers)?
> 
> Anyway, I think it's a valid model and a good alternative for some, especially if you want to just use one single brand or try the sounds out a bit before buying. But I really hope this is not becoming in any way a long term trend and that we will be provided with a choice.



I think we are going to see this more and more as companies strive to have a more predictable income stream.


----------



## woodsdenis

I will tell you why I am considering it.
1. I can cancel at any time and pick up at any time.
2. I definitely do not need the whole thing, but the bits I do want do sound very good. I will see how it goes and review. I don't do huge mockups so I don't need the crazy amount of articulations that a lot do.
3. My big reservation is the history of the Play engine, I am not making a judgement yet so we shall see. I won't be a power user so I will be fair.
4. I always commit a VST so reopening a project is not an issue for me.
5. Bluntly its worth the risk, its not like spending thousands on something and finding flaws. Also the onus is on EW to keep me in there with new products.


----------



## woodsdenis

Ashermusic said:


> Perhaps, not sure.


I just got the whole collection and they all appeared so a little bugette


----------



## Puzzlefactory

Ethos said:


> I never understood this payment model for something like sample libraries. I have libraries that are 7 or more years old that are still mainstays in my templates that cost a few hundred dollars at the time. At $320 per year, for 7 years is over $2200. I understand you get a lot more than a single library for that cost, but the idea of needing to keep my subscription up to date just to load up old projects makes me cringe. I'm not sure what other features could convince me that there is anything better than outright owning a product.



I've always been against subscription based music software, but I'm tempted by composer cloud purely as a means of demoing the libraries for a month or two and see if there's any I would want to keep.

Try before you buy etc...

Apologies for resurecting a dead thread, it just popped up in google when I searched for "Composer cloud review"...


----------



## SGordB

To potentially further rescusitate an old thread, can anyone comment on typical CC download speeds these days? I just took the bait today, but despite having a 25 Mbps connection, I'm averaging a pathetic 60-300 kB/s with nothing else in the background. At this rate, it'll take days to download SO Gold. I noticed that Don, in his Youtube review, was rocking speeds of ~7 MB/s. At that rate, I can understand his satisfaction. I've opened a support ticket, but am curious to hear from other Cloud composers while I await a response. 

On the broader subject of VI subscription services, I would love to see some third party create an aggregated subscription service. For $XX, VI users would be able to access content from a multitude of VI providers under one service, sort of like cable TV subscribers can access pretty much any network or specialty channel from a single third-party provider, with multiple tiers of service and customization options to suit a wide variety of budgets and preferences. I get that major vendors like EW would probably resist this, while little guys - who wouldn't be able to attract subscription customers on their own - might welcome it. (I would also like to see the same thing for news media subscriptions.)


----------



## creativeforge

You're putting a bug in my ear re: VI subscription services... Possibilities...


----------



## SGordB

creativeforge said:


> You're putting a bug in my ear re: VI subscription services... Possibilities...



Go for it!


----------



## creativeforge

How do you see it? Tell me more.


----------



## SGordB

A new service - call it "VI Cloud" (VIC) - would have to persuade a critical mass of VI vendors to offer some or all of their content for subscription access, exclusively or (more likely) nonexclusively, within VIC's subscription plan(s) in return for a cut of the sales/profits, based on the perceived value of that content and/or a kind of royalty valuation based on how much their VI's are downloaded by VIC subscribers. The critical mass would be enough content to make VIC attractive to enough subscribers at a cost that makes everybody happy. Not being an entrepreneur, this isn't something I'd want to do myself. But as a musician, if I could have access to everything from VirHarmonik and Embertone to VSL and EW - or even just a juicy fraction of the VI players, big and small - for $30/$300 a month/year (low cap plan) or north of $50/$500 for a much higher cap - it would be a very tempting prospect.


----------



## creativeforge

SGordB said:


> A new service - call it "VI Cloud" (VIC) - would have to persuade a critical mass of VI vendors to offer some or all of their content for subscription access, exclusively or (more likely) nonexclusively, within VIC's subscription plan(s) in return for a cut of the sales/profits, based on the perceived value of that content and/or a kind of royalty valuation based on how much their VI's are downloaded by VIC subscribers. The critical mass would be enough content to make VIC attractive to enough subscribers at a cost that makes everybody happy. Not being an entrepreneur, this isn't something I'd want to do myself. But as a musician, if I could have access to everything from VirHarmonik and Embertone to VSL and EW - or even just a juicy fraction of the VI players, big and small - for $30/$300 a month/year (low cap plan) or north of $50/$500 for a much higher cap - it would be a very tempting prospect.



Yes, a complex proposition, but as more and more big developers seem to favor a "cloud" solution, maybe this idea has good potential merit. Maybe others will chime in... 

Thanks!


----------



## Parsifal666

SGordB said:


> A new service - call it "VI Cloud" (VIC) - would have to persuade a critical mass of VI vendors to offer some or all of their content for subscription access, exclusively or (more likely) nonexclusively, within VIC's subscription plan(s) in return for a cut of the sales/profits, based on the perceived value of that content and/or a kind of royalty valuation based on how much their VI's are downloaded by VIC subscribers. The critical mass would be enough content to make VIC attractive to enough subscribers at a cost that makes everybody happy. Not being an entrepreneur, this isn't something I'd want to do myself. But as a musician, if I could have access to everything from VirHarmonik and Embertone to VSL and EW - or even just a juicy fraction of the VI players, big and small - for $30/$300 a month/year (low cap plan) or north of $50/$500 for a much higher cap - it would be a very tempting prospect.



I would do that, depending on which developers were involved. Sure.


----------



## will_m

I think a subscription model requires a bit of trust because you are generally buying into a whole system of products and going forward you need to know the company is going to be releasing a decent amount of worthwhile libraries and not just take your subscription fee.

I have the Slate bundle because they have a well rounded set of tools and seem to be still offering more with each release. If I saw this from EW it would tempt me back as a user but I just don't see much innovation there when compared to other developers.


----------



## JonSolo

EW WAS innovative...I do not mean that in a bad way. I mean it in a great way because their products still hold up despite their age. This month I cancelled my subscription after a year. Why? I owned almost everything, and everything I DO own is the only things I used.

I started by purchasing the Hollywood Platinum series. No regrets. But almost every other product was a big IF to me. Then they started CC. The fact that they were (to my knowledge) the first sound library producer to do this is innovative in of itself. In fact had they not started their subscription model, I would not have purchased the 8 additional libraries that I did. So they made money, but I saved money and have great libraries that I use daily, it seems.

On the other hand it DOES seem silly for some to offer subscriptions. One thing I am HUGELY in favor of is a lease to buy system. But until Kontakt does "temp" serial codes I do not see it happening. I also see that as barrier to any other non-iLok subscription based model.

I actually did something like a lease to buy with Kong Audio. I made payments for six months to buy their whole library. The caveat? I had to install a new authorization every two months (if I remember correctly, maybe monthly). I would be in the middle of a project and then one day open it and WHAM, white noise every 10 seconds, while I waited on Kong to send me a new code (which they WERE quite fast).

I guess what I am saying is that for non-iLok products it would be hard to get too many folks on board unless you could pay for time in advance and get an authorization for that period of time which would expire. That feels like a lot of hassle. With iLok at least the license is an automatic upload. Now if only Kontakt could do something like that...


----------



## SGordB

So is a CC download speed averaging around 60-300 kB/s on a 25 Mbps connection (i.e., capable of ~3000 kB/s, or 3MB/s) normal? Or is there some sort of a gremlin between CC and my ISP? Would really appreciate some feedback. Google gives me the impression that complaints about slow DLs fizzled out after 2015.


----------



## JonSolo

No it is not normal. It could happen during peak hours for sure. I always chose one item at a time and let it download overnight.

Also make sure your ISP does not have data caps per day or per month. Comcast still has it in some areas...thankfully I am not on Comcast. Since you are not in the States you will have to research what your provider does.

Also make sure you allowed CC through your firewall.

I averaged 2-4MB/s download off peak and just under 2 during peak times. Sometimes I had to stop a download and go to something else because, like you, it never seemed to start. Coming back to it after a day or so would work. My whole cloud took about a week to get (without HWO which I already owned the Platinum).


----------



## Saxer

From the business side renting often makes more sense than buying. Especially if it's tax-deductible.
But if I'd pay the composer cloud monthly I would feel bad every day I wouldn't use this libraries. If I own it I can decide to add the libraries to my template next year and it doesn't change my expenses at all. And if I have a time of lower income I can stop buying libraries and work with stuff I own. But I couldn't stop the cloud and go on working.
I generally try to reduce running charges. Makes more flexible and takes pressure out of live.


----------



## SGordB

Thanks for helping put this into perspective, Jon. What's puzzling is I don't have a data cap and can DL at full capacity from other sources. In fact, the way I got around the bottleneck (partially) for my first lib was to download up to 5 or 6 of the 10 parts simultaneously from my browsers (EW tech support sent me the links - same as if I had bought the product). Those links also were throttled on my end, albeit somewhat less so than the built-in links in the Installation Centre, and they (together with the IC) were able to simultaneously eat up >50-65% of my nominal downloading bandwidth. But I suspect that's not a fix EW will provide on a continuing basis.


----------



## JonSolo

And just to add, I think you can look in the EW Installation Center config file and all the DL links are there. Not recommending this, but I have used it to correct a file that seemed corrupt in an install but would not DL correctly again. I am sure there are some EW Installation Center bugs, but hard to pinpoint what they are.


----------



## SGordB

Thanks. I found a relevant log file. I thought I had cracked the syntax, but this makes it easier. It feels subversive, but really it's just a better way (in my case, at least) to access what I'm paying for.


----------



## dimtsak

The best subscription model i've seen is the splice.com renting.
You can pay for example 10 $ per month to use Ozone, and when you reach the full price the license is your.

A good idea for EastWest is to give something like credits with every month of subscription, that you can use to purchase the full license of a library.
We should request it at them i think.


----------



## Reid Rosefelt

stevetwist said:


> The thing about subscription models that I don't see many people discussing is how the change in revenue stream for the company can potentially have very positive results for existing customers.
> 
> The previous business model relies on continually releasing new 'cool' stuff - stuff that makes marketing departments happy. Stuff that brings in new revenue by selling to new customers. Once you've paid for software, you're less important to the business people at that company than new customers who have yet to pay - the company already has your money. They only make more money if they sell to new people, or sell you new stuff. Thus, old software doesn't get supported very well. Bugs don't get fixed. Once they have your money, a company has a tendency to not care about you any more (not every company - but in general I have found this to be true)...
> 
> Of course, it depends on the company to make the change. Just because they're charging you a subscription doesn't mean that they'll start changing where they focus their time... but, I hope that the companies that succeed from offering subscription models, are the ones that care about keeping their existing customers happy.
> 
> Steve



I have found this to be very much the case with Sonar. They have a system to respond to the user base and fix problems quickly and make important additions every month. It keeps getting better and better. 

I don't own any East/West products, but I am curious about many of them. So I am definitely going to get a month of cloud and try some of them out for potential purchase. 

Likewise you can't beat the Splice rent to own model with Serum. $9.99 a month? Stop and start? After 10 months you own it? What's wrong with that.

On the other hand, I personally don't get Roland Cloud. I don't get $19.95 a month (or soon, $29.95) for access to some classic Roland synths? The only one I really want is the D-50, and it's not worth $240 or $360 a year forever. I have other things I can do with my money. A real Roland fan might see it differently. 

But who would complain if Spitfire offered the same plan as East/West?

There are lots of companies that sell virtual instruments and DAWs.If a company goes to an all-subscription model, and it doesn't make sense to us as consumers, we can take our business to another company. The market will sort this out. The only thing that would be unacceptable is if somebody purchased something and then was told they HAVE to subscribe to keep it. But the Sonar model works for me. You can accept the software as it is or subscribe. Just like you don't have to buy paid updates.


----------



## dpasdernick

TigerTheFrog said:


> I have found this to be very much the case with Sonar. They have a system to respond to the user base and fix problems quickly and make important additions every month. It keeps getting better and better.
> 
> I don't own any East/West products, but I am curious about many of them. So I am definitely going to get a month of cloud and try some of them out for potential purchase.
> 
> Likewise you can't beat the Splice rent to own model with Serum. $9.99 a month? Stop and start? After 10 months you own it? What's wrong with that.
> 
> On the other hand, I personally don't get Roland Cloud. I don't get $19.95 a month (or soon, $29.95) for access to some classic Roland synths? The only one I really want is the D-50, and it's not worth $240 or $360 a year forever. I have other things I can do with my money. A real Roland fan might see it differently.
> 
> But who would complain if Spitfire offered the same plan as East/West?
> 
> There are lots of companies that sell virtual instruments and DAWs.If a company goes to an all-subscription model, and it doesn't make sense to us as consumers, we can take our business to another company. The market will sort this out. The only thing that would be unacceptable is if somebody purchased something and then was told they HAVE to subscribe to keep it. But the Sonar model works for me. You can accept the software as it is or subscribe. Just like you don't have to buy paid updates.



Roland's changed their subscription model. If you subscribe for a year you can keep one of the soft synths. Subscribe for a second year and get soft synth number 2. I'm betting this is because very few people are signing up. I too would like the D-50 but I have a real D-550 in my rack so I'm not jumping in. Perhaps if they sold the D-50 software out right for 99 bucks I'd retire the hardware. Korg did it right with the M1 and the Wavestation etc. 50 bucks a piece at times and no subscription. I just wish the GUI's were scale-able. I need binoculars to edit the wavestation.


----------



## Reid Rosefelt

dpasdernick said:


> Roland's changed their subscription model. If you subscribe for a year you can keep one of the soft synths. Subscribe for a second year and get soft synth number 2. I'm betting this is because very few people are signing up.



Thanks for the information. It's smart of them to do this, but $240 is not in my opinion a market price for a D-50, when the whole Arturia collection sells for around that. You can't make music with any of their instruments without continuing to pay. They have lost my money, maybe yours, and countless others.

I might add that Korg sells Gadget on the Mac, which has 34 synths and drum machines, including versions of the M1, Wavestation, ODYSSEi, iMono/Poly, etc (albeit kind of LE versions). It's $150 now and has NKS, which the Korg legacy doesn't have.


----------



## mauriziodececco

One thing i do not understand is why musical/creative software vendors do not learn a lesson from the professional software market; in this market, the model have been for decades a mix of buying/renting, under the form of a maintenance contract; you pay for a licence for a specific version, than you subscribe to a maintenance contract that give you the rights to fixes and new versions. Usually the maintenance contract is between 10 and 20% of the licence cost. It solve the Cubase-like problem mentioned in the beginning of the thread, and make things clearer, without blocking your use of the software if you bounce out of the subscription. Of course would not be adapted to all products, but for a product needed evolution is particularly appropriate.
Maurizio


----------



## Reid Rosefelt

mauriziodececco said:


> One thing i do not understand is why musical/creative software vendors do not learn a lesson from the professional software market; in this market, the model have been for decades a mix of buying/renting, under the form of a maintenance contract; you pay for a licence for a specific version, than you subscribe to a maintenance contract that give you the rights to fixes and new versions. Usually the maintenance contract is between 10 and 20% of the licence cost. It solve the Cubase-like problem mentioned in the beginning of the thread, and make things clearer, without blocking your use of the software if you bounce out of the subscription. Of course would not be adapted to all products, but for a product needed evolution is particularly appropriate.
> Maurizio


Yes. That's why I loved Sonar so much. Every month there was an email with terrific new features and important bug fixes. This included things like adding Melodyne, Addictive Drums, high level effects, big improvements to MIDI editing, and powerful technology for taking advantage of multi-core computers. These improvements came every moth. Anybody who didn't want to pay and was happy with what they had could stop anytime. And start again if they wanted too. 

I think in a few years it could have been seen as one of the best DAWs available, rather than something that was out of sight from most people. When I spoke to my sales engineer at 

But Cakewalk NEVER promoted the monthly upgrades and what they meant, so there was absolutely no reason for anybody to ever try it. Logic is a terrific DAW practically given away with Apple computers, Reaper is cheap and beloved by a certain kind of user, ProTools is the "industry standard," and Studio One has the number one marketing angle of today: it's sold as "easy to use." Sonar was not branded as anything at all, and eventually Gibson fired the marketing staff anyway. 

But I think the subscription model option might be a good thing for a lot of companies to try. (It must be optional or it will be a disaster like Roland Cloud). A lot of people are afraid to risk spending money on expensive high-quality products like Spitfire or Omnisphere. If they had the chance to try them without risk, they might be more open to it.


----------



## mauriziodececco

I agree that the subscription model make sense in a number of cases; for example, not everybody want to keep their DAW projet alive forever; i currently doing some short movie work (not for money), i would strongly consider subscribing for a couple of month to the Composer Cloud if the libraries i have are not enough for the work; once the work is done, is done.
And, if you do this kind of work for money, than there are a number of very good reasons to opt for the subscription model, like no upfront financing and sometimes fiscal reasons.


----------



## Tyrone Simpson

...but when is enough, enough? How many times can they reinvent the wheel? I own a solid core library (keys, strings, horns, woodwinds, percs, voices and snyths) so I see no need to pay monthly for a few "new sounds" I could probably produce myself with FX. That new library isnt going to make me anymore creative but using new techniques and mastering my DAW will (took some years and alot of $$$ to figure that out


----------



## Saxer

If I would work exclusively with libraries of one sample company the subscription model might work well. But if I imagine I had a (even really cheap) subscription deal with all the developers I use libraries from it would take half of my money every month. And in times with no studio gigs (i.e. times playing more live gigs) all the subscriptions go on or I have to have a strategy plan when to cancel and re-new them.
"_Oh, next week a mainly synth-based project... will that last until next month? I have to subscribe U-he and Arturia again and cancel EastWest and Spitfire and VSL for that time. Oh wait, not VSL! I need VEPro for the synths... I'll hope the client doesn't want strings before next month... have to remember to bounce all previous string parts to audio before unsubscribing... and what if I use OT libraries if the client need strings? The subscription runs from next month because they have a 50%-deal this summer. But I need time to configure the template... damn!_"
Even if it was cheaper than buying all the libraries: when money is tight I can stop buying new stuff and sit down and make music. And I can work with all the libraries I have without loosing money.


----------



## GtrString

I use a subscription model for my car. That makes sense because I didnt want to post a lot of money in one, loosing 40% the first year ect.

For sample libraries not so much, simply because I think they are cheap enough, and I dont want the hassle with a subscription. The full Symphobia trio cost less than one good electric guitar, so in that situation it really doesnt make sense to me, to “subscribe”.


----------

