What's new

Izotope Music Production Pro - Subscription Now...

They do say that the Pro versions will eventually be getting updates that will not be in the non-subscription versions of the software.
How many damn subscriptions do these people think we can afford ?

The good thing is, however, that there is always another developer to move onto. I made the move from Adobe to Affinity, and its saved me a fortune....
 
I will not jump on a subscription plan unless there is some overwhelming reason to do so. I think iZotope has excellent technology, but much of it is faily easily replaced with other tools, many of which I already have. $25/mo is just silly, at least for me.
 
Last edited:
Not surprised at all. I became pissed over the upgrade regime they pulled off, so I've sold off the plugins I had from them.. if I wan't clean and surgical, I'm perfectly happy with stock daw plugins.
 
I had to do some searching, but when you log into your account, the support link becomes available, and that's where all the answers are.

Pro is the labeling they're using for the advanced products that are in the subscription model.

So Pro=Advanced. For now.

They do say that the Pro versions will eventually be getting updates that will not be in the non-subscription versions of the software.

So there you have it.
Discovering USP should not be a marathon...but good job. :)
 
Pro is the labeling they're using for the advanced products that are in the subscription model.
With one exception: "RX Pro for Music has the same features as RX 8 Standard."

Thanks for the the information on how to find these details. Their description is carefully worded, but I think one implication is clear. There will not be a Music Production Suite 5. And there might not be an Ozone 10 or Neutron 4 or RX 9 except by subscription. It's a little harder to tell about the individual products.
 
Last edited:
Are there other plugins that have the AI-driven analysis of your music, and that will automatically apply a range of plugins to optimize? I use this a lot for my mixes.

Thanks,

Mike
I didn't really use the AI in Izotope much except to sometimes get a second opinion on my mix to consider. But lately I've been using TDR SlickEQ M (M for Mastering edition) which has a feature that listens to your track and gives suggestions based on a reference you give it or just pink noise.

I like the pink noise option because it can be a good reality check for tired ears, or someone just prone to adding way too much low end to everything :) I believe TEOTE also makes adjustments against pink noise.

The TDR stuff in general is well thought out and I'm really becoming a fan.
 
How many damn subscriptions do these people think we can afford ?

The good thing is, however, that there is always another developer to move onto. I made the move from Adobe to Affinity, and its saved me a fortune....
I was going to post something similar to this!
There's only so much discretionary income I have to throw around.
Eventually these companies are going to subscribe their way out of customers.
 
Eventually these companies are going to subscribe their way out of customers.
People in internet forums keep saying that. And reality keeps proving them wrong: Adobe's revenues have grown 25x since they went to a subscription model about seven years ago.

The truth is that almost all software in the professional world *outside of the music business* is subscription and has been for decades. Adobe was the first company with a large hobbyist market that made the switch. Sure, they probably lost a lot of non-professionals. But they make more money from the professionals they kept. So they make a lot more money.

Frankly, I think Adobe have done a pretty bad job on the development side since moving to the subscription model. There are much better options emerging. But I'm just one vote. Apparently there are enough people happy with Adobe to make them fabulously successful since the switch.

All we can do is vote with our dollars and watch what happens. That's the way it works, so hooray for power to the people through capitalism.

rgames
 
People in internet forums keep saying that. And reality keeps proving them wrong: Adobe's revenues have grown 25x since they went to a subscription model about seven years ago.

The truth is that almost all software in the professional world *outside of the music business* is subscription and has been for decades. Adobe was the first company with a large hobbyist market that made the switch. Sure, they probably lost a lot of non-professionals. But they make more money from the professionals they kept. So they make a lot more money.

Frankly, I think Adobe have done a pretty bad job on the development side since moving to the subscription model. There are much better options emerging. But I'm just one vote. Apparently there are enough people happy with Adobe to make them fabulously successful since the switch.

All we can do is vote with our dollars and watch what happens. That's the way it works, so hooray for power to the people through capitalism.

rgames
The difference is that with Adobe, if you are a photographer, like me, with something under 10$I am fully covered. I don't like subscriptions and it's true that the development of Adobe software is slow at least. Imagine that most of the music software we use moved to subscription. 29$ Izotope + 29$ EW + XX$ for your DAW and other XX$ for another VI company that you love... I can pay monthly easily the same that I pay yearly to do my photography job.

I think fair yearly upgrade prices will work better in the music field. Just my two cents.
 
The truth is that almost all software in the professional world *outside of the music business* is subscription and has been for decades.
So you're saying that by early 2001—which is the most recent year that was decades ago—almost all software in the professional world (outside of the music business) was already subscription based?

Are you sure you're not overstating your case a little? I was working in the music business at that time, so I have no experience to say otherwise; but I find that assertion to be very surprising.

Best,

Geoff
 
I just went to iZotope's site and found that traditional upgrade offers were still available.

Is there evidence that iZotope won't offer both subscriptions and purchases going forward? Has there been a statement that iZotope is going to be a subscription-only business?

Best,

Geoff
 
I just went to iZotope's site and found that traditional upgrade offers were still available.

Is there evidence that iZotope won't offer both subscriptions and purchases going forward? Has there been a statement that iZotope is going to be a subscription-only business?

Best,

Geoff
I think the thing that scares people is the way they're reimagining bundle options. At the moment you can still purchase Music Production Suite 4 outright, but I think it's unlikely we'll keep getting good bundle deals going forward as they've sacrificed the "Music Production Suite" name to the new subscription services, so I doubt we'll see a MPS 5. It'd be a confusing branding decision to continue the MPS bundle in any other form.

I doubt they'll get rid of purchases, but I'm expecting them to slowly start limiting their bundle purchase options, instead pushing anyone who wants "a deal" towards the subs. Kind of similar to how Slate Audio has done it ever since they started their subscription plans. Sure you can buy individual plugins, but they're all overpriced and there are no bundles and hey, the subscription is just so much more affordable!

The way you funnel customers towards these lucrative subscription options is by making purchasing the software less attractive. I've already been frustrated for a while with how much iZotope charges for minimal number upgrades, even with their loyalty discounts. The $80 "loyalty" price for the Nectar 3 -> Nectar 3 Plus upgrade to get like 2-3 new edge-case features blew my mind. Insanity.

EDIT: Also, the way they're dropping the numbering from all the listed plugins on the subscription page instead of giving them a "Pro" identifier. Does it make sense for them to maintain separate product numbering alongside that? I don't know.
 
Last edited:
Are you sure you're not overstating your case a little? I was working in the music business at that time, so I have no experience to say otherwise; but I find that assertion to be very surprising.
Maybe a little, but the specialty software at the core of other professions - engineering, science, accounting, finance, medicine, etc. - are, indeed, almost exclusively subscription-based and always have been.

Of course the businesses built around these professions also use Microsoft Windows and Office and a few other tools that are sometimes subscription and sometimes not (generally depending on the size of the company). But the software tied specifically to those professions - yes, almost always subscription. And vastly more expensive than what the music business uses.

Here's one example: let's say you're SpaceX. You run a tool called "Satellite Toolkit" (STK) from a company called AGI. A single-seat license for STK can easily be over $100,000 per year.

Here's another: let's say you're Ford. You run a computational physics tool called LS-DYNA to calculate how vehicle structures crumple when they hit something. A single-seat license for LS-DYNA can easily be $20,000 per year.

And the health care industry... Medical billing software is huge business because of the complicated mess we have (at least in the US) and is also many tens of thousands of dollars per year for a single license.

Now granted, the health care market is vastly larger than the music market (it's the largest single-market expenditure in the US by quite a lot) so you'd expect it to support such costs. But auto and satellite markets aren't *that* far off from the entertainment market, so they're a better comparison.

So, based on that comparison, $50,000 per year for a DAW seems reasonble, right? Well, let's hope not. But the point remains that specialty software for musicians is a *lot* less expensive than for other industries, subscription or otherwise.

The reason is that nobody is doing medical billing for fun, so the customer base is vastly different. More to the point, the customer bases have significantly different demands, particularly with regards to support. If you have a license for STK, you also have several people you can call up for help, usually within an hour or two. Not so much in the world of music software...!

rgames
 
Maybe a little, but the specialty software at the core of other professions - engineering, science, accounting, finance, medicine, etc. - are, indeed, almost exclusively subscription-based and always have been.

Of course the businesses built around these professions also use Microsoft Windows and Office and a few other tools that are sometimes subscription and sometimes not (generally depending on the size of the company). But the software tied specifically to those professions - yes, almost always subscription. And vastly more expensive than what the music business uses.

Here's one example: let's say you're SpaceX. You run a tool called "Satellite Toolkit" (STK) from a company called AGI. A single-seat license for STK can easily be over $100,000 per year.

Here's another: let's say you're Ford. You run a computational physics tool called LS-DYNA to calculate how vehicle structures crumple when they hit something. A single-seat license for LS-DYNA can easily be $20,000 per year.

And the health care industry... Medical billing software is huge business because of the complicated mess we have (at least in the US) and is also many tens of thousands of dollars per year for a single license.

Now granted, the health care market is vastly larger than the music market (it's the largest single-market expenditure in the US by quite a lot) so you'd expect it to support such costs. But auto and satellite markets aren't *that* far off from the entertainment market, so they're a better comparison.

So, based on that comparison, $50,000 per year for a DAW seems reasonble, right? Well, let's hope not. But the point remains that specialty software for musicians is a *lot* less expensive than for other industries, subscription or otherwise.

The reason is that nobody is doing medical billing for fun, so the customer base is vastly different. More to the point, the customer bases have significantly different demands, particularly with regards to support. If you have a license for STK, you also have several people you can call up for help, usually within an hour or two. Not so much in the world of music software...!

rgames
It makes sense when those pieces of software are heavily maintained and updated and come with support teams and integrators when there is a live product component that justifies continual payment, but I don't think anyone is convinced that plugin makers will ever provide something similar, other than the occasional compatibility updates. I do have to admit that for iZotope, it kind of makes sense, as they do seem to be continually updating their plugins
 
Maybe a little, but the specialty software at the core of other professions - engineering, science, accounting, finance, medicine, etc. - are, indeed, almost exclusively subscription-based and always have been.

Of course the businesses built around these professions also use Microsoft Windows and Office and a few other tools that are sometimes subscription and sometimes not (generally depending on the size of the company). But the software tied specifically to those professions - yes, almost always subscription. And vastly more expensive than what the music business uses.

Here's one example: let's say you're SpaceX. You run a tool called "Satellite Toolkit" (STK) from a company called AGI. A single-seat license for STK can easily be over $100,000 per year.

Here's another: let's say you're Ford. You run a computational physics tool called LS-DYNA to calculate how vehicle structures crumple when they hit something. A single-seat license for LS-DYNA can easily be $20,000 per year.

And the health care industry... Medical billing software is huge business because of the complicated mess we have (at least in the US) and is also many tens of thousands of dollars per year for a single license.

Now granted, the health care market is vastly larger than the music market (it's the largest single-market expenditure in the US by quite a lot) so you'd expect it to support such costs. But auto and satellite markets aren't *that* far off from the entertainment market, so they're a better comparison.

So, based on that comparison, $50,000 per year for a DAW seems reasonble, right? Well, let's hope not. But the point remains that specialty software for musicians is a *lot* less expensive than for other industries, subscription or otherwise.

The reason is that nobody is doing medical billing for fun, so the customer base is vastly different. More to the point, the customer bases have significantly different demands, particularly with regards to support. If you have a license for STK, you also have several people you can call up for help, usually within an hour or two. Not so much in the world of music software...!

rgames
Very interesting.... I didn't realize this business model for other industries was the norm. That makes totally sense....for them I guess.

Although:
With Photoshop and Pro Tools there is/was a MONOPOLY, or a "standard". The terms are interchangeable.
It means you often cannot function in the "pro" world without those software products.

That puts you in the corner and as a client I despise it with all my being.

In the case of Izotope, I can see only RX being the "super pro product" which can be essential for some. Also, I would really hate to not be able to use R4 in the future.

For the rest of their product I couldn't give a flying f...lamenco honestly.
Rocket science, medical surgery, car incident simulator it is not at the end of the day, and someone else doing great sounding stuff wiil come along.

....If all of them decide to go sub... I'll go back to hardware :rofl:
 
Looks like Izotope is going to subscription only for their Music Production Suite.
I don’t see “only” implied or expressed anywhere in iZotope’s marketing.

iZotope are introducing a subscription product.

One of the advantages is having tools that are always up to date.

They don’t say they will stop selling perpetual licenses.

And as far as I know they don’t plan to stop selling perpetual licenses.

I partner with iZotope in my day job so I’m obligated to say also:

“My opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect my employers.”

I can ask their marketing team if there is any public messaging on this topic during our meeting this Wednesday.
 
I had to do some searching, but when you log into your account, the support link becomes available, and that's where all the answers are.

Pro is the labeling they're using for the advanced products that are in the subscription model.

So Pro=Advanced. For now.

They do say that the Pro versions will eventually be getting updates that will not be in the non-subscription versions of the software.

So there you have it.
I am thinking about this move, since it costs buckets to move on everytime macOS updates...

But we shall see. I personally do not mind the subscription model, as I can cancel from them when I want to :)

Just got to be disciplined on the payments and budgeting.
 
I think subscription models are hard to sell to us musicians. We like to have our instruments, our external processors, who want to rent a guitar? Same with samples and software.

I have been with Izotope since Ozon 3, I guess I own all of their plug-ins, even quite a few I have never used. But there is no way I will be considering the subscription model, they are such a great company - I hope they will be listening to their customers.
 
Top Bottom