Software Pricing

[Machinesworking]

So how many would take up a subscription model of Live if to was say £10 per month for Suite or £100 per year?

I would never upgrade the version I have now.

[kitekrazy]

Like 'most people' Theo Void I've never really read to licensing on my copy of Live... but I bet it says; oh, yes it does "installing, copying or use of this product do not acquire any ownership rights to the Software". Therefore, Ableton still own the software on your machine

So how many would take up a subscription model of Live if to was say £10 per month for Suite or £100 per year?

Subscription models never work. iTunes wouldn't be what it is if it were subscription model.

[Theo Void]

Like 'most people' Theo Void I've never really read to licensing on my copy of Live... but I bet it says; oh, yes it does "installing, copying or use of this product do not acquire any ownership rights to the Software". Therefore, Ableton still own the software on your machine

So how many would take up a subscription model of Live if to was say £10 per month for Suite or £100 per year?

I guess if it were the only choice I had to use Live I would but if given the choice I wouldn't do it.

[yur2die4]

Subscription model means giving away money for the rest of your life, rather than being done with it.

An upgrade is just the same, minus the commitment and the endless flow of money.

I make it a personal goal to keep my monthly/annual bills to a minimum.

[SuburbanThug]

Why rent when you can own?

[Tarekith]

I wish more companies would do a rent to own option. Pay $50 ($20, whatever) for 3 months to demo the software with no restrictions. Like it, take that $50 off the full price. Don't like it, oh well you're not out much, you stayed legit, and the developer still at least gets SOMETHING for you taking advantage of their efforts.

[SuburbanThug]

Now you're talking!

[Theo Void]

Tarekith. The voice of reason.

[CFM]

"Why rent when you can own?"

As above you do not own the software: The rights to use the Software as set out in this Agreement are
licensed, not sold, to you by Ableton.

What you own is a permission to use the software - this is why you can not "You may not remove or alter any trademark, trade names, product names, logo, copyright or other proprietary notices, legends, symbols or labels in the Software."

Basically you are renting! I'm also not sure the subscription model does not work. Possibly not in software but its only time. The subscription model works in other areas: cable TV, Netflix, magazines.

A subscription model will also get rid of the endless chatter about having to fork out £100 - £200 on an upgrade. Ableton could go down same line as Adobe and offer those on version 9 to keep their copy forever, with no support or upgrades.

[login]

Rental models could be fine if prices were fair. I would like to see a model with two types of licenses where first you have to pay something like 200 for a lifetime license for the lite version which has very limited features. Then you pay your suscription fee for something like 100 a year.

[kitekrazy]

I was paying $10 a month to a developer of a VST, you got free sounds for it and a magazine. The developer started slacking (IMO) in both. I cancelled. There are negatives both ways. People will expect more if you are using a subscription model.
Some are trying this in the gaming industry and they are almost off the radar. One is called APB.

[login]

I was paying $10 a month to a developer of a VST, you got free sounds for it and a magazine. The developer started slacking (IMO) in both. I cancelled. There are negatives both ways. People will expect more if you are using a subscription model.
Some are trying this in the gaming industry and they are almost off the radar. One is called APB.

The other is called blizzard, 10 million subs still. And when you look at WOW it seems developers are pushed quite hard to keep delivering content monthly.

[mr.ergonomics]

A subscription only model is another businesses model to slave the customer, it's a asymmetric relation ship where you don't have any power. Literally that could mean than you can't use your live 8 version anymore after paying a couple of years for it. Maybe it's because you're in a bad financial situation or just because don't want the update. Think about what will happen when this businesses model would be common. Small thing sum up and at the end you have to pay hundreds of euros/$ just to use your computer. That means in bad times you can't use your tools anymore even though you have already payed for it over years. That means when you had some good projects and want to buying some really expensive software you're forced to raise your monthly earnings long-term. That means a conpany could make really lousy or just cosmetic updates long-term but you have to pay for these updates, because you need the core functionallity from the program. That means you can't sell your software later.

I see some situations the possibility from a subscription model could be a good thing (short term demand, evaluation), but again the main idea behind this model is to produce a constant cash flow for the company not to do you a favour, you can't jump over an update or just use the version you're perfectly happy with.

A subscription only model would mean to me that would use an alternative DAW. I did this with adobe (idealistic decision which is really a pita for me atm, but it works so far) and I will do this with every other program.

I'm perfectly fine with buying an update every year.

[mr.ergonomics]

I make it a personal goal to keep my monthly/annual bills to a minimum.

That. If you have a variable income (project work/freelancing) it's a must.

[3osc]

Another thing to remember is that each software sale incurs a potential cost to the developer. Technical support is expensive, but required for anyone who wants to stay in business. This means that the cost of the software needs to be high enough to cover those costs as well as limit the amount of business you get to a manageable level of service. 500 customer paying $500 dollars yields the same as 5,000 customers paying $50 each, but if %5 of your customer base has a technical problem, the former is much cheaper to support.