Survey suggest Steinberg considering subscription model

IMHO in one form or another, it is coming.

And there will be no place to run/hide.

All DAWs will eventually end up doing it.
{‘-’}

Absolutely Haaaay-ell no!

I’ve got too many very expensive softwares doing that already; I can’t stand that model, and I’m keen on leaving them the next time 'round. $545 for a 3ds max subscription per year! Please!! But then, like you say, monopoly. Autodesk owns the three big 3d packages. Truly a sad state in the 3d industry.

But I don’t see “since 99.9% people will have answered nay to the suggestion in the survey”

Was there a poll?

M.

Do any of you REALLY not know that you are already using a “subscription” model? Work it out kiddies. The upgrades are pretty regular. And you ALL just HAVE to have the latest version.
Now I know from the dafter posts, and the lack of any other really serious issues, that version 7.5 has pretty much zero wrong with it. :smiley:
Scraping barrels for complaints is plainly a serious illness. :laughing: Never seen the griefmonkeys so desperate.
Or are you all secretly Steinberg staff having a laugh?

i know you’re not being too serious, but there’s great psychological difference to buying an updated version when you actually want (even though you may buy all updates eventually anyway), and having a recurring payment on your credit card. as long as not all daw manufacturers don’t jump on this bandwagon at once, or as long as your daw is not that exceptional and indispensable that you couldn’t switch to another, this is not a good idea imho.

as regards your ‘one has to have all the latest versions’; i know it wasn’t serious either, but for stability’s sake, i am now moving to an 11 years old version of sound forge, and actually went from 7 to 6 to cubase 5 for a certain project now that the lesser ram footprint of c5 makes easier to work with. it’s all horses for courses, and for serious projects, reliability comes before newer versions.

I would not support a subscription model. Total deal breaker here.

Could a “subscription model” mean that if I stop paying I can continue using what I have, just not have access to updates? I’d be OK with that.

Surely internet access wouldn’t be required to use the DAW … wouldn’t that exclude most remote recording sessions (out standing in their field, etc.)?

An subscription model would be a absolute deal breaker for me…

I don’t have steady income, only a solid base whith sometimes a boost that I use for “nicety’s”. It’s enough to pay my bills and so on, but I cannot afford to have a monthly subscription on top of those I already have. I buy my software (music or otherwise) when I get payed some extra for completing whole projects (I do computers/networks and am also a graphical artist). This can be a few times at any time of the year, but certainly not monthly.

If Steinberg should introduce an subscription model, I would stick with the latest non-subscibe software and stop buying anything from Steinberg. I simply have no other choice. At this moment I have Cubase 7.5 and a few instruments/soundsets, and that is more than enough for the years to come. I would like to keep my software updated, but only buy the upgrades (and maybe some extra’s) at the time it is possible and affordable for me to do so.

In short - If Steinberg goes for an subscription model they have simply lost an costumer…

I really love the product, if it does turn into a lease I’m gone, been here since Cubase SE
:wink:

this would be interesting with regard to pro tools. too many pro / post facilities have invested too much into their rigs, it seems avid could get away with some chutzpah scheme like this. not steinberg i’m afraid, there is still too many an option to switch to another daw.

I agree with most of the posts here. I wouldn’t object to a subscription model if it was optional, but users need a choice. If they do away with perpetual licenses, I won’t be subscribing.

I use Adobe products for my work, and was disgusted when they went Cloud-only. I’ll be sticking with CS6 for as long as possible, and then looking into competing products when CS6 is no longer compatible with new hardware. I don’t need all the latest and greatest upgrades, so hopefully that’ll be a good few years yet. If SB go the same way, I’ll just stick with whatever version of Cubase is current, then look into alternatives when it becomes necessary. I’d really rather not have to switch though - I like Cubase best out of all the DAWs I’ve tried.

Software companies need to realise that many people want to upgrade on their own schedule. I’m self-employed with an unpredictable income, so the last thing I want is another fixed monthly cost. I’d rather just put the money aside for upgrades as and when I want to. I also don’t want to be left without access to my files if I can’t continue subscribing for whatever reason (assuming projects using newer features wouldn’t be backwards-compatible with older versions of the software). Another problem that I’ve seen on the Adobe Cloud forum is that when the inevitable glitches happen, and people can’t run their software, customer service isn’t always as helpful as it should be. This is annoying for anyone, but is a threat to the livelihood of professional users with client deadlines. Would Steinberg’s customer support be any better?

With a few exceptions (anti-virus & the like), software as a service is a horrible idea, IMO. Some might say ‘it’s the future’, but that’s only true if customers allow it. Businesses will do whatever is most profitable for them, so we need to vote with our wallets. At least SB is asking for our input in advance. Hopefully they’ll listen.

I’m using Cubase since the Atari times, so for more than 20 years it’s a part of my life - like an old friend.
The subscription model would alienate me, and it saddens me to have to consider switching to another DAW.
Nonetheless I’m with you that it is a deal breaker and I would definitely be one more old loyal costumer whom they would loose.

One, I agree with curteye, that eventually there won’t be a choice. Unless people vote with their wallet, which they won’t, because… well there it is.

Two, the people comparing the current model with a subscription model is not correct, IMO. It depends on a number of factors, but the primary difference is that my credit card would be at the sellers disposal, and another account on which to maintain the keys to our banks. This enables them to come up with schemes that normally would not be feasible. Imagine for example, paying per patch. This not only keeps the door open to your dollars, but it opens one to your pennies as well. :wink: And then the banks start charging you for each transaction, and it goes on…

It is not so much a physical thing as a psychological thing. If you disagree, then consider why is everything moving this way? If there is no inherent difference, then why the change?

Why?

If there were more specifics to the subscription model, I would have some thoughts, but right now it is speculation.

I will say that I am usually a .5 to full version behind current development cycles because the bleeding edge brings issues. I believe I am skipping version 7 all together like I did with version 4. Too much to worry about in my case because work flow and client relations can be jeopardized and the last time I dealt with steinberg support, I was being aided by an amateur that was of no help. This is not comforting on the bleeding edge. If a subscription impacted my behind the new release type of “protection” of my business, I would definitely not go for it. I would rather own my tools as well.

Has anyone witnessed the adaption of adobe’s model? How has the adobe community of users felt about it?

Reading this:

I am not enthusiastic about it at all. Thankfully we are not cornered to cubase or Nuendo and there are other options out there.

“I subscribe the product for a fixed monthly fee and have always access to the latest version. When the subscription ends, I no longer can use the software.”

That’s from the questioner. If this is the case, what I have in bold, I will not continue into the era of subscription. I will own the last version before the adaptation.

Steinberg, you have two thumbs down from me on this.

I can see this from SB’s (or any software dev’s) side.

Years ago it was revolutionary to be able to pay $800 to get a software version of what previously cost say, $20,000 – the mixing desk, tape maichines etc., plus the rental or purchase the space to put it in.

Now, in 2014 many older versions of Cubase are complete enough for many users, so updating is not a necessity. Additionally, the way the SB licenses work we can buy and sell our licenses without restriction so a new user can, theoritically, buy a copy of Cubase 5 or 6 and be in business with a rather complete feature set, and SB gets nothing from that sale (and, of course, does not have to provide support.)

I think the model they should adopt (though the pricing would be different) is the one used by Figure 53, who make Qlab: http://figure53.com/qlab/buy/

This can create new revenue, and its implementation would have the side effect of offering an immediate, automated solution the lost dongle emergency. (you could just rent Cubase/Nuendo for a period of time if you could not reach tech support, like on Friday night, 30 minutes before the downbeat of a 3 day run)

Software manufacturers are trying to find a way to make more money without alienating their customers. I thnk they want to test the waters to see how users would react to the idea, and they are getting an earfull from people who already own licenses. People who do not yet own a license would have a very different perspective.

btw image line provide lifetime free updates once you buy their product. they claim to ‘think to’ have the largest user base on the market (that is what i read in a post by their dev anyway).

And they say on the website

Sometimes when we develop something new, like a software synthesizer or other module, we investigate whether to build it into the main application and include it free, or offer it as an optional add-on purchase.

And this:
found in a Steinberg C7 read me file:

“Developing software is an ongoing process that perpetually gets closer to perfection without ever achieving it”

.

It is the ‘ongoing’ part that helps me to finally realize that I am officially ‘hooked on Cubase’;
whatever the current sales model. :slight_smile: :slight_smile: :slight_smile:
{‘-’}

What a load of crap this whole thing is…

What is the difference if I pay $250 every two years, versus whatever this comes out to be per day? The only real difference is that the subscription model increases the risk of us, the customers, getting screwed. Why? Well, how else would they make more money? The only way to make more money is to charge me more for Cubase. That’s it. It’ll become a chase game to get us to buy into more “features” for a few pennies, until we pay more for the entire package, that used to be $250 every two years (an approximation, but you get the point).

On top of that, I might not be able to continue using an older version of Cubase, depending on “the model”. And if I can, them will we get bugs fixed. All that this ultimately result in, is a higher cost for us, for less features. Because this will be extra, that will be extra, and so on, maybe not a very high cost, but in comparison to what we get now, it will be more. Also, since it appear that quite a few people have problems with these upgrades, imagine what will happen when various options require other options or simple won’t work because an option is non-existent.

My guess is that a whole lot less non-professional customers will quit using Steinberg and go elsewhere. Then it’ll get even more expensive, in order to make up the difference.

Lease and subscription are money making routines that ultimately ends up loosing to better alternatives.