Any regular reader of this blog will know that when it comes to software subscriptions we are largely agnostic. However, there’s one myth we need to call out.
Background
During the COVID pandemic many of the Expert team switched from using Adobe products like PhotoShop and InDesign to Affinity. They made an offer for a perpetual licence for the entire suite of Affinity Photo, Designer, and Publisher for £70. The alternative offer from Adobe is either £19.97 a month for one product, or £51.98 per month for the entire suite of software. It was a no-brainer.
Affinity products have proved to be excellent alternatives, offering seamless opening and saving in Adobe formats, and similar, and in some cases, better feature sets.
Since that time we’ve received numerous updates to the suite, both in terms of small bug fixes and just yesterday, a large release of new features. We expect in that time Adobe subscribers have been getting similar support as part of their plan.
Some consider Adobe to be the ‘pioneers’ of creative software subscriptions, they are loved and hated in equal measure for using the model.
The Software Subscription Offer
Like it or not, software subscriptions are fast becoming a part of the audio production world. In a matter of years we’ve gone from buying software in boxes, then downloading, to now being asked to sign up for subscription plans to get the software we want/need.
The offer is generally this;
Get one piece of software that would normally cost hundreds if not thousands, or in the case of plugins, you get a ton of software
Pay a ‘low’ monthly payment
Get any new releases as part of the plan
Receive regular updates
Setting aside any philosophical beliefs around the whole subsciption concept, the offer seems generally fair. However, we think there’s one part of the offer which doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Regular Updates
Yes, it’s the part about getting regular updates. This claim has two problems.
The first problem, is that, intentional or not, it suggests that those buying perpetual software don’t benefit from regular updates. However, in some cases those buying perpetual software from brands like LiquidSonics, Toontrack, Blue Cat Audio, and numerous other brands, do get regular updates. Ahhh! Some may claim, but you get the regular updates as part of your subscription, it doesn’t cost anything. That’s the case with the aforementioned brands, and again, numerous others.
The second problem is that for some subscription plans, the updates are not forthcoming. In some cases, they are way behind other brands, many of whom are selling perpetual licences.
Let’s take the move from Intel to Apple Silicon. Some brands claim that the reason they are late with compatibility is that they have had to wait for Apple, or in the case of AAX Universal Binaries, they have had to wait for Avid to release the beta software or the tools.
There’s a problem with this claim. Every developer has access to the tools, either for OS or plugin formats at the same time. It’s a level playing field, no one gets a head start. One could argue that the brands making the DAW get a head start with their own plugins that ship with a DAW, but that’s comparing apples with oranges. Every third party developer starts from the same place.
The Reality
If you want to see how many companies have made the transition to Apple Silicon AAX native support, then you can check our extensive database.
What is clear, is that there’s no more likelihood of the software being perpetual or subscription based. Furthermore, some of the brands still not offering native Apple Silicon support in AAX format are subscription based.
What puzzles us, is that we know those brands have some of the smartest developers on the planet. Furthermore, when they were selling perpetual licences, they were often first out the gate with updates.
Why The Problem?
Running a software company is hard, it requires the cost of development of new technologies, new plugins, adding new features, squashing bugs, and staying on top of updates to operating systems and DAWs.
Looking at the list, the problem is not one of competence, it’s most likely to do with priorities. No software company has infinite resources. The need to sell and to maintain software competes for attention. So, consider this, you can either spend time on a new plugin or you can spend time working on updates. It’s not a binary choice, you can do both, but in many cases the new products are more attractive, especially in investor led companies, than the bug fixes or updates, which in many cases were not your fault in the first place. You now have extra work, and cost, to fix something you didn’t break.
However, the problems are the same regardless of how you choose to create revenue, be that perpetual or subscription. One could argue that there’s less incentive for those who have sold you a licence as they already have your money. Yet, in reality, that’s not proving to be the case. Some of the companies doing best are using a perpetual model and some doing worst are selling subscriptions. Why are we not naming those brands? We don’t need to, it’s evident for anyone using their products who they are. If the cap fits, then wear it!
Summary
We want to reiterate, this is not a perpetual = good, subscription = bad, article. There’s good and bad practise on both sides of the fence.
Part of the problem is that marketing teams are making promises that the software developers can’t keep, even if they want to. There’s a mountain of competing priorities, updates and bug fixes is just one of them.
The claim that buying a subscription plan is going to get you updates and bug fixes, any quicker, or for less money than from a perpetual licence, is demonstrably untrue.
Our experience at the Experts with Affinity has been fantastic, proving that perpetual software licensing isn’t the second class option that some over-zealous marketing professionals would have you believe. In some cases, it’s quite the contrary.
Software subscriptions can be good, they offer some benefits. A better update experience than those offered with perpetual licences isn’t one of them.
Brands need to stop making this claim, it doesn’t help anyone.
Discuss.