Final Cut Pro trademark hints at possible subscription offering

AppleInsider

Apple has made a change to its Final Cut Pro trademark that suggests the company is eyeing a possible subscription-based model or add-on in the future.

Credit: Apple

Specifically, Apple has added a Nice Classification 42 listing to its trademark for Final Cut Pro in Europe.

The 42 classification, which is used by platforms like Microsoft Office 365, includes software-as-a-service (SaaS). It covers "software rental," which was not a part of the original registered trademark back in 2016. The change to the trademark is a specific one, and hints that some sort of change is coming.

Final Cut Pro is currently offered as a one-time purchase software available for a flat fee of $300 on the App Store.

At this point, it isn't clear if Apple will do away with the one-time purchase and opt for a subscription-based model like Adobe Creative Cloud or Microsoft Office 365. It's possible that any SaaS option for Final Cut Pro could be offered in addition to the one-time purchase, and may include additional cloud-based features.

Patently Apple spotted the listing this week.

Apple has taken steps to expand its services offerings in recent years, launching individual services like Apple Fitness+ and Apple TV+ and bundling various products in its Apple One subscription.

The company is also eyeing new areas in which to expand its services. A report from January suggested that Apple is mulling the release of a paid subscription platform for exclusive podcast content.

commentzilla

I never made the jump to FCPX. I still have FCP 7 up and running and now I've had to move to Premiere since it already comes with Creative Suite.

entropys

Subscriptions transfer power from the user to the corporation. The Corporation can end your subscription. The end point of all this is you can become an unperson on the whim of the Corporation.

jgreg728

Leave the ability to buy to own and this will be ok. 

bigcountry

entropys said:

Subscriptions transfer power from the user to the corporation. The Corporation can end your subscription. The end point of all this is you can become an unperson on the whim of the Corporation.

Because corporations exist to play capricious games of whim the with people who pay them money? Did I miss something here?

agilealtitude

Another line item on my credit card statement every month? How fast can you say 'delete'...?

sflocal

In the "old" days, one would go to the computer store, buy boxed software with with a disk and use it until whatever computer/OS/features no longer work for you.

You then buy - years later - that same software that is current, works with your OS, and has new features you wanted.  Nothing wrong with that.

All those years in-between from the time you first bought it, to the next time you bought that software that company still had to exist, still had to pay software engineers, and they still had to eat, and hope that they could get enough "new" customers to buy their boxed software to in order to continue developing it every year/release and hope you buy the next release to keep them in business.

So as a developer that has to keep software updated to stay current with the times, I can understand the subscription model.  Love it or hate it, many companies have gone under because they could not sustain their business on strictly having new customers only.  If enough current customers wait years to buy that next release, the company may not be around by then, then the consumer has a hissy-fit because "What other software can I use?"

It's a slippery slope.  There's some software I think works for the subscription model.  CreativeSuite, Office365 I think are (for me) good examples of software subscriptions that benefit me.  

Other software like video games to me can't warrant a software subscription.

I'm torn with FCP.  Apple used to be primarily a hardware company.  If used FCP as a method to drive hardware sales.  Nonetheless, FCP is a massive application that requires tons of resources to continue develop.  While it's not the case with Adobe, if I go to subscription I expect value for my money.  I expect it to be regularly updated, and works will my use cases.  I'm sure the amount of money Apple spends on FCP development is minuscule, but I can understand Apple (or any company) for their product to start supporting itself.

Heck, I wish they did this with Aperture.

dunno... I'm torn.

flydog

entropys said:

Subscriptions transfer power from the user to the corporation. The Corporation can end your subscription. The end point of all this is you can become an unperson on the whim of the Corporation.

Are you ok? 

flydog

agilealtitude said:

Another line item on my credit card statement every month? How fast can you say 'delete'...?

Well good for you.

For many apps, the business model of selling an app for a one time fee, then supporting that customer forever is unsustainable. There comes a point where most people who need the app already own it (as is likely the case with FCP), then 100% of a developer's resources are devoted solely to maintain that app for eternity.  There are relatively simple apps that require little maintenance, which may work under this business model, but apps like FCP, Office, Adobe, most certainly do not.

For a customer, the cost is not much more.  There was a time when Adobe cost upwards of $3,000, and it lasted a few years. You could maybe stretch it 8 years, but that still ended up being almost $400 a year. Now you pay $30 a month (with the regular sales they have), and the app is updated every few months (rather than every 8 years).  

If the app is regularly updated with new functionality, the subscription model is well worth it. If you pay 99 cents a month for a calculator, then clearly that's a ripoff.  

sflocal

flydog said:

agilealtitude said:

Another line item on my credit card statement every month? How fast can you say 'delete'...?

Well good for you.

For many apps, the business model of selling an app for a one time fee, then supporting that customer forever is unsustainable. There comes a point where most people who need the app already own it (as is likely the case with FCP), then 100% of a developer's resources are devoted solely to maintain that app for eternity.  There are relatively simple apps that require little maintenance, which may work under this business model, but apps like FCP, Office, Adobe, most certainly do not.

For a customer, the cost is not much more.  There was a time when Adobe cost upwards of $3,000, and it lasted a few years. You could maybe stretch it 8 years, but that still ended up being almost $400 a year. Now you pay $30 a month (with the regular sales they have), and the app is updated every few months (rather than every 8 years).  

If the app is regularly updated with new functionality, the subscription model is well worth it. If you pay 99 cents a month for a calculator, then clearly that's a ripoff.  

I was one of those users that years ago that paid $1,500+ (or more?) for Adobe Photoshop way back when and I still upgraded every 2-3 years... Now, with Creative Suite, I pay $9.99/mo to get both Lightroom and Photoshop.  So for roughly, $120/year I get Photoshop that is always updated and current, can install it (legally) and use it on multiple machines.  That would have equated to depreciation of over 10 years if I bought it way back when at full price.  So it's a no-brainer for me that I'm getting a great deal.

Software engineers need to eat too and there is no way a company will survive solely on new customers. 

agilealtitude

Uh huh. 

flydog said:

agilealtitude said:

Another line item on my credit card statement every month? How fast can you say 'delete'...?

Well good for you.

For many apps, the business model of selling an app for a one time fee, then supporting that customer forever is unsustainable. There comes a point where most people who need the app already own it (as is likely the case with FCP), then 100% of a developer's resources are devoted solely to maintain that app for eternity.  There are relatively simple apps that require little maintenance, which may work under this business model, but apps like FCP, Office, Adobe, most certainly do not.

For a customer, the cost is not much more.  There was a time when Adobe cost upwards of $3,000, and it lasted a few years. You could maybe stretch it 8 years, but that still ended up being almost $400 a year. Now you pay $30 a month (with the regular sales they have), and the app is updated every few months (rather than every 8 years).  

If the app is regularly updated with new functionality, the subscription model is well worth it. If you pay 99 cents a month for a calculator, then clearly that's a ripoff.  

viclauyyc

sflocal said:

I was one of those users that years ago that paid $1,500+ (or more?) for Adobe Photoshop way back when and I still upgraded every 2-3 years... Now, with Creative Suite, I pay $9.99/mo to get both Lightroom and Photoshop.  So for roughly, $120/year I get Photoshop that is always updated and current, can install it (legally) and use it on multiple machines.  That would have equated to depreciation of over 10 years if I bought it way back when at full price.  So it's a no-brainer for me that I'm getting a great deal.

Software engineers need to eat too and there is no way a company will survive solely on new customers. 

However, your argument will not apply to casual user like myself.  I use PS and LR once few months. If I use the subscription model it will be very expensive for me in long run. And I want to be able to access my own files whenever I want. 

Also, most people forget the upgrade price is like 60-70% less of full price. 

DAalseth

entropys said:

Subscriptions transfer power from the user to the corporation. The Corporation can end your subscription. The end point of all this is you can become an unperson on the whim of the Corporation.

Exactly right.

 bigcountry said:

entropys said:

Subscriptions transfer power from the user to the corporation. The Corporation can end your subscription. The end point of all this is you can become an unperson on the whim of the Corporation.

Because corporations exist to play capricious games of whim the with people who pay them money? Did I miss something here?

Yes, yes they do. Suddenly changing foments. Suddenly making old file formats "obsolete. Suddenly dropping products because too few use them. Suddenly jacking up the price because they know, like a crack addict you are hooked and have to pay whatever extortion level price they want or you lose access to your own work. 

sflocal said:

flydog said:

agilealtitude said:

Another line item on my credit card statement every month? How fast can you say 'delete'...?

Well good for you.

For many apps, the business model of selling an app for a one time fee, then supporting that customer forever is unsustainable. There comes a point where most people who need the app already own it (as is likely the case with FCP), then 100% of a developer's resources are devoted solely to maintain that app for eternity.  There are relatively simple apps that require little maintenance, which may work under this business model, but apps like FCP, Office, Adobe, most certainly do not.

For a customer, the cost is not much more.  There was a time when Adobe cost upwards of $3,000, and it lasted a few years. You could maybe stretch it 8 years, but that still ended up being almost $400 a year. Now you pay $30 a month (with the regular sales they have), and the app is updated every few months (rather than every 8 years).  

If the app is regularly updated with new functionality, the subscription model is well worth it. If you pay 99 cents a month for a calculator, then clearly that's a ripoff.  

Software engineers need to eat too and there is no way a company will survive solely on new customers. 

Yes and if they keep making worthy updates people will buy them and they will. It's a model that worked for like 40 years. 

M68000

I have used Final Cut Pro for about 5 years.    I don’t use it every day or even every month.   There could be others like me.  The product does not get (or need) many updates.  Based on my comments, a subscription model seems like it would not be fair.    I hope Apple does not upset it’s customers.

rob53

How many copies of FCP does Apple sell annually? The don’t charge for the iWork suite so why not include FCP in that suite? iMovie is getting closer to FCP so why not just include it in the suite? 

jdw

Regardless of the benefits for Apple, the fact is I must look after my own pocket book first and foremost.  If Apple ever does switch my beloved FCPX to a dreadful subscription model, I will try to get the most use out of the FCPX version I have but then ultimately switch to DaVinci Resolve.  I've never used Resolve, but I do see a lot of Mac video editors moving to it, especially because the developer has made it about as fast as FCPX.  The free version seems pretty good, but I shoot in 10-bit 4K so I would need the pay version for that.

22july2013

Although I have frequently said Apple has the option of shutting down the App Store, I don't believe Apple has that option as their Plan A. However if it is forced to do that, then having subscription based apps might be part of their Plan B. We might be seeing Plan B taking shape here.

Marvin

M68000 said:

I have used Final Cut Pro for about 5 years.    I don’t use it every day or even every month.   There could be others like me.  The product does not get (or need) many updates.  Based on my comments, a subscription model seems like it would not be fair.    I hope Apple does not upset it’s customers.

It would be pretty neat if it was bundled in all of their Apple One subscriptions at the same price they are already:

https://www.apple.com/apple-one/

FCPX probably doesn't have a lot of development costs these days but they'd get millions of people on one of those plans just to get the software. They can do the same with Logic Pro.

They can still offer it paid upfront but subscriptions allow them to offer more things like what Adobe does with stock images and font libraries. Apple can offer stock footage, fonts, sounds.

The only bad thing I could see with it is they tend to stop supporting older OS versions quite quickly so you have to keep updating the main OS to keep up with the software. The minimum it says just now is 10.15 Catalina so they only support 2 OS versions back. If someone wanted to avoid upgrading for a while because some other software isn't compatible with the new system, they lose out on the updates. It would also not be supported at all on old hardware after it is on the obsolete list and loses out on OS updates but this shouldn't affect most users.

Although some people are put off by subscription payments, the price just now is $300 + Motion for $50 + Compressor $50 = $400. Bundling it with a low monthly subscription is more appealing than an upfront payment of $400. For new users, Apple gets $180/year they otherwise wouldn't get at all and users not only get the software but all those other services.

9secondkox2

I am a FCPX customer. Love it, though it presented a learning curve as I came in from premiere first. 

I’m a big fan of Adobe software as well and bought into the Adobe ecosystem a long time ago. However, the CC subscription model has never sat right with me. I want to purchase and own my software. I’ve paid for my cc software a couple times over now. Great for Adobe, bad for me. 

Apple has always had my loyalty and enjoyment partly because they don’t prey on customers. They do the right thing most of the time. It’s what has gotten them where they are. As soon as they start acting like Adobe, MS, etc., that differentiator goes away. 

Please Apple, don’t do this. 

At the very least, have a stand-alone, up front purchase that can be had.

those who want to rent software can do so on a lease basis. Those who want to own should have that option. 

[Deleted User]

bigcountry said:

entropys said:

Subscriptions transfer power from the user to the corporation. The Corporation can end your subscription. The end point of all this is you can become an unperson on the whim of the Corporation.

Because corporations exist to play capricious games of whim the with people who pay them money? Did I miss something here?

It’s a little known fact but every Friday Apple gathers and watches as Tim pulls ten subscribers names out of a giant fishbowl. The  subscriptions of those ten users are then terminated as the entire company cheers and laughs. 

georgie01

flydog said:

For many apps, the business model of selling an app for a one time fee, then supporting that customer forever is unsustainable.

The assumption you have here is that the developer deserves to stay in business ‘forever’. Of course it would be nice if everyone had the work they need, but that’s a pipe dream which will eventually ruin any group which tries to make it happen.

We need to focus first on what’s fair within the scope of the service being offered. We can purchase cars and rent cars. But what if car manufacturers decided to stop selling cars and only offered cars as rentals in order to make more money?

It seems to me the issue of fairness comes from the reason for offering it as a rental. If the developer is exploiting the rental service—using it as a means to force a user to have to keep paying—that doesn’t seem fair. But if the developer genuinely wants to make their otherwise expensive software accessible to more users through a lower rental fee with temporary access (like a car rental), then that seems ok.