There is no one-size-fits-all solution here. The subscription model is almost a no-brainer for any application that you rely on for sustaining your line of business, personal livelihood, or for some folks, their personal well being. The subscription model should imply a continuing business relationship between the software developer and the customer. As part of the subscription cost the developer should be expected to maintain the application in good working order and to quickly respond to any functional shortcomings and security issues discovered in the software. I also believe that subscribers should be compensated for disruptions in availability caused by the provider, e.g., if OneDrive, Google Drive, or iCloud goes offline for an hour affected users should be issued a rebate or some form of compensation.
The only reason I bring a nit-picky detail up, like what happens to users when they lose access to their subscription, is because the people on both sides of software purchases and subscriptions haven't really been truthful to one another. For many years users purchased one-time licenses for software applications only to discover that the developer couldn't really afford to maintain the application properly, or that one-time meant one year or one version, or any number of mismatches between expectations and reality on either side. If you want to really peel back the onion, read the wordy EULA, at which point you as a user will realize that all of your expectations of a common sense agreement between the buyer and seller are vapor and buyers essentially have no legal rights at all. If I have to read a six page EULA to figure out what my rights are as a
software buyer/licensee or subscriber, I know I'm getting screwed, and it's happening in a
cloud of word chaff for special effect.
What I'd like to see are simple, common sense, and transparent agreements along the line or at least the size of Apple's "nutrition labels" for software purchases and subscriptions that tell you exactly what you're getting for what you're paying, whether one time or monthly payments. No more 5000 word EULAs, just a "this is what you get for your payment" spelled out up-front. The fact that so many applications that were once sold under a single payment model have suddenly transitioned to subscriptions with no apparent changes in the relationship (other than paying constantly), coupled with the lack of clarity in how apps are presented both online (direct download) and in App stores, e.g., terms like "Free Download" and "In-App Purchases" make it very clear to me that we're still playing smoke & mirrors with how software sales are being conducted. Same deal with "Free" software that isn't really free when you're paying with your privacy or spam tolerance.
Looking for Apple to take the lead on a move to the "No More BS" model of software sales, leases, and distribution.
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.
Well said. In my case, I use Logic to write and record things, mostly for fun, and to just experiment with. I upgraded long ago from GarageBand, back with Logic Studio 7, and have purchased 9 and X when they became available. For someone like me, who makes no money off the software, the subscription model doesn't work. Some people would just say, "Well you can use Garageband for free"... except Garageband sucks...compared to Logic. Another example: I am stuck with Photoshop CS 6 forever. I partitioned my hard drive to keep an older version of OS X on in order to run it. I bought Pixelmator Pro, and it's ok, but it's just not the same. My point is that the subscription model pushes away hobbyists who still spend money on the software, and will likely buy the updates as they come out.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution here. The subscription model is almost a no-brainer for any application that you rely on for sustaining your line of business, personal livelihood, or for some folks, their personal well being. The subscription model should imply a continuing business relationship between the software developer and the customer. As part of the subscription cost the developer should be expected to maintain the application in good working order and to quickly respond to any functional shortcomings and security issues discovered in the software. I also believe that subscribers should be compensated for disruptions in availability caused by the provider, e.g., if OneDrive, Google Drive, or iCloud goes offline for an hour affected users should be issued a rebate or some form of compensation.
The only reason I bring a nit-picky detail up, like what happens to users when they lose access to their subscription, is because the people on both sides of software purchases and subscriptions haven't really been truthful to one another. For many years users purchased one-time licenses for software applications only to discover that the developer couldn't really afford to maintain the application properly, or that one-time meant one year or one version, or any number of mismatches between expectations and reality on either side. If you want to really peel back the onion, read the wordy EULA, at which point you as a user will realize that all of your expectations of a common sense agreement between the buyer and seller are vapor and buyers essentially have no legal rights at all. If I have to read a six page EULA to figure out what my rights are as a
software buyer/licensee or subscriber, I know I'm getting screwed, and it's happening in a
cloud of word chaff for special effect.
What I'd like to see are simple, common sense, and transparent agreements along the line or at least the size of Apple's "nutrition labels" for software purchases and subscriptions that tell you exactly what you're getting for what you're paying, whether one time or monthly payments. No more 5000 word EULAs, just a "this is what you get for your payment" spelled out up-front. The fact that so many applications that were once sold under a single payment model have suddenly transitioned to subscriptions with no apparent changes in the relationship (other than paying constantly), coupled with the lack of clarity in how apps are presented both online (direct download) and in App stores, e.g., terms like "Free Download" and "In-App Purchases" make it very clear to me that we're still playing smoke & mirrors with how software sales are being conducted. Same deal with "Free" software that isn't really free when you're paying with your privacy or spam tolerance.
Looking for Apple to take the lead on a move to the "No More BS" model of software sales, leases, and distribution.
Apple's App Stores on iOS and macOS have already pushed the envelope heavily in the simplicity of software licensing. Apple has already taken the lead and developers have complied with Apple, and competitors have copied Apple.
Here are three examples of excellent changes straight out of a single clause in the App Store Guidelines:
They [apps] may not present a license screen at launch, require license keys, or implement their own copy protection.
Could Apple do even better? Sure, and that's what the privacy labels are doing.
However developers are resisting by trying to stream apps to users through web browsers instead of through app stores. I'm not certain who will win that fight. Apple would have a really tough time (technically and politically, though not legally) blocking all web apps. If app streaming ends up being popular, all the advances made by Apple go down the internet tubes. I plan to exercise my choice by never using a web app to bypass an app store. There should be a popular movement opposing the use of web apps which exist to bypass OS security and usability rules.
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.
Wrong, as usual. Why would any of this indicate a shutting down of the App Store? WHY would Apple want to shut down the App Store?
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.
Wrong, as usual. (1) Why would any of this indicate a shutting down of the App Store? (2) WHY would Apple want to shut down the App Store?
(2) Apple would absolutely want to shut down its third party app store if, for example, and there are many more examples, governments decide to prohibit by law Apple from taking a 30% cut and limited their cut to 3%, just as many posters on this website have been arguing, and some politicians in some countries have been proposing. Have you been reading this website? Do you know what people here are saying? Do you agree that Apple is not a charity for its competitors? Do you really believe Apple would continue running the App Store in any country if the government outlawed profits for app stores in that country? Answer that. But of course you won't answer that, and I know you won't answer that, because people with your views always refuse to answer simple questions. I dare you to answer it. And I will celebrate my prescience when you don't answer it.
(1) I didn't say that this was proof that Apple would shut down the App Store. I said that software subscriptions might be how Apple plans to provide its own software to customers if the App Store was shut down. If you re-read my post, I said that I don't believe Apple wants to shut down the app store. I bolded the words in my post so that you could find them more easily if you decide to re-read that post.
Do you realize that Apple has no legal requirement to maintain an app store? If you disagree with that, tell me which law forces Apple to maintain an app store.
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.
Resolve, like Blender, Libreoffice, Libreproject and so many other open source and shareware also runs in linux... I expect a subscription strategy (excuse?) may be a part of the move to ARM, and fear it may be yet another brick in the wall for many...
I think this would be a stupid move by Apple. They should consider Logic, FCPX, Motion, etc to be instruments to make their ecosystem stronger to pro users, instead of trying to monetize it beyond initial purchase. Unlike Adobe, who is solely dependent on predictable production software revenues. Subscription fees for FCPX would scare away customers, and make them move to something like Resolve.
Rather then monetizing FCPX itself, it would make more sense for Apple to provide iCloud services for collaborative editing and storage with proxy or full-quality pipelines, not unlike third-party solutions for FCPX out there such as Postlab and Frame.io. It makes a lot of sense for pro users to pay for optional storage and collaborative features, and for Apple to keep FCPX itself a one-time-payment (or even lower the price!). Personally I expect Apple to go down that road, especially looking at the recent changes to FCPX; it's as if they are preparing their software for this type of use.
I hope Apple's not going down this route, even Microsoft is moving away from this model with upcoming Office apps. I hate for instance that when I eventually retire I shall have to seriously consider the worth of continuing to subscribe to Adobe Creative Suite. I prefer to own things.
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.
You need to read standard software licenses. The owner is generally subject to terms and conditions as defined by the license which can be revoked. This isn’t like the ownership of a car.
A software license for software like this makes sense. Rather than pay $300 up front you pay $30 a year. Use the software for 10 years or more the company makes more, use it for less and you benefit. It’s a revenue stream for the company. Hence subsidising continued development.
Old style software licensing used to demand payment for major upgrades. A form of continuous revenue punctuated by good and bad years, betting the firm on new releases.
It’s possible Apple may keep a once of purchase, in this case.
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.
Wrong, as usual. (1) Why would any of this indicate a shutting down of the App Store? (2) WHY would Apple want to shut down the App Store?
(2) Apple would absolutely want to shut down its third party app store if, for example, and there are many more examples, governments decide to prohibit by law Apple from taking a 30% cut and limited their cut to 3%, just as many posters on this website have been arguing, and some politicians in some countries have been proposing. Have you been reading this website? Do you know what people here are saying? Do you agree that Apple is not a charity for its competitors? Do you really believe Apple would continue running the App Store in any country if the government outlawed profits for app stores in that country? Answer that. But of course you won't answer that, and I know you won't answer that, because people with your views always refuse to answer simple questions. I dare you to answer it. And I will celebrate my prescience when you don't answer it.
(1) I didn't say that this was proof that Apple would shut down the App Store. I said that software subscriptions might be how Apple plans to provide its own software to customers if the App Store was shut down. If you re-read my post, I said that I don't believe Apple wants to shut down the app store. I bolded the words in my post so that you could find them more easily if you decide to re-read that post.
Do you realize that Apple has no legal requirement to maintain an app store? If you disagree with that, tell me which law forces Apple to maintain an app store.
That rant is full of strawman arguments and ad hominem.
Apple is not going to shut down the app store. It probably wouldn’t shut down the app store even if it was operating at a loss. That’s one of the strengths of the platform. Insane idea.
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?
Leave him alone. He’s on a roll with his Marxist pablum that has rotted his common sense.
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.
Wrong, as usual. (1) Why would any of this indicate a shutting down of the App Store? (2) WHY would Apple want to shut down the App Store?
(2) Apple would absolutely want to shut down its third party app store if, for example, and there are many more examples, governments decide to prohibit by law Apple from taking a 30% cut and limited their cut to 3%, just as many posters on this website have been arguing, and some politicians in some countries have been proposing. Have you been reading this website? Do you know what people here are saying? Do you agree that Apple is not a charity for its competitors? Do you really believe Apple would continue running the App Store in any country if the government outlawed profits for app stores in that country? Answer that. But of course you won't answer that, and I know you won't answer that, because people with your views always refuse to answer simple questions. I dare you to answer it. And I will celebrate my prescience when you don't answer it.
(1) I didn't say that this was proof that Apple would shut down the App Store. I said that software subscriptions might be how Apple plans to provide its own software to customers if the App Store was shut down. If you re-read my post, I said that I don't believe Apple wants to shut down the app store. I bolded the words in my post so that you could find them more easily if you decide to re-read that post.
Do you realize that Apple has no legal requirement to maintain an app store? If you disagree with that, tell me which law forces Apple to maintain an app store.
That rant is full of strawman arguments and ad hominem.
Apple is not going to shut down the app store. It probably wouldn’t shut down the app store even if it was operating at a loss. That’s one of the strengths of the platform. Insane idea.
So you are saying that Apple would comply with any law in any jurisdiction in the world no matter what the law said. I don't believe you at all. And my proof is that there are countries that Apple already refuses to do business in. How do you explain that?
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.
Wrong, as usual. (1) Why would any of this indicate a shutting down of the App Store? (2) WHY would Apple want to shut down the App Store?
(2) Apple would absolutely want to shut down its third party app store if, for example, and there are many more examples, governments decide to prohibit by law Apple from taking a 30% cut and limited their cut to 3%, just as many posters on this website have been arguing, and some politicians in some countries have been proposing. Have you been reading this website? Do you know what people here are saying? Do you agree that Apple is not a charity for its competitors? Do you really believe Apple would continue running the App Store in any country if the government outlawed profits for app stores in that country? Answer that. But of course you won't answer that, and I know you won't answer that, because people with your views always refuse to answer simple questions. I dare you to answer it. And I will celebrate my prescience when you don't answer it.
(1) I didn't say that this was proof that Apple would shut down the App Store. I said that software subscriptions might be how Apple plans to provide its own software to customers if the App Store was shut down. If you re-read my post, I said that I don't believe Apple wants to shut down the app store. I bolded the words in my post so that you could find them more easily if you decide to re-read that post.
Do you realize that Apple has no legal requirement to maintain an app store? If you disagree with that, tell me which law forces Apple to maintain an app store.
That rant is full of strawman arguments and ad hominem.
Apple is not going to shut down the app store. It probably wouldn’t shut down the app store even if it was operating at a loss. That’s one of the strengths of the platform. Insane idea.
So you are saying that Apple would comply with any law in any jurisdiction in the world no matter what the law said. I don't believe you at all. And my proof is that there are countries that Apple already refuses to do business in. How do you explain that?
I find whenever people say "So you are saying..." they are generally engaging in a straw man argument. Which seems to be your forte.
I certainly didn't say that Apple wouldn'y comply with any law in any jurisdiction in the world. They will keep the App Store open however, where ever possible. To not do that would be to destroy the iPhone.
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.
Wrong, as usual. (1) Why would any of this indicate a shutting down of the App Store? (2) WHY would Apple want to shut down the App Store?
(2) Apple would absolutely want to shut down its third party app store if, for example, and there are many more examples, governments decide to prohibit by law Apple from taking a 30% cut and limited their cut to 3%, just as many posters on this website have been arguing, and some politicians in some countries have been proposing. Have you been reading this website? Do you know what people here are saying? Do you agree that Apple is not a charity for its competitors? Do you really believe Apple would continue running the App Store in any country if the government outlawed profits for app stores in that country? Answer that. But of course you won't answer that, and I know you won't answer that, because people with your views always refuse to answer simple questions. I dare you to answer it. And I will celebrate my prescience when you don't answer it.
(1) I didn't say that this was proof that Apple would shut down the App Store. I said that software subscriptions might be how Apple plans to provide its own software to customers if the App Store was shut down. If you re-read my post, I said that I don't believe Apple wants to shut down the app store. I bolded the words in my post so that you could find them more easily if you decide to re-read that post.
Do you realize that Apple has no legal requirement to maintain an app store? If you disagree with that, tell me which law forces Apple to maintain an app store.
That rant is full of strawman arguments and ad hominem.
Apple is not going to shut down the app store. It probably wouldn’t shut down the app store even if it was operating at a loss. That’s one of the strengths of the platform. Insane idea.
So you are saying that Apple would comply with any law in any jurisdiction in the world no matter what the law said. I don't believe you at all. And my proof is that there are countries that Apple already refuses to do business in. How do you explain that?
I find whenever people say "So you are saying..." they are generally engaging in a straw man argument. Which seems to be your forte.
I certainly didn't say that Apple wouldn'y comply with any law in any jurisdiction in the world. They will keep the App Store open however, where ever possible. To not do that would be to destroy the iPhone.
So if you say "they would keep the App Store open wherever possible" then you are agreeing with me that "it is possible that they would choose not to keep the app store open when it's not possible". Based on what you are saying, we are in agreement. Maybe we disagree on the conditions it would take to cause Apple to shut down the App Store. What are your conditions? Mine are clear: unprofitability.
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.
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.
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.
Too right, meaningful updates always scored more money from me, Omni, and Lemke Software thank you
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.
Aperture on the M series cpu (soc) would be a thing of beauty, make it happen Apple.
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?
Or Apple can go back to charging a fair standalone price for each piece of software this free crap means no accountability, and the crushing of competition.
Comments
Another example: I am stuck with Photoshop CS 6 forever. I partitioned my hard drive to keep an older version of OS X on in order to run it. I bought Pixelmator Pro, and it's ok, but it's just not the same.
My point is that the subscription model pushes away hobbyists who still spend money on the software, and will likely buy the updates as they come out.
Here are three examples of excellent changes straight out of a single clause in the App Store Guidelines:
Could Apple do even better? Sure, and that's what the privacy labels are doing.
However developers are resisting by trying to stream apps to users through web browsers instead of through app stores. I'm not certain who will win that fight. Apple would have a really tough time (technically and politically, though not legally) blocking all web apps. If app streaming ends up being popular, all the advances made by Apple go down the internet tubes. I plan to exercise my choice by never using a web app to bypass an app store. There should be a popular movement opposing the use of web apps which exist to bypass OS security and usability rules.
(1) I didn't say that this was proof that Apple would shut down the App Store. I said that software subscriptions might be how Apple plans to provide its own software to customers if the App Store was shut down. If you re-read my post, I said that I don't believe Apple wants to shut down the app store. I bolded the words in my post so that you could find them more easily if you decide to re-read that post.
Do you realize that Apple has no legal requirement to maintain an app store? If you disagree with that, tell me which law forces Apple to maintain an app store.
I expect a subscription strategy (excuse?) may be a part of the move to ARM, and fear it may be yet another brick in the wall for many...
Subscription fees for FCPX would scare away customers, and make them move to something like Resolve.
Rather then monetizing FCPX itself, it would make more sense for Apple to provide iCloud services for collaborative editing and storage with proxy or full-quality pipelines, not unlike third-party solutions for FCPX out there such as Postlab and Frame.io. It makes a lot of sense for pro users to pay for optional storage and collaborative features, and for Apple to keep FCPX itself a one-time-payment (or even lower the price!).
Personally I expect Apple to go down that road, especially looking at the recent changes to FCPX; it's as if they are preparing their software for this type of use.
store. It probably wouldn’t shut down the app
store even if it was operating at a loss. That’s one of the strengths of the platform. Insane idea.
I certainly didn't say that Apple wouldn'y comply with any law in any jurisdiction in the world. They will keep the App Store open however, where ever possible. To not do that would be to destroy the iPhone.
Too right, meaningful updates always scored more money from me, Omni, and Lemke Software thank you
Aperture on the M series cpu (soc) would be a thing of beauty, make it happen Apple.
Or Apple can go back to charging a fair standalone price for each piece of software this free crap means no accountability, and the crushing of competition.