Final Cut Pro trademark hints at possible subscription offering
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.

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