People are broke and too undisciplined to save up even a little money, so normal software prices look huge in their eyes. That's why subscriptions and splitting a purchase is coming to everything now. It won't take long before the cashier in your local supermarket will ask you if you want to pay everything at once or divide after ringing up your stuff.
>People are broke and too undisciplined to save up even a little money, so normal software prices look huge in their eyes. That's why subscriptions and splitting a purchase is coming to everything now.
Or people don't want to have to continuously pay to have access to some latest version, and prefer to update when they feel like it and need some new feature, not always.
Producers and video editors especially hate to have to upgrade.
As for subscriptions, they have made the total yearly cost for getting a product much higher in many cases (doubled it in the case of some software), and made you lose your software any time you have to prioritize something else over its payment, like a medical emergency...
> As for subscriptions, they have made the total yearly cost for getting a product much higher in many cases (doubled it in the case of some software), and made you lose your software any time you have to prioritize something else over its payment, like a medical emergency...
That's how "rent-to-own" furniture works too. It exploits poor people for whom the price tag seems prohibitive but the monthly payments look deceptively cheap.
> Or people don't want to have to continuously pay to have access to some latest version, and prefer to update when they feel like it and need some new feature, not always.
These people are not the target group for subscriptions, nor are they the majority. For large swatches of potential customers there are only two options that they accept: 1) Free or pirated 2) Low monthly value subscription.
I highly suspect Apple considered the market for one-time purchases too small to bother with, right or wrong. People think and behave different around purchases when it's on an ipad, even if they by now are powerful devices.
I highly suspect Apple (like all these companies, Adobe first and foremost) merely consider the elasticity of demand when they force their customers to the subscription model.
They also factor in heavily the securing of recurring income to impress their shareholders.
The needs or desires of customers are never considered. Just whether enough of them suckers would yield to a subscription model.
Of course they think about their profits and shareholders. But nobody is forced to get the software, they can go with a competitor or use Garage Band - for free.
If you think somebody is a sucker for getting software as a subscription, then you are very unimaginative as to what are the needs and wants of other people. Many people are going to think it's great. Those who hate it can still buy Logic for their laptop for $200 something.
>Of course they think about their profits and shareholders. But nobody is forced to get the software
Yes, nobody is threatened with death if they don't comply. I'll give you that.
For many pro users, with project files in that software, compatible hardware, accustomed to workflows, a studio setup based on it, etc, "just go to other software or use Garageband which is free" is as good as forcing.
They do. My comment is not narrowly focused on FCP and LP on iPad, but on FCP and LP turning into subscriptions in general (which would inevitably follow), and other pro software already changed into the subscription model to the dislike of its user base (but to the profit of the issuing company).
> That's why subscriptions and splitting a purchase is coming to everything now.
Maybe that's a factor, and in this particular case a reasonably large one, but I'd guess it's because subscription revenue is the holy grail for modern software. People end up spending way, way more than they would have, often forgetting about the subscription and paying for it when they don't even use it, and the revenue is predictable and stable. There aren't any downsides for the company, and the question of ethics is irrelevant to them
The downside is that the company has a responsibility for delivering software that is working as long as the subscription is being paid. Contrast that to pay-once software, where maybe you might not get much help if you can't get the product to work - depending on the seller.
Agree. Once off purchases have to focus more on sales and then who cares what the user thinks after. Subscription software must continually justify it's existence against the competitor since the user can jump ship at any time for free.
It won't take long before the cashier in your local supermarket will ask you if you want to pay everything at once or divide after ringing up your stuff.
Aren't our supplies already a subscription?
Like we don't purchase lifetime, and we already have credit cards/Monthly installments for any big purchases, at least in my country EMI(Easy monthly installments) is already huge.
Yes, in some countries this is already the norm. It will become the global norm and it will be for almost every purchase except the smallest for the majority of the population.
