New Licensing

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by c0c0p0ps

Someone suggested a few pages back having one single uniform price point - Absolutely it should be that! (...) These upgrade prices have to be realistic.

If I made these decisions, there would only be one PT Software variant, period.

Problem is, if Avid charged 599 a year it would effectively kill "LE" user base. And if Avid charged 199 a year, the "LE" user base would be angry because they would effectively pay for "HD" user base costs. We all know the numbers, there are a lot more "LE" users than "HD" users.

Having one unified software could ease that feeling, though.

[NipL]

Originally Posted by JFreak

Problem is, if Avid charged 599 a year it would effectively kill "LE" user base. And if Avid charged 199 a year, the "LE" user base would be angry because they would effectively pay for "HD" user base costs.

I can't help but follow outcome of this.

$199 a year for a perpetual license, I think that is fair if you can jump on this as you find beneficial with new features.

That is 25% of new license and pretty much in line with anything software out there.

And let's say a Waves kind of encouragement, if renewing within 30 days $140 for next year. After that $199 to re-enter.

Would anybody object to this - for 'vanilla' then?

The real shot in the foot would be that you are considered non customer if letting support plan elapse for a year - and have to buy new license for $899.

What I think is obvious now is that they left this ambiguoity still there when updating faq october 21st - they did not add what the MC faq said. So Avid is probably thinking hard what to do.

One version - one base version and buy addons maybe?
More trackcount, on track monitor button, surround, HD support - and whatnot.

And about HD, as far as I understand it, why should they be punished year after year for buying the hardware stuff too.
Same $199 for everybody - easy to understand and addons are payed once.

I'm just an outsider looking in though...

[Righty27]

Originally Posted by JFreak

Problem is, if Avid charged 599 a year it would effectively kill "LE" user base. And if Avid charged 199 a year, the "LE" user base would be angry because they would effectively pay for "HD" user base costs. We all know the numbers, there are a lot more "LE" users than "HD" users.

Yet Avid choose to alienate specifically this larger user base, probably the most sensitive to signing up to higher/recurring costs and also most likely to switch to a better value proposition?!

In most areas of technology, people have grown to accept the tide of progress but this is like Avid forcing users to stick with 'pro' Betacams (with a compulsory maintenance contract) whilst competitors are getting better results with their iPhones :)

It may turn out that pro facilities cannot easily move away from Pro Tools (changing workflows, re-training staff, other assets, opportunity cost/time for migration, etc.) but for everyone else, market prices for alternatives without unpopular support plans make Pro Tools even worse value than before.

[c0c0p0ps]

Originally Posted by JFreak

If I made these decisions, there would only be one PT Software variant, period.

Problem is, if Avid charged 599 a year it would effectively kill "LE" user base. And if Avid charged 199 a year, the "LE" user base would be angry because they would effectively pay for "HD" user base costs. We all know the numbers, there are a lot more "LE" users than "HD" users.

Having one unified software could ease that feeling, though.

Why should the "LE" user base be angry? They paid for and operate a basic version. "HD" users have already paid a considerable premium via either hardware or toolkit investments as it has been with those options over the past decade. It is very shortsighted in my opinion to effectively punish the users who have invested most over the years.

You can also look at it the other way. Why should "HD" users subsidise a lower price point for "LE" users? They have already made massive investments into the company so should receive most reward back out.

Other subscription models such as telecoms, broadband, TV etc reward longevity and high spending customers with discounts and free upgrades etc to retain them as a client.

No matter how you look at Avid's plans they are completely detached from any reality, in any industry!

[JFreak]

Why? If there is one software variant, there are only one kind of software users and one support price. Maybe that's why, at least in the beginning when we still talk about HD people and LE people.

[Righty27]

Originally Posted by NipL

$199 a year for a perpetual license, I think that is fair if you can jump on this as you find beneficial with new features.

That is 25% of new license and pretty much in line with anything software out there.

And let's say a Waves kind of encouragement, if renewing within 30 days $140 for next year. After that $199 to re-enter.

Would anybody object to this - for 'vanilla' then?

I think most would find this reasonable, especially with a positive incentive/discount to renew quickly after support plan expiry, as opposed to a negative/maximum penalty where you lose all the value invested and have to re-purchase at the latest (probably increasing over time) price.

From the outset, allowing support plans to lapse has been the primary issue in this thread, whether for 'vanilla' or HD. If Avid were now to back down and alter this aspect, we'd be worried it was temporary and inevitable a few years down the line!

[CME]

If avid is listening maybe this is something we could all agree on, even if it never happens. I really think the HD/vanilla divide may be their biggest weakness. What if they dropped the distinction and make one unified pro tools. And then price it at $199 a year. If I had no limitations I would gladly pay $199 a year.

I guess most of my frustrations with avid are that I've bought two toolkits (MPTK and CPTK), only to have them effectively thrown out. But if they gave me a truly "unlimited" pro tools for $199 a year, who wouldn't buy in. I think that would even attract users of other daws. Or at least make them think about it. But $899 is going to drive away way more than it brings in. Especially when it takes $199 a year to stay up to date on a crippled version.

Just my .02. I'm not holding my breathe but think it would fix problems on both sides of the issues. More happy current users, more potential future users, and at least in my mind, more profits for avid. It would even simplify things for them. One version and no extra licenses or add-ons to try to keep straight.

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by c0c0p0ps

No matter how you look at Avid's plans they are completely detached from any reality, in any industry!

That is pretty harsh, especially because Avid (formerly Digidesign) in reality created the whole digital pro audio industry as we know it today.

A little history lesson with a fast foreard to future.

1)
Since day one there was only one software, limited by the kind of hardware users had.
2)
Then came LE software with its artifical software limitations and non-expandable hardware. AFAIK, people were fine with it (two user bases: major league professionals, softball kids) until...
3)
PT9 which suddenly opened PT software to 3rd party hardware. I don't blame the bunch of very vocal users, because I myself also think that the pinnacle of PT software stability (so far) was reached with PT8.1.1HD & OSX10.6.8 and it surely looks like this myriad of 3rd party hardware possibilities has done many kind of harm for what we consider client worthy stability.
4)
This debacle is over soon enough, and hopefully...
5)
Some day there is only one software again.

[Righty27]

Originally Posted by CME

If avid is listening maybe this is something we could all agree on, even if it never happens. I really think the HD/vanilla divide may be their biggest weakness. What if they dropped the distinction and make one unified pro tools. And then price it at $199 a year. If I had no limitations I would gladly pay $199 a year.

I guess most of my frustrations with avid are that I've bought two toolkits (MPTK and CPTK), only to have them effectively thrown out. But if they gave me a truly "unlimited" pro tools for $199 a year, who wouldn't buy in. I think that would even attract users of other daws. Or at least make them think about it. But $899 is going to drive away way more than it brings in. Especially when it takes $199 a year to stay up to date on a crippled version.

Just my .02. I'm not holding my breathe but think it would fix problems on both sides of the issues. More happy current users, more potential future users, and at least in my mind, more profits for avid. It would even simplify things for them. One version and no extra licenses or add-ons to try to keep straight.

At the risk of further annoying those with the largest (and often longest) investment in Pro Tools (although they wouldn't be losing anything, just others gain more ... just like Avid are doing now with late PT11 upgraders), this would actually start to make Pro Tools attractive compared to other DAWs ... but the lapsing support plan issue would put the brakes back on.

[CME]

I am thinking the $899 version will be available along side a $199 yearly non-perpetual license version. And if that were the case I don't see many people playing the $700 premium just to have a perpetual license, when more than likely you'll pay the $199 yearly anyways. So put the $700 towards 3 1/2 years of "support".