A 12 month update plan is NOT a subscription, though. It’s basically what we have already, minus the need to release a new paid for version on a set date once per year to generate revenue.
Don’t confuse the two. One is a perpetual license, the other you’re paying for 30 days use each month.
I don’t want to debate the terminology. If I have an obligation to keep paying on regular intervals, I call that a subscription. If you don’t like that word, that’s OK.
I want to make an affirmative decision whenever I spend any money. There are very few things I am willing to have on a subscription basis: natural gas bill, electric bill, water bill, cell phone bill, Internet service bill, car/home insurance bill etc. And in 100% of those cases, it is clearly defined what I will be getting for my money. With a “12-month update plan”, if I understand what you mean by that, I would be obliged to pay periodically, but the vendor will not say what I will get for my money, and it may be nothing at all, which was typically the case with the Waves release plan.
I admit I am a bit anal about this, and probably more extreme than most people. I don’t have a car payment, rent payment or a mortgage (but I do have to pay a homeowner’s association fee annuallly). Out of principle, I don’t even have an Amazon Prime subscription, even though, based on my usage, it actually would be a good deal for me.
You do not.
You can buy Bitwig now and use it as long as your system is compatible with it without ever paying again. It is yours and for the next 12 months you receive free feature and bug fix updates.
After 12 months it is still yours and also still get bug fix updates. You just do not get the feature updates. I just upgrade when enough features are add to my interest.
Like Cubase release a feature update every year and you have to pay to get it or keep your current version.
In Subscription (As you gave Prime example) When you stop paying, you lose total access to the program like you lose access to all your Prime Content.
You insistence in distortng reality doesn’t make that a truth.
Subscription means pay to use.
Support plan means an optional addition to a perpetual license, that gives you dedicated support and updates for a given time frame.
Any time you decide to stop paying, you stay with the most recent version as a perpetual license.
It’s what’s there already (paid updates), but with much better customer support and more bugfix releases.
Looks like you are trying to prompt Steinberg to take this direction , if that’s the case they need to think about new features with an update plan as i expect a FULLY working Steinberg product before paying any more money , i can’t see how this works , because if Steinberg are dropping the .5 versions then we will pay £180 every two years , or £80 IF the sales carry on and for that i expect ALL bugs and MR working in full with a fully supported system .
I think your trying to put ideas into Steinbergs head . maybe the Splice was their idea to cover the short fall of the dropping of 0.5’s , who knows with thier code of silence aahhh
My only thinking is if they are releasing ‘paid for’ updates every 24+ months then that leaves a gap in revenue that they have to make up vs the 12 month cycle previously.
I’d rather an update plan method than subscription as I think it helps development and provides the users flexibility on when they want to pay while providing a perpetual license.
And that’s all i’ve thought on the subject. 
I don’t think they would be charging £180 for updates on 24 month cycle after having a 12 monthly stream, that would be madness for a business that seeks to manage their accounts year on year.
Too volatile from a business sense, and too steep for users to pay for in one chunk when people are watching their pennies (imo).
So how do you drive your car if you’re not routinely paying to ‘update’ the engine with fuel ? hehe 
Not in favor of a subscription. I buy something, I own it, period.
Waves tried to pull this off and it was a disaster.
I think this comparison doesn’t make sense.
A car is hardware and might be compared to the computer consuming electricity.
Anyhow: I don’t want any form of subscription or rent (Buying on credit that is).
And this statement from @Highly-Controversial FilterFreq is also very to the point:
Hence starting the R-T-O ?
it was just a flippant joke, hence the smilie.
100%, and that’s the basic concept behind the update plan approach vs the current development being dictated by a yearly sales drive. After 6 months of the current version release they must already be setting their focus ready for the new product which is due out 6 months later, and so other fixes just fall to the ground.
it’s a juxtaposition for development really. Development can be better managed when there’s no rigid deadlines that results in the release of ‘unfinished’ features due to running out of time.
We know they’re changing tact, and I can’t see a $200 update cost being the norm, and I also don’t think they would shake the boat with Subscriptions as that would involve having to bundle in the DAW plus something like Absolute to make it worthy.
It’s all just hypothetical anyway, but I’d welcome any positive change that yields a well maintained product. I personally wouldn’t shoot it down under the false pretence that it’s a subscription model ‘if’ they took this route.
A subscription for fuel says you pay $50/month, then come get fuel whenever you need it, but if you don’t use any, you still pay the $50.
P.S. I have a plug-hybrid, so I only buy gas occasionally. I usually keep about a 1/4 tank. When I see gas drop by 30 or 40 cents, I’ll buy 5 gallons.
Development costs money and this seems lost on some people.
The current model doesn’t seem very sustainable (that is, leading to both innovative features and well maintained, less buggy product) and I suspect this is a problem for the whole industry, not only Steinberg.
While I am using Nuendo/Cubase professionaly, I’m not a music/sound person and it is not vital to my business or income. But if I’d be the owner of an audio post facility, I’d be very reluctant regarding the current level of support offered by Steinberg (and others). In such a context I’d be very willing to pay 4-500EUR/year for a support contract that gives me bug tracking, bugfix builds and a closer relationship with the software provider.
Maybe there are reasons for ProTools dominating the pro recording slice of this industry (and I mean support, not their subscription plans).
$50 a month for gas?? Hell, that’s a DEAL I’ll take it. I just paid $45 yesterday and next Tuesday/Wednesday I’ll be doing the same thing again.
Ahahahahah, exactly, count me in!!!
I definitely will ditch any DAW that forces me to move to a subscription plan only. No doubt about it!
With a subscription model, customers expect developers to put out exciting, worthwhile content and updates on a strict and regular schedule (that is; within the timeframe of subscription renewal). I would say a subscription model presents the opportunity for MORE bugs and breakage to occur as developers feel an annual pressure to add new features to prevent subscriber churn.
Subscription simply won’t work. Forcing people to have to pay monthly will see people leaving in droves…
The crushing majority of Cubase users are amateurs who write music and produce for fun.
In comparison, very few are using Cubase professionally.
A subscription will damage Steinberg.
This nice sounding speculation is contradicted by actual reality.
Software offered as subscription is not, by any stretch, more buggy.
I would say the opposite is true.
Adobe software is less buggy than Steinberg’s, and ProTools users seem to enjoy a pretty solid system.
(I totally dislike subscriptions, but suggesting they are a path to bug ridden software is fantasy).
I have no idea about this, can you point to a source?