Frankly, I’m not at all taken with the idea of shelling out 150 Euro to “upgrade” from 5 to 6. C6 contains absolutely nothing that makes it a “new product” compared to the previous version. What I’d get are basically bugfixes. And I want those of course. Because I already paid for these features and I want them to work right without paying extra.
I would not be as upset with this boldfaced ripoff if the license to use Cubase was based on a subscription model. Because I wouldn’t mind paying, say, a monthly fee totalling the equivalence of 150 Euro divided up into two years, to secure that I can enjoy whatever enhancements and corrections that are pushed for each feature, at all times.
Please consider offering this optional service to customers who buy the product and use it every day. We don’t need all the launch drama and marketing hypes. We need a solid, functioning product and an easy upgrade path.
perhaps you wait a little bit with complaining about the new Cubase version till people have at least a copy installed on there computers. A Cubase 6 trail version is also planned later on, so you can try it for yourself. Nobody forces you to update your current version.
Regarding the license model: no, that will not be changed.
The way I see it, there are basically two conflicting needs here:
Steinberg’s need to create media hypes and attention for the product on a regular basis.
My need to always have access to a solid, working and up to date product that doesn’t call attention to itself.
Cubase is a tool, not a way of life. There are other, similar tools that offer to do the same job. But I don’t want to spend my precious time focusing on the tool. I want it to just work, to an optimum, at all times. And I’m quite ready to pay for that privilege.
Subscription makes all kinds of sense, both for Steinberg and for me. It is the way to go.
(a) to buy the C6 upgrade now, and then start paying monthly for two years, during which you get the C6.x revisions, and C7 after two years, and then carrry on with the monthly payments, etc? Or
(b) to get C6 free now, and then start paying monthly for two years, during which you get the C6.x revisions, and C7 after two years, and then carrry on with the monthly payments, etc?
If it’s ‘(a)’, isn’t that rather like saving your money in a biscuit tin til C7 comes out?
If it’s ‘(b)’, what’s in it for Steinberg? - because you’d always be paying in arrears, compared with how it is now.
Well, the subscription model isn’t in place yet, so it doesn’t look like I have much choice, does it? If I want to stay current, I’ll have to buy the new version. Ideally, though, I wouldn’t have to buy the upgrade since it was already a part of my subscription.
What’s in it for Steinberg? Better client retention, for one. If I continually invest in the improvement of my working tool, I’m not very likely going to look sideways at the competition, unless something dramatic occurs, or my needs take a drastic turn.
My view is this: “Free upgrades” is of course an illusion. Each new version means no more upgrades. Unless you buy the new version. So, it is in effect already a subscription service, only with a biennial renewal period instead of a monthly one. So why not be upfront with the business model instead and put a realistic pricetag on all bugfixes, unless you are a subscriber.
I see what you’re getting at. But how would you make the transition?
I, for one, wouldn’t fancy at all the idea of buying the C6 upgrade and then starting a monthly subscription straight away (item ‘(a)’ in my post); and (item ‘(b)’ in my post) I’m sure SB wouldn’t give out C6 free, just because of a subscription starting. Is there something in between? …
One transitional arrangement that might almost look sensible (but isn’t really) would be to buy C6 now, and start subscription payments in a year. Assuming C7 arrived in two years, that would, in effect, mean you’d paid half for C7 in advance, with the other half coming in arrears - but I don’t imagine SB would like that - eg what if you stopped paying once you had C7?
I can’t see an obvious way of making the transition.
But it’s your idea - so how would you suggest moving over to a subscription process?
And are you thinking of it as replacing the current method for every Cubase user, or as something to run in parallel with the current method, giving users the choice of subscription or buying every two years?
Better the current way than making it look like a payment over time, after all, many musicians are not keeping up with the power and water bills, let alone the Steinberg bill!
I was going to write how I hate subscriptions, but yah, every update purchased is really just PRE-paying a subscription if you upgrade every cycle.
It depends though, how the back payments of subscriptions are enforced if you go out and back into them. I remember once I had to pay like 3 years fees to get back into the Waves program, which I refused to do since I just wanted the CURRENT upgrade. From that perspective, I rather have Cubase like it is.
(b) to get C6 free now, and then start paying monthly for two years, during which you get the C6.x revisions, and C7 after two years, and then carrry on with the monthly payments, etc?
Otherwise you can’t reject the next version if you don’t like it.
Also, with monthly pay Steinberg needs to validate every string of code they implement each time, not to mention getting all tight deadlines and chase bugs otherwise every paying customer is breathing down there neck with " Hey, what you do with my money demmit!’
Now it’s a matter of try then buy, don’t complain cause bugfixes are free until the next version.
This is a lot safer bussinesmodel.
From that perspective, I rather have Cubase like it is.