Backstage Pass and Sonar Pricing

[Terry Kelley]

The "Bakers" don't have any control over the rollout plan. They said it before and can say it again. They aren't setting the prices and terms - Bandlab is. We should be sending emails and comments to Bandlab and let the developers work on the program in peace.

The problem with these types of "get your music heard" subscriptions is they don't work. Of the people I have spoken too about Bandlab, Landr, Soundcloud, etc. people rarely go there to find new music. They hear it elsewhere and go to these place to find what they heard.

Now many of these places do distribute your music to various sites (Youtube, Amazon, Spotify,  Pandora, Jango, etc.) for a cost (to you) but in the end, playing live is how you get exposed. Tossing a bunch of tracks on Soundcloud and then having them distributed will pretty much get you nothing - most of the time. There are some success stories but they are rare.

I really don't want to have to buy/pay/rent/subscribe to sites like this. I want a DAW. It's simple. A DAW. Bandlab is not a carrot.

Edited March 21 by Terry Kelley

[CSistine]

56 minutes ago, Misha said:

From what Noel had mentioned in the past, there will be different OPTIONS and I  hope (and have faith) perpetual licenses will be available and  fairly priced.

The only question that arises: Is a license really perpetual, if it has to be reactivated each 6 months? Can you trust that you will be able to reactivate in the future? Or will they urge you to buy a new version, again?

[Bruno de Souza Lino]

2 hours ago, Bristol_Jonesey said:

Regarding 2 - you're wrong. see here

Except it's hard to make that statement because there are no detailed release notes on what was fixed.

1 hour ago, Misha said:

I think it is safe to assume that many will flee if the deal will be "membership" only. It would be strange to assume Bakers didn't learn a very valuable lesson from Waves, when they tried to pull off a fast one and had to back peddle it within a VERY short period of time. Even after they came to their senses, it stopped me from having any interest of what that company had/has to offer.

The difference here is that Bandlab can force that onto their users because I don't think the current userbase is large enough to put any pressure on the company to force change. The whole argument of holding pricing information and never being direct when asked about that when it was first announced nowadays feels more like they were testing to see how users would react with a subscription only model and to cause people not content with that to jump ship early so Bandlab would be met with little resistance when they introduced a subscription only model.

1 hour ago, Misha said:

From what Noel had mentioned in the past, there will be different OPTIONS and I  hope (and have faith) perpetual licenses will be available and  fairly priced. 

He was right. There are different subscription tiers, giving you three options.

Considering the financial journey, I don't think we're gonna perpetual licenses. They don't provide the instant profit shareholders demand and fail to keep users tied to an ancient piece of software which hasn't received significant updates for the last 20 years.

[Misha]

47 minutes ago, Bruno de Souza Lino said:

There are different subscription tiers, giving you three options.

Will you wash my dishes and do laundry for a month if you are wrong? 

[Lynn Wilson]

"Considering the financial journey, I don't think we're gonna perpetual licenses. They don't provide the instant profit shareholders demand and fail to keep users tied to an ancient piece of software which hasn't received significant updates for the last 20 years."

 

Perhaps you missed ripple editing, articulation maps, tempo tracks, and numerous stability fixes while it's been free

Maybe you're barking up the wrong tree?  My version runs better than it ever did before Bandlab took over

[John T]

That 20 years claim is so silly, I can only assume the poster doesn't even want to be taken seriously.

[Pathfinder]

22 hours ago, John T said:

No worries!

I think it'll be interesting if more of us have a mess around with it and report our thoughts.

I get the feeling quite a lot of posts are coming from people who've just seen screen shots. And that's valid, of course. But I've found that using it has changed my mind about a lot of my initial screen shot impressions.

So they both install to the original CW directory? Just checking.  Thanks and sorry but I couldn't find the answer.

[John Vere]

My 2 cents. 

 

[Starship Krupa]

4 hours ago, Bruno de Souza Lino said:

they were testing to see how users would react with a subscription only model and to cause people not content with that to jump ship early so Bandlab would be met with little resistance when they introduced a subscription only model.

So your theory is that BandLab's strategy was/is to announce the product early and with scant information regarding pricing (including no mention of mandatory subscription licensing) so that by the time it's actually released, enough users will have given up on it that there won't be enough left to join together in protest of the licensing being subscription-only?

In other words, jettisoning a large percentage of the user base in order to have a smaller, subscription-accepting user base.

That would certainly be a novel strategy. It would bring them in line with the other DAW's out there that have gone subscription-only. Like....um....trying to think here....Adobe Audition? Pro Tools I guess is one DAW whose developers could have pursued that strategy, seemingly doing whatever they could to whittle their user base down until it was mostly comprised of industry professionals and diehards who favor or tolerate the subscription model. Yet even PT still offers a perpetual license.

If true, one would have to admire their commitment to subscription licensing. Most software manufacturers seem to be more interested in keeping their users rather than driving them off.

[Misha]

John V,

That was awesome! 

Especially liked the idea of selling last version of Cake As Is (perhaps with minimal compatibility fixes).  Having ~200 projects in Cake I am getting a bit anxious to see how this will unfold.

[CSistine]

8 hours ago, Lynn Wilson said:

Perhaps you missed ripple editing, articulation maps, tempo tracks, and numerous stability fixes while it's been free

Sorry, but Ripple Editing was already a part of Sonar Platinum!

Though the "20 years" number is an exaggeration, I agree that most of the functionality is already present in Sonar Platinum, even in Sonar X3 there is not a lot of difference IMO!

But you are correct that Articulation Maps, Tempo Track,  Arranger and the new Export Window have been added to CbB. If you don't use them like me (except export window), then the difference is really feeble! But YMMV, as always!

[CSistine]

5 hours ago, Starship Krupa said:

If true, one would have to admire their commitment to subscription licensing. Most software manufacturers seem to be more interested in keeping their users rather than driving them off.

That's what I was thinking, too. But seeing what has been happening since the announcement I am not so sure anymore whether BL wants to keep the "old" Sonar folk. I think they have noticed that most of them are not interested in the BL universe, but only in CbB!

[John T]

9 hours ago, Pathfinder said:

So they both install to the original CW directory? Just checking.  Thanks and sorry but I couldn't find the answer.

No, it installs to its own folder. I've got both installed side by side without issues.

[John T]

2 hours ago, CSistine said:

Sorry, but Ripple Editing was already a part of Sonar Platinum!

Hmm. Sonar Platinum came out in 2015. Ripple editing was added in 2017.

I dunno, the thing gets updates all the time, and has done for years. This is some alternate reality nonsense we're diving into here.

[SVSX]

I´ll just wait and see what happens next with Cakewalk. I´m still owning Sonar Platinum,  X1 and older versions and can use them for older projects. So if they´re really going the subscription only route i´m sadly out. Thinking about changing to Reaper or Studio One (maybe someone has a reccomendation for me), but i'm hoping that will not be the case. 

[Starship Krupa]

14 hours ago, Bruno de Souza Lino said:

The whole argument of holding pricing information and never being direct when asked about that when it was first announced nowadays feels more like they were testing to see how users would react with a subscription only model and to cause people not content with that to jump ship early so Bandlab would be met with little resistance when they introduced a subscription only model.

Given that they withheld the information and have never been direct, why do you think it's likely that they were waiting to spring a subscription model on the userbase? Wouldn't it be just as likely that they were going the other way? By this I mean testing to see how users would react to a perpetual-only model and to cause people who prefer to buy subscriptions to jump ship early?

Why one and not the other?

I mean, subscription licensing means that you only get $8 (or whatever) a month, whereas a one-time license nets a company many times that, especially at launch time. BandLab, a company that had to buy the old company's code for cash and has been giving it away for 6 years while paying the programming and support staff with it bringing in zero income all that time might be eager to get some money back on their investment.

You say that perpetual licenses "don't provide the instant profit shareholders demand and fail to keep users tied to an ancient piece of software." So let's break that down. If we conservatively estimate that Cakewalk Sonar would have 500,000 people who would want to get licenses as soon as it comes out, and we assume that $8 gets you a monthly sub, $8 X 500,000 is only $4,000,000.00, whereas $80 for a perpetual license (another guess) X 500,000 is $40,000,000.00. I'm no accountant, nor am I a shareholder, but $40,000,000.00 looks better to me than $4,000,000.00.

As far as "keep[ing] users tied to an ancient piece of software," once people paid their $80, even if they decide they hate the new program with its fuzzy graphics, hard-to-read lettering, and lack of new features beyond the "vector-scaling" buzz term, BandLab gets to keep their entire license fee. But if they buy it on subscription, dissatisfied people will let their subscriptions lapse, which means all BandLab would ever see is their $8 (or maybe $16 if they try it for 2 months).

So isn't it just as (or even more) likely in your scenario that the perpetual  model is the one they're going to try to force on their whittled-down user base?

[Terry Kelley]

Maybe Bandlab is going to come up with a one-time pay price that undercuts everyone else and they corner the market!

[Terry Kelley]

4 hours ago, SVSX said:

I´ll just wait and see what happens next with Cakewalk. I´m still owning Sonar Platinum,  X1 and older versions and can use them for older projects. So if they´re really going the subscription only route i´m sadly out. Thinking about changing to Reaper or Studio One (maybe someone has a reccomendation for me), but i'm hoping that will not be the case. 

Join the Reaper and Studio One forums. There are lots of people that came over from Sonar/CbB and have great tutorials for making the switch. I would say more but this isn’t the place to deep dive the competition.

Edited March 22 by Terry Kelley

[njm255]

2 hours ago, Starship Krupa said:

Given that they withheld the information and have never been direct, why do you think it's likely that they were waiting to spring a subscription model on the userbase? Wouldn't it be just as likely that they were going the other way? By this I mean testing to see how users would react to a perpetual-only model and to cause people who prefer to buy subscriptions to jump ship early?

Why one and not the other?

I mean, subscription licensing means that you only get $8 (or whatever) a month, whereas a one-time license nets a company many times that, especially at launch time. BandLab, a company that had to buy the old company's code for cash and has been giving it away for 6 years while paying the programming and support staff with it bringing in zero income all that time might be eager to get some money back on their investment.

You say that perpetual licenses "don't provide the instant profit shareholders demand and fail to keep users tied to an ancient piece of software." So let's break that down. If we conservatively estimate that Cakewalk Sonar would have 500,000 people who would want to get licenses as soon as it comes out, and we assume that $8 gets you a monthly sub, $8 X 500,000 is only $4,000,000.00, whereas $80 for a perpetual license (another guess) X 500,000 is $40,000,000.00. I'm no accountant, nor am I a shareholder, but $40,000,000.00 looks better to me than $4,000,000.00.

As far as "keep[ing] users tied to an ancient piece of software," once people paid their $80, even if they decide they hate the new program with its fuzzy graphics, hard-to-read lettering, and lack of new features beyond the "vector-scaling" buzz term, BandLab gets to keep their entire license fee. But if they buy it on subscription, dissatisfied people will let their subscriptions lapse, which means all BandLab would ever see is their $8 (or maybe $16 if they try it for 2 months).

So isn't it just as (or even more) likely in your scenario that the perpetual  model is the one they're going to try to force on their whittled-down user base?

I would think a business calculates that more people would pay the cheaper subscription price than the higher perpetual license price. So in actuality the number of buyers would be lower than the number of subscribers. Also you'd have to take into account the length of a subscription. Will it be month to month where you can drop at any time or are you locked in for the year? Not to mention a lot of people forget they're even subscribed and will still be getting charged even if they don't use the product anymore. It's not really as simple as you say and subscriptions obviously are profitable because all these companies are moving in that direction. The corporate world won't waste time and energy on something that won't bring back a profit.

Bandlab's main goal is most likely to draw more people into the Bandlab ecosystem hence why this initial Sonar release is tied into a Bandlab subscription instead of being a separate release.  Perpetual licenses won't do that. We'll find out eventually.

Edited March 22 by njm255

[Bruno de Souza Lino]

16 hours ago, Misha said:

Will you wash my dishes and do laundry for a month if you are wrong? 

Those services would cost you more money than whatever pricing Sonar charges for a perpetual license if they do so.

16 hours ago, Lynn Wilson said:

Perhaps you missed ripple editing, articulation maps, tempo tracks, and numerous stability fixes while it's been free

- I don't know about you, but fixes are not features unless they introduce new functionality which wasn't present before the fact.
- While the tempo track could be considered a feature, it's only a repacking of the tempo map stuff which already existed.

12 hours ago, Starship Krupa said:

So your theory is that BandLab's strategy was/is to announce the product early and with scant information regarding pricing (including no mention of mandatory subscription licensing) so that by the time it's actually released, enough users will have given up on it that there won't be enough left to join together in protest of the licensing being subscription-only?

That's one way to put it, considering a lot of what Bandlab sells is subscription based before CbB went commercial.

7 hours ago, CSistine said:

But you are correct that Articulation Maps, Tempo Track,  Arranger and the new Export Window have been added to CbB. If you don't use them like me (except export window), then the difference is really feeble! But YMMV, as always!

IMO, the Export Window with its weird selection quirks and functionality which lies to the user is a downgrade.

2 hours ago, Starship Krupa said:

Given that they withheld the information and have never been direct, why do you think it's likely that they were waiting to spring a subscription model on the userbase? Wouldn't it be just as likely that they were going the other way? By this I mean testing to see how users would react to a perpetual-only model and to cause people who prefer to buy subscriptions to jump ship early?

Because they never had an answer when several people asked if there would be subscription plans. If the answer was "no" every single time, why wouldn't they say it? And why didn't they respond to criticism towards the whole subscription thing and locked both threads instead?

2 hours ago, Starship Krupa said:

You say that perpetual licenses "don't provide the instant profit shareholders demand and fail to keep users tied to an ancient piece of software." So let's break that down. If we conservatively estimate that Cakewalk Sonar would have 500,000 people who would want to get licenses as soon as it comes out, and we assume that $8 gets you a monthly sub, $8 X 500,000 is only $4,000,000.00, whereas $80 for a perpetual license (another guess) X 500,000 is $40,000,000.00. I'm no accountant, nor am I a shareholder, but $40,000,000.00 looks better to me than $4,000,000.00.

That looks like more profit if you assume all those users will buy those perpetual licenses at the same time, which is very unlikely. Even if they did, that will net $40,000,000.00 once. Meanwhile, your less profitable subscription plan will net you $48,000,000.00 per year with the same users as long as they keep subscribed. And they're cheaper on the long run because having a steady flow of cash incentives stagnation, which will translate in lack of bug fixes and updates on the long run. Or they're gonna do the same thing Adobe does and simply do minor version updates which do nothing but increase system requirements for that piece of software and break backwards compatibility.