Final Cut Pro and Logic coming to iPad

Yoused

up
Posts
5,884
Reaction score
9,492
Location
knee deep in the road apples of the 4 horsemen
What issues do you have with the GPL? Are you not in favour of copy-left? I checked and Inkscape is GPL v2, the generally more favoured of the bunch.
I personally tend to license more open source as CC/MIT/BSD/Crapl but I don't think there's anything that wrong with GPL
I do not really have any real problems with GPL. The non-sub model is by far preferable.

Freehand had two big advantages. The first was that it was built in a way that made it DP-lite: you could, in theory, build an entire publication in FH, complete with inter-flowing text frames. It was quite awesome – until Adobe bought MM and chose to outright murder FH because it conflicted with InDesign and Illustrator.

The other thing that is missing from InkScape is the Blend function (which Illustrator does have). In an era of alpha-overlaying (which Freehand never had), perhaps Blend is less important. But it sure was sweet, at the time.

I would be happy to see InkScape derivatives acquire a 3D rotate (move the points of an object around an arbitrary reference line with perspective), but I do not see that happening any time soon.
 

Roller

Elite Member
Posts
1,543
Reaction score
3,042
I'm OK with software subscriptions if they're reasonably priced for my use and the apps are updated relatively often. For example, I subscribe to Microsoft Office 365 and Quicken for about $70 a year each, which I think is fair. Microsoft seldom adds features, but at least they update the suite to keep it running. Without the subscription model, I doubt if Quicken Mac would be where it is, or still exist at all. Adobe Creative Cloud is considerably more expensive, but I use three of the apps almost daily.
 

throAU

Site Champ
Posts
287
Reaction score
314
Location
Perth, Western Australia
Kidding aside, if running 15 year old software is the choice of the user, shouldn't that be fine then? And where does it end then? Will literally every single piece of software be a subscription service?
If you want developers to be in any way responsible for software bugs, you need them to have an income stream to justify continued development/maintenance.

I'd suggest that in an online connected world, you want to be able to hold software developers accountable for the security of their products and expecting them to maintain software forever based on a one time purchase is not viable.

If this product was used on a device that is not network exposed and no maintenance was expected - sure, one off purchase would be viable. But that's not the world we live in today.

And whilst you may think that a movie production app like Final Cut doesn't matter security wise... its still going to have to process potentially malicious input (e.g., maliciously crafted video or other media file) that could compromise the machine.
 

casperes1996

Site Champ
Posts
251
Reaction score
292
If you want developers to be in any way responsible for software bugs, you need them to have an income stream to justify continued development/maintenance.

I'd suggest that in an online connected world, you want to be able to hold software developers accountable for the security of their products and expecting them to maintain software forever based on a one time purchase is not viable.

If this product was used on a device that is not network exposed and no maintenance was expected - sure, one off purchase would be viable. But that's not the world we live in today.

And whilst you may think that a movie production app like Final Cut doesn't matter security wise... its still going to have to process potentially malicious input (e.g., maliciously crafted video or other media file) that could compromise the machine.
Let's take a hypothetical here.
Purchase cost: $500
Subscription cost $50/year

Whether I pay that outright or subscribe for 10 years is an equivalent source of income - assuming neither price adjust for inflation the here and now money is better. Then it's just a matter of managing the instantaneous income with longer term expenditures. If the product is good, new customers will also flow in, not just as you penetrate the market more but also as the previous users retire and new users pop up.
I am also fine with paying one-time fees for feature updates that can then in turn also help fund maintenance across the board. You can even maintain a singular codebase and effectively have the feature releases have their bundle of features behind an IAP.
And on top of that; The subscription, to some customers like me, will in fact be $0 cause I refuse to give myself the stress of managing another subscription service for a program. Now there may be some who'd prefer a smaller upfront but continued fee who would then also be lost if you only offer an outright purchase, both options is probably preferable, but I reckon there are more lost sales for subscription only than buy only.

Now that's the general case. For FCP specifically, the FCP development team does not even need to make money off of FCP specifically. Apple needs to make money off of FCP holistically. There are people who buy Macs and potentially now iPads specifically because of Final Cut. These people will buy several Macs throughout their lives once Final Cut is established as their editor of choice. They'll buy other things on the App Store maybe, potentially get an Apple Music subscription, etc. etc. FCPX on the Mac has had a fairly low price and a lot of updates this whole time, and I am certain it brought a lot more value than its price tag per sale. Same for Logic for that matter. I chose FCPX over Premiere when I initially got into video editing specifically because of the buy vs subscribe pricing model, and it only entrenched me further in the Apple world.

Similarly, Black Magic can offer such an excellent trial and good pricing on DaVinci Resolve because they have a whole brand they build around it. Cameras, colour editing equipment, etc.

But alas, I think I'm losing this one. I'll have to give in and give up when they start charging an oxygen subscription
 

quarkysg

Power User
Posts
82
Reaction score
58
Whether I pay that outright or subscribe for 10 years is an equivalent source of income - assuming neither price adjust for inflation the here and now money is better.
Really depends on how the company accounts for the revenue. Most recognise it outright and report it for the quarter it is earned. That one time sales no longer contributes to future earnings.

Also, subscription has lower barrier to entry compared to perpetual license ... usually ... resulting in more users getting on board.

Btw, I am in the camp that do not like subscription, but the unfortunate reality is that the world is moving there.
 

Andropov

Site Champ
Posts
674
Reaction score
890
Location
Spain
This is probably going to be an unpopular opinion, but I like the subscription model in this particular case. I need these kind of programs once in a while, so I couldn't justify paying $300 to use FCPX a couple times. $4.99 to have access to FCPX for an entire month is great.
 

casperes1996

Site Champ
Posts
251
Reaction score
292
Neither the $295 macOS or the $95 iPadOS variants of Resolve are perpetual, once a XX.0 upgrade drops you need to pay for the upgrade...?

As for "brand they build around it", Apple has that as well with the iPad/Mac hardware...?
You buy the XX version and pay for the YY version. That's not in any way in conflict with what I said. I'm fine with that.

And that's also what I said. I may have phrased it poorly? I meant that as a factor for both of them for why they don't need a subscription model
Really depends on how the company accounts for the revenue. Most recognise it outright and report it for the quarter it is earned. That one time sales no longer contributes to future earnings.

Also, subscription has lower barrier to entry compared to perpetual license ... usually ... resulting in more users getting on board.

Btw, I am in the camp that do not like subscription, but the unfortunate reality is that the world is moving there.
How they do their accounting is an internal matter. They have gotten the money. If they need to show it as a small income over two quarters instead of a big income in one quarter, surely that's an indication that the way we think about business is problematic in a larger scope. Two equivalent things should be equivalent.

I personally feel like subscriptions, even at significantly lower costs, feel like a bigger commitment - But I also acknowledged in my prior post that there can be lost sales in the "buy" world too because the buying price would be higher.
This is probably going to be an unpopular opinion, but I like the subscription model in this particular case. I need these kind of programs once in a while, so I couldn't justify paying $300 to use FCPX a couple times. $4.99 to have access to FCPX for an entire month is great.
By the sound of things it doesn't seem that unpopular 🙃
 

quarkysg

Power User
Posts
82
Reaction score
58
How they do their accounting is an internal matter.
Actually, if you are public listed, you can’t just do what you want with revenue. Even private business needs to practice GAAP.
They have gotten the money. If they need to show it as a small income over two quarters instead of a big income in one quarter, surely that's an indication that the way we think about business is problematic in a larger scope.
Yes, they have the money, but they then have to decide how to treat those income. Amortizing it over 10 years will cause lots of issues accounting wise. Not many businesses are willing to do that and it will get them into trouble if accounting is not accurate. And you have problems with cash flows. You may end up with revenue but no cash. It’s not as simple as I think you think it is.

Two equivalent things should be equivalent.
In this instance, they are not equivalent for the business.

I personally feel like subscriptions, even at significantly lower costs, feel like a bigger commitment
In this instance, wouldn’t both be equivalent to the consumer over the same amortization period?

I don’t like subscription because I can’t use it once I stop paying. But to businesses it probably makes sense since software is not asset.
 

casperes1996

Site Champ
Posts
251
Reaction score
292
Actually, if you are public listed, you can’t just do what you want with revenue. Even private business needs to practice GAAP.

Yes, they have the money, but they then have to decide how to treat those income. Amortizing it over 10 years will cause lots of issues accounting wise. Not many businesses are willing to do that and it will get them into trouble if accounting is not accurate. And you have problems with cash flows. You may end up with revenue but no cash. It’s not as simple as I think you think it is.
It may not be that simple - but the question is why isn't it? Not as in "explain the economic structures", but "explain *why* these are the economic structures we incentivise with the current system"? The economic structures companies need to conform to incentivise unstable growth. It's not enough to make a product, earn a bunch of money and use that money to make a product. You need constantly increasing revenue and I don't know. Finance isn't my world, but I feel like there's some structural problems with the current setup. In an idealistic sense at least, a big one-off cost should not be different to a smaller over time one that equal each other in amortised size.
In this instance, wouldn’t both be equivalent to the consumer over the same amortization period?
There's a difference between cost in money and cost in emotional and time related factors. Subscriptions stress me out, they lesson my enjoyment of the product and take time to manage if you want to lower the cost. If you don't try to manage the cost and instead save on time by just always leaving the subscription on, you make a tradeoff that to me again increases the emotional cost; It will be in the back of my mind, constantly, "I am paying for a thing I didn't use this month", "Did I use it enough this month to justify the cost?", and then you disable it, but then when you want to use it again it's not just opening the app. It's again increased time cost to re-enable it and then we're back to the previous concerns. Buying a product outright is not about cost. It's about the quality of the experience.
 

dada_dave

Elite Member
Posts
2,448
Reaction score
2,474
It may not be that simple - but the question is why isn't it? Not as in "explain the economic structures", but "explain *why* these are the economic structures we incentivise with the current system"? The economic structures companies need to conform to incentivise unstable growth. It's not enough to make a product, earn a bunch of money and use that money to make a product. You need constantly increasing revenue and I don't know. Finance isn't my world, but I feel like there's some structural problems with the current setup. In an idealistic sense at least, a big one-off cost should not be different to a smaller over time one that equal each other in amortised size.

There's a difference between cost in money and cost in emotional and time related factors. Subscriptions stress me out, they lesson my enjoyment of the product and take time to manage if you want to lower the cost. If you don't try to manage the cost and instead save on time by just always leaving the subscription on, you make a tradeoff that to me again increases the emotional cost; It will be in the back of my mind, constantly, "I am paying for a thing I didn't use this month", "Did I use it enough this month to justify the cost?", and then you disable it, but then when you want to use it again it's not just opening the app. It's again increased time cost to re-enable it and then we're back to the previous concerns. Buying a product outright is not about cost. It's about the quality of the experience.
I suppose someone could implement a pay as you use it system, but it would have to more expensive time for time. And that could be stressful too. Then there’s the “free to play” model. But I’m not sure how that would translate to a professional application. I should make clear I’m not advocating any of these just musing what other options besides one-time-payments and subscriptions are available.
 

casperes1996

Site Champ
Posts
251
Reaction score
292
I suppose someone could implement a pay as you use it system, but it would have to more expensive time for time. And that could be stressful too. Then there’s the “free to play” model. But I’m not sure how that would translate to a professional application. I should make clear I’m not advocating any of these just musing what other options besides one-time-payments and subscriptions are available.

Different people have different preferences in these regards. I'm just sad if *all* options become subscription based because to my mind it's the worst option. Buy once pay for feature upgrades is my preferred way to go. Buy FCPX, Then a year or so later, buy FCP11, and so forth. Whether that comes as a separate app or as an in-app-purchase that still upgrades the base of the application no matter what but all the new addition are locked off behind an additional paywall; Either works.
 

throAU

Site Champ
Posts
287
Reaction score
314
Location
Perth, Western Australia
This is probably going to be an unpopular opinion, but I like the subscription model in this particular case. I need these kind of programs once in a while, so I couldn't justify paying $300 to use FCPX a couple times. $4.99 to have access to FCPX for an entire month is great.

Ditto.

There's no way i'd shell out $500 or whatever for logic or final cut, but i could play with them over a holiday break for a monthly sub.


edit:
for companies a monthly sub allows you to spread the subscription cost over time as an operating expense rather than CAPEX. this is attractive to many companies for financial accounting reasons as well. for those with users who come and go (or may only occasionally need said products), it also allows you to scale up/down as required without carrying a license you don't use most of the time just in case.
 
Top Bottom
1 2