or Splice goes out of business... could easily happen... then all the work of the dev is wasted and what happens to the people who are partially paid?AnX wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:09 am its software, you wont die if you dont have it... i see no reason at all to get in debt or join a bad scheme
imagine using it for 6 months, losing your job and not being able to work on those projects anymore
its all about priorities, go easy on the beers and save up for it.
Rent-to-own?
- KVRAF
- 25305 posts since 3 Feb, 2005 from in the wilds
- KVRAF
- 25305 posts since 3 Feb, 2005 from in the wilds
Then why do you keep linking to their website over and over? Looks like marketing.tony10000 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:31 pmUmmm, no. I buy some of their sounds from time to time but I don’t even maintain a subscription.i haven’t even bought anything via rent to own.pdxindy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:27 pmWhat is Splice paying you to market them in forums??tony10000 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:57 amI have gone from a good paying job to a fixed income in the last year (not my choice). Thus, my discretionary income is limited. Fortunately, I bought everything I needed while I was working.
However, most people live paycheck to paycheck these days with large mortgage, rent, car, Internet/TV payments, etc. That is why the rent to own model (@ $10 a month) is becoming so popular, especially since there is no interest payment or other downsides. It is really not much different than a layaway plan, only you get to use it (with the restriction of an Internet connection check and 2 computer limit) while you are paying for it.
- u-he
- 28042 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
Hehehe, yeah. "Just"
And of course somehow link that to some way to process monthly payments. Which I think ShareIt can do, but d'oh, no idea what it entails.
We're down to possibly months of work and testing for something which isn't a necessity. I'd much rather spend this time elsewhere, e.g. "inverse C/R" which lets us lock licenses out of computers when someone transfers them - but allows for normal offline installation when he doesn't. Things that let us continue with unintrusive copy protection rather than making it less transparent.
You must not forget that different ways to license also require different downloads with different copy protection wrapped into the software. It all adds up. There's no easy way to do things with 20+ commercial plug-ins.
-
- Banned
- 1646 posts since 4 Aug, 2017
Well, contact them and tell them to pay me. I’m up for that!pdxindy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:37 pmThen why do you keep linking to their website over and over? Looks like marketing.tony10000 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:31 pmUmmm, no. I buy some of their sounds from time to time but I don’t even maintain a subscription.i haven’t even bought anything via rent to own.pdxindy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:27 pmWhat is Splice paying you to market them in forums??tony10000 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:57 amI have gone from a good paying job to a fixed income in the last year (not my choice). Thus, my discretionary income is limited. Fortunately, I bought everything I needed while I was working.
However, most people live paycheck to paycheck these days with large mortgage, rent, car, Internet/TV payments, etc. That is why the rent to own model (@ $10 a month) is becoming so popular, especially since there is no interest payment or other downsides. It is really not much different than a layaway plan, only you get to use it (with the restriction of an Internet connection check and 2 computer limit) while you are paying for it.
-
- Banned
- 1646 posts since 4 Aug, 2017
Understandable. Not as easy as it looks if you are going to offer that many plugins. Of course, Lennar and Xfer only have one plugin each that uses that model, so much easier to manage.Urs wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:38 pmHehehe, yeah. "Just"
And of course somehow link that to some way to process monthly payments. Which I think ShareIt can do, but d'oh, no idea what it entails.
We're down to possibly months of work and testing for something which isn't a necessity. I'd much rather spend this time elsewhere, e.g. "inverse C/R" which lets us lock licenses out of computers when someone transfers them - but allows for normal offline installation when he doesn't. Things that let us continue with unintrusive copy protection rather than making it less transparent.
You must not forget that different ways to license also require different downloads with different copy protection wrapped into the software. It all adds up. There's no easy way to do things with 20+ commercial plug-ins.
- KVRAF
- 4129 posts since 11 Aug, 2006 from Texas
One of the things I love about uhe plugins is the very non intrusive licensing. I really don’t want to see that change to support a rent to own model...
Feel free to call me Brian.
-
- Banned
- 1646 posts since 4 Aug, 2017
Absolutely agree...I like non-intrusive licensing. That is why I bought Serum rather going with the rent to own (even though I did use it for the free trial period on Splice).
- KVRAF
- 25305 posts since 3 Feb, 2005 from in the wilds
Ahh... so you are doing free marketing for them in the hopes you will get paid later
-
- Banned
- 1646 posts since 4 Aug, 2017
Then hook me up!It's more common than you would think!
-
- KVRian
- 573 posts since 16 Jun, 2003
I've used Splice's rent-to-own service for Serum (nearly paid-up) and Ozone/Neutron 2 (cancelled the plan). In both cases I could probably have bought the products cheaper new or second-hand licenses where the developer wouldn't get any money from me, but I simply didn't have the money at the time and didn't want to use a credit card, with the interest that would be incurred.
I ended up cancelling the Ozone 8/Neutron 2 after a few months. At the time I was fairly deep into a project and was using them to mix and master my tracks. Once the project was finished I cancelled the plan as I didn't have any immediate further use for them. A couple of months later there was a good upgrade deal for the advanced product and, as I then had the money, I bought the upgrade (from Neutron 1, which I already owned) outright from iZotope. I probably spent more money on the two products than if I had bought the upgrade outright at launch, but I don't feel I lost out majorly.
Obviously Splice would be able to give developers an idea of how many people abandon the payment plan without completing it, but I'd be looking at those customers who cancelled as the reason for offering instalments in the first place. How many people buy a plugin, only to resell it a few weeks or months later (six months in U-he's case)? Nothing from those resold licenses goes to the developer unless there is a transfer fee. With a rental scheme you will still have a few months money in the bank and less second-hand licenses floating around in the marketplace.
Just my thoughts and experiences...
LooneyJetman - Follow me on Spotify | Bandcamp
-
- KVRAF
- 2022 posts since 23 May, 2012 from London
In this case, u-he, or any other dev gets 100% of the license money upfront, after which they take on the risk of a loss of revenue as a result of that second hand license being sold and resold etc. With rent-to-own schemes they might not get paid the full amount within the year or at all, in the case that someone decides to abandon their plan altogether for whatever reason and the risk then is that the loss revenue from slow payers (from pause at anytime) and abandonment, is less than the loss from second hand sales, undercutting sales of new licenses. For every 1 new perpetual license purchase sold, devs would need to be guaranteed 20 new renters (based up Serum's ~5% monthly repayment model) to commit to at least one month, not to lose revenue relatively speaking.andrew71 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:28 am How many people buy a plugin, only to resell it a few weeks or months later (six months in U-he's case)? Nothing from those resold licenses goes to the developer unless there is a transfer fee. With a rental scheme you will still have a few months money in the bank and less second-hand licenses floating around in the marketplace.
Just my thoughts and experiences...
Always Read the Manual!
- KVRAF
- 25305 posts since 3 Feb, 2005 from in the wilds
Plus someone who bought via the Splice method can still resell the plugin after full purchase.PieBerger wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:53 pmIn this case, u-he, or any other dev gets 100% of the license money upfront, after which they take on the risk of a loss of revenue as a result of that second hand license being sold and resold etc. With rent-to-own schemes they might not get paid the full amount within the year or at all, in the case that someone decides to abandon their plan altogether for whatever reason and the risk then is that the loss revenue from slow payers (from pause at anytime) and abandonment, is less than the loss from second hand sales, undercutting sales of new licenses. For every 1 new perpetual license purchase sold, devs would need to be guaranteed 20 new renters (based up Serum's ~5% monthly repayment model) to commit to at least one month, not to lose revenue relatively speaking.andrew71 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:28 am How many people buy a plugin, only to resell it a few weeks or months later (six months in U-he's case)? Nothing from those resold licenses goes to the developer unless there is a transfer fee. With a rental scheme you will still have a few months money in the bank and less second-hand licenses floating around in the marketplace.
Just my thoughts and experiences...
-
- KVRAF
- 2022 posts since 23 May, 2012 from London
Exactly, a dev might be waiting two years or more for someone to payoff their plan, only to see that new perpetual license appear in the transfer list the next day, because the user is bored of the synth now and wants to sell it to fund the purchase of the next one. I really like the idea of rent-to-own on paper, but it's risky business-wise and I hope that all companies deploying it have done their sums right and are confident that it's sustainable or them in the long run. A lower bar to entry is pro-consumer but going bust because your business model can't be sustained, most definitely is not.pdxindy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:24 pmPlus someone who bought via the Splice method can still resell the plugin after full purchase.PieBerger wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:53 pmIn this case, u-he, or any other dev gets 100% of the license money upfront, after which they take on the risk of a loss of revenue as a result of that second hand license being sold and resold etc. With rent-to-own schemes they might not get paid the full amount within the year or at all, in the case that someone decides to abandon their plan altogether for whatever reason and the risk then is that the loss revenue from slow payers (from pause at anytime) and abandonment, is less than the loss from second hand sales, undercutting sales of new licenses. For every 1 new perpetual license purchase sold, devs would need to be guaranteed 20 new renters (based up Serum's ~5% monthly repayment model) to commit to at least one month, not to lose revenue relatively speaking.andrew71 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:28 am How many people buy a plugin, only to resell it a few weeks or months later (six months in U-he's case)? Nothing from those resold licenses goes to the developer unless there is a transfer fee. With a rental scheme you will still have a few months money in the bank and less second-hand licenses floating around in the marketplace.
Just my thoughts and experiences...
Always Read the Manual!