Pro Tools Update Subscription is Doubling July 1st (for Perpetual Licenses)

[chk071]

You know... i read numerous times on the net as well that people are looking for a Photoshop alternative, and, that software like Affinity Photo e.g. should be "it". And then i use Affinity Photo, and, it already loses by miles to the "little" Photoshop, PS Elements, in terms of functionality, workflow, and quality and ease of use of its components. There's a reason why something is a industry standard, and it's not just because the industry is moving slowly, or that the respective companies promote their software to educational institutions. It is because the software is fit for the job. And it does the job very well.

Whether or not YOU are the target audience for it left aside. I'm not, and i probably will never use Pro Tools in my life. I'm sure it's great at what it does though.

[Mathematics]

Resolve is truly, an evolved extension of the human mind, for NLEs IMHO and I've been a lifer with Premiere since version 4.2. It only took me one project to make me forget Premiere. This was BECAUSE they switched to subscription only. I see no future working with PT at this point.

As far as Resolve, I would almost consider it a standard that Adobe will be force-fed to follow. The day Resolve integrates RX Connect...is the day. I wouldn't be surprised to find that Adobe is going to start designing cameras with proprietary codecs and containers so that they can try to bully people and BMD out of money to make up for the loss of patrons. Subscription is an awesome idea when it's not the only option.

[elxsound]

You know... i read numerous times on the net as well that people are looking for a Photoshop alternative, and, that software like Affinity Photo e.g. should be "it". And then i use Affinity Photo, and, it already loses by miles to the "little" Photoshop, PS Elements, in terms of functionality, workflow, and quality and ease of use of its components. There's a reason why something is a industry standard, and it's not just because the industry is moving slowly, or that the respective companies promote their software to educational institutions. It is because the software is fit for the job. And it does the job very well.

Whether or not YOU are the target audience for it left aside. I'm not, and i probably will never use Pro Tools in my life. I'm sure it's great at what it does though.

In post production for video, the industry is infamously slow when it comes to change (and it makes sense when you break down the length of time to create projects and determining appropriate budgets).

You can’t look to photoshop as a way to compare the use of Pro Tools because the industries that rely on photoshop are fast moving (not slow). To Adobe’s credit they have been very responsive.

[chk071]

I get that. And, i also get that the music production industry moves slowly. But, again, if Pro Tools wouldn't be great at what it's doing, it surely would have been replaced by a greater tool. And, when i take a look at companies producing DAW's, i don't see them moving very quickly either.

Anyway, what would be a DAW which does what Pro Tools does anyway? Nuendo maybe? I have no idea.

[elxsound]

I don’t believe music production studios are keeping PT afloat.

Post production for film and video definitely are

[LawrenceF]

Just to keep things in context that's (yearly) less than most working people spend on beer or other simple things, less than $20 a month. So while it's certainly true that paying $60 every 24-36 months for Reaper or something is far less expensive, $200 a year is really not a lot of money for most working people.

My previous comment... "Why would anyone pay x....?" … was more meaning … "Why would anyone who can't afford it pay x..." In that regard some of the griping about PT's cost is a little overblown. Especially considering that for anyone who does find that to be more than they're willing to spend there are tons of other free and cheaper options out there.

I don't personally use PT because I don't like using it, not because I'd have to pay $200 a year for it. My satellite TV bill is 5 times more than that.

So it's not PT, it's anything really. If paying x yearly for anything puts you in a financial bind of some kind, you probably shouldn't be buying it.

[elxsound]

@LawrenceF, I don't know that people are griping about the price necessarily, and maybe more-so the value of it.

PT from my experience has been slow to make significant changes including bug fixes, and implementing advertised features.

The only way I personally feel comfortable purchasing PT is with their old model, where you received updates for the life of that major iteration. The idea of paying a subscription for bug fixes from PT, and at their slow pace of fixing things, is frustrating to say the least.

I think people are fully understanding that they (AVID) are focusing on their core customers with this move and that's what much of the griping comes from.

[jinotsuh]

So while it's certainly true that paying $60 every 24-36 months for Reaper .

Just for accuracy sake, it's more like double the time period, my last REAPER license was purchased on 26/12/2013 and is still valid, so that's about 66 months as it stands now, and will likely reach 72 months before it expires with the release of v6. (I don't use REAPER any longer and haven't for almost 4 years, Studio One does it for me)

As for Pro Tools, meh, but that price rise for perpetual folks seems a little off, and the quotes of users preferring subscriptions doesn't seem to align with users opinions expressed around the traps, but there you go.

[pekbro]

I pay for a month occasionally, nothing more than that. Seems a typical Avid move, shouldn’t surprise anyone.

[Mathematics]

What is really unfortunate, is that that Avid is not a person. They don't care and have no idea we're talking about them here.

Going from $0.27+ a day to $0.55 day is not the issue. It's doubling what you found value in paying for at the price you agreed to pay. THAT, is one issue.

Avid says they want to provide affordable plans to their customers...yea, by subsidizing the cost of the subscription crossgrades with the exorbitant price increase for the perpetual license holders. THIS, is another one.

Great way to treat people that commit to $100 a year which roughly, can come out to the upgrade cost of most DAWS after several years.

[LawrenceF]

@LawrenceF, I don't know that people are griping about the price necessarily, and maybe more-so the value of it.

Very true, but value is a subjective thing that's not universally applicable the same way to everyone. We all make our own individual value judgements about everything.

For Joe the music producer who wants to see clever new useful features every 9 months it may be of less value to keep paying for PT, while for Jim the engineer whose studio clients are subsidizing the cost of it anyway, it probably doesn't matter at all.

And of course, there's lots of other different DAW use cases other than that, people doing audio books, people scoring films, people recording live shows, people performing at live shows, people doing professional voice overs, etc, etc. The range of use cases for DAW's is pretty wide. There's a certain unknown number of DAW users / regular buyers who aren't musicians or who don't make or personally produce music at all.

But to your point, I can easily understand why certain demographics would see less and less value in PT.

[elxsound]

@LawrenceF, I don't know that people are griping about the price necessarily, and maybe more-so the value of it.

Very true, but value is a subjective thing that's not universally applicable the same way to everyone. We all make our own individual value judgements about everything.

For Joe the music producer who wants to see clever new useful features every 9 months it may be of less value to keep paying for PT, while for Jim the engineer whose studio clients are subsidizing the cost of it anyway, it probably doesn't matter at all.

And of course, there's lots of other different DAW use cases other than that, people doing audio books, people scoring films, people recording live shows, people performing at live shows, people doing professional voice overs, etc, etc. The range of use cases for DAW's is pretty wide. There's a certain unknown number of DAW users / regular buyers who aren't musicians or who don't make or personally produce music at all.

But to your point, I can easily understand why certain demographics would see less and less value in PT.

And the same specifics have been discussed by myself and others repeatedly in this same thread, but doubtful that you read any of it before posting so I guess your post makes more sense now.

[elxsound]

What is really unfortunate, is that that Avid is not a person. They don't care and have no idea we're talking about them here.

Going from $0.27+ a day to $0.55 day is not the issue. It's doubling what you found value in paying for at the price you agreed to pay. THAT, is one issue.

Avid says they want to provide affordable plans to their customers...yea, by subsidizing the cost of the subscription crossgrades with the exorbitant price increase for the perpetual license holders. THIS, is another one.

Great way to treat people that commit to $100 a year which roughly, can come out to the upgrade cost of most DAWS after several years.

It’s funny that you mention the small increase when viewed daily... Avid is a publicly traded company and it appears their investors are happy with the move (just search for Avid, which is still AVID on the market).

[Mathematics]

It’s funny that you mention the small increase when viewed daily... Avid is a publicly traded company and it appears their investors are happy with the move (just search for Avid, which is still AVID on the market).

Like I said "Avid says they want to provide affordable plans to their customers...yea, by subsidizing the cost of the subscription crossgrades with the exorbitant price increase for the perpetual license holders. THIS, is another one."

Let me append to this...my guess is that they're financially stable enough to make a change...just look at the graph. On paper, investors won't notice the change because, it seems feasible to think that enough people paying double will make up for the loss of renewals. Investors only care what's on paper. I've mentioned this on the Avid forum (not here). IIRC, I stated "...the change may look good/safe on paper..." The next question to ask is, what caused the minimized deviation in the last decade? I can think of several reasons but I wasn't doing digital music at that time so, I don't know. Maybe someone can share what was going on with Avid before 2015.

Anyway. Look, I'm not a market analyst but one thing is for sure, the change is going to cause noise but, I will continue to use PT until it breaks because it works, for now. I still have my finger on Cubase/Nuendo though.

[reggie1979]

Funny how that bump came in what I believe was the m-audio years.