View Single Post
Old 28th May 2009 | Show parent
Special guest
Originally Posted by Agreed ➡️
I am unhappy with the idea of subscription-based licenses. The reward isn't worth what we'd lose. You mention Waves' service as an example of a successful execution of a similar plan, but everyone I talk to feels rooked by that model rather than helped. It seems to me just an effort to further monetize a system that most users put up with rather than love. I am an iLok user out of necessity, but the last thing I want is further reliance on the service - my preferred usage is just to leave it plugged in out of sight and not have to think about the fact that I use it. The illusion of ownership is important to my psychological wellbeing and hence my workflow. I like to feel like I "have" my software, even though I know that isn't true. The more challenges to that illusion that I have to deal with, the less likely I am to use a given software or even licensing service.
Fair statement.

Subscription as a choice of the user can be viewed in several ways - both would be choices.

One kind of choice might be to license the software by an annual subscription. This is a business model change. One that publishers would have to spearhead on the business side - they could do this today with iLok or non-hardware based licensing tools that we offer.

The other kind of choice is that of coverage for lost or theft. Currently if you lose your iLok or machine that is activated - it is only your word and a level of trust that binds you. The reality is that there are 100 people that want to game the system for every single legitimate person who has an issue.

How a software publisher prices and sells updates and support is up to them. There are +/- to all models, nothing is perfect.

Publishers can create rules and re-activation algorithms but ultimately you might have to call in and make your case. The software vendor is also potentially out of a sale or supporting some user who didn't pay for the softare. Sure they might not have sold that copy anyway, but that is not is what is at issue here. A user choice to have some kind of subscription coverage would allow them to make their authorizations perpetually re-activating until they report some issue like loss or theft. In that case, the publisher or a unified system could set them up with new licenses instantly based on the knowledge that the previous device would time out after some period of time. This is for the user that wants coverage and wants it on their ilok for software licenses for one or more vendors.

In addition, where legally possible, we could provide ongoing licenses even when a software publisher goes out of business. We do this now with iLok.

So, subscription as a choice for those that argue that they worry about losing it and want to be covered. Other than that and the older design issues (covered in another thread) most people don't have big issues with the iLok. Subscription as a business model for software sales that would be up to the software publishers and their customers to determine if it works.