Presonus economic model

[lokeyfly]

Wow. I thought my first sentence made it clear that it was not a very serious thread, and certainly not a complaining one. I am happy with Studio One, and have Pro updates for a reason. Actually the thread is more about Presonus than about me, and more generally about the pro/cons of a VIP membership from a business model point of view.

Thats just it. Just in passing, no big deal, mild rant (post closed, only yesterday), economic model, etc.

By no means, is it my intention to step on your thread. It's only my point of view, as is yours, so all good on the respective front. I will say, such similar posts however cloaked in their savoir-faire title, seem to just shake the tree. The forum is the forum, and its not my intent to state anything that "should be" (my words). I think you'll get plenty who will dable along, or make counter points. In the end, its up to each user to get something out of Studio One. No, correction..... its up to each person to get the creative or production results they have in mind, completed and out there. By whatever means or DAW they choose.

If finalization is stopping some people, go for it. Write about it, make noise. Though I'd probably challenge or offer suggestions to help those who suggest that, overcome the obstacles they think really matter. That is, if the subject has to do with results.

Just a non serious answer, to a non serious question.
Enjoy, and I hope you get the results you're looking for.

 

[TimC340]

No disrespect to Github - or that site you referenced - but Stem Sep (and all other audio bending tech in Studio One) is supplied by the German firm ZPlane:

View attachment 1941

And given their size and length of time they have existed - pretty sure they are not relying on a Github site for their work:

zplane Licensing - Technology

licensing.zplane.de

View attachment 1943

Zplane and Presonus have been working together for 15+ years now

View attachment 1942

VP

I'm quite sure you're right, but I'm bloody certain I read an article in the last year or so that said all of the commercial stemsep technology around now relied originally on an open-source code (and I think it was the Lukas/Dunker one). Of course, they didn't commercialise it or patent it and obviously commercial organisations have come along and repackaged that code in their own products. I have no idea right now where that article came from (may have been Sound on Sound?), but if I find it I'll link it here.

 

[Vocalpoint]

I'm quite sure you're right, but I'm bloody certain I read an article in the last year or so that said all of the commercial stemsep technology around now relied originally on an open-source code

Well - don't believe everything you read on the internet.

Secondly - there are TONS of vendors out there with this tech. And I am not disagreeing with you - seems reasonable that a few (or maybe a lot) have used this open source stuff as a primer.

But ZPlane has been powering Studio One since v1 - and has been around for much longer than Github has even existed - pretty confident their code is theirs.

Their tech is some of the best I have ever used. That is good enough for me.

VP

 

[ianaeillo]

I'm not smart enough to understand the ins and outs of the whole business side of this. I've run my own operation for 20 some years now and I don't understand Pro+ vs Pro or even really what I have. I suppose I'm what Presonus wants out of a customer - I buy perpetual when it's in the software budget but pay whatever sub I've been paying until that point. I really enjoy reading these discussions because I feel quite far removed from just knowing all this stuff (ZPlane and stuff), but enjoy the enlightenment from you all. Just posting here to give you all a thumbs up.

 

[TimC340]

Well - don't believe everything you read on the internet.

Secondly - there are TONS of vendors out there with this tech. And I am not disagreeing with you - seems reasonable that a few (or maybe a lot) have used this open source stuff as a primer.

But ZPlane has been powering Studio One since v1 - and has been around for much longer than Github has even existed - pretty confident their code is theirs.

Their tech is some of the best I have ever used. That is good enough for me.

VP

What you say makes total sense, of course, and I'm now doubting my memory!! I'll have a look around later and see if I can find whatever it was that prompted that thought, but it may well be that I've put 2 and 2 together and made 5!

 

[MisterE]

Funny, the other day I was thinking about the economic model behind DAWs too. Ever considered that at some point Studio One will be 'finished'? As in: every useful feature added, all macro ‘hooks’ in place to serve niche customers, all bugs and quirks ironed out, nothing worth an upgrade to be added anymore... What does that do to the business model? It's like selling the one car you'll ever own (car, not suit) in a market which is conservative in some aspects and on the other hand not expanding fast enough to let all DAW manufacturers earn a living. I can see how perpetual licences will bankrupt the business at some point. But who wants to pay monthly or yearly for "nothing changed"?

The one thing still needed then is to keep up with OS and CPU updates. It will introduce a bug or two every time a 'finished DAW' needs to adapt to a new environment. But does this limited service then warrant to have your faithful users pay a subscription fee? Questions, questions...

One remark @Lipica: PreSonus (read: Fender) is selling much more than only Studio One, and maybe that's the cork that keeps the business afloat. Which may be the answer to my questions as well: Throw DAWs in for free (almost), to add value to the tightly integrated hardware on sale. And stop adding new features for Loud Leo from two blocks down. Could be a win-win situation.

 

[MisterE]

Funny, the other day I was thinking about the economic model behind DAWs too. Ever considered that at some point Studio One will be 'finished'? As in: every useful feature added, all macro ‘hooks’ in place to serve niche customers, all bugs and quirks ironed out, nothing worth an upgrade to be added anymore... What does that do to the business model? It's like selling the one car you'll ever own (car, not suit) in a market which is conservative in some aspects and on the other hand not expanding fast enough to let all DAW manufacturers earn a living. I can see how perpetual licences will bankrupt the business at some point. But who wants to pay monthly or yearly for "nothing changed"?

The one thing still needed then is to keep up with OS and CPU updates. It will introduce a bug or two every time a 'finished DAW' needs to adapt to a new environment. But does this limited service then warrant to have your faithful users pay a subscription fee? Questions, questions...

One remark @Lipica: PreSonus (read: Fender) is selling much more than only Studio One, and maybe that's the cork that keeps the business afloat. Which may be the answer to my questions as well: Throw DAWs in for free (almost), to add value to the tightly integrated hardware on sale. And stop adding new features for Loud Leo from two blocks down. Could be a win-win situation.

One issue with citing the car industry as a marketing example is that car manufacturers have been crowing "more powerful, more luxurious" for at least 75 years, and although the automotive landscape has changed to include hybrids and electric vehicles, they're still conveyances with four wheels, engines, and brakes. One could say the basic concept was "finished" with the Model T in 1908. Yet sales continue unabated.

 

[MisterE]

My take on the Presonus "economic model" is - they are now owned by a VERY large private equity firm and it is that firm that makes any and all decisions at the finance level.

Presonus is simply another tiny cog in a very big wheel and if we are expecting a company that is going to play ball like a small firm (back in the day) where they make us "customers" feel all warm and fuzzy with all kinds of cool "customer" centric stuff - that is not going to happen now.

Not even sure it happened back in the v4/v5 era when Presonus was still Presonus.

Nope, warm and fuzzy happened in the v1 and v2 eras and vanished with v3. That said, it's not like any other company is any warmer these days. Maybe Reaper? Last decade it seemed fairly easy to communicate with the developers, not sure about this one.

 

[SwitchBack]

One issue with citing the car industry as a marketing example is that car manufacturers have been crowing "more powerful, more luxurious" for at least 75 years, and although the automotive landscape has changed to include hybrids and electric vehicles, they're still conveyances with four wheels, engines, and brakes. One could say the basic concept was "finished" with the Model T in 1908. Yet sales continue unabated.

Ah, the car quote was only intended to say that with 'the ultimate DAW' you buy it once and you're set for life. For the manufacturer of that DAW you're not a potential source of income anymore.

NB. Things won't be that absolute of course, but it is definitely a mechanism manufacturers have to think about. Are users of your DAW prepared to fork out for 10 extra nicknacks when you can't think of anything substantial to add to a near-perfect product anymore? Food for thought

 

[Davey]

Just to add that ImageLine's FL Studio has been "free upgrades for life" for over two decades now and they are still going from strength to strength, to the extent that they have bought a few well-known music companies in recent years (UVI, WA Productions).

It seems counter-intuitive but their model is based on finding new customers rather than squeezing their existing ones. Once you own the "all plugins" version of FL Studio there is very little more that an enthusiastic customer can buy. There are a bunch of preset packs but that's about it. Updates are regular minor updates and big updates two or three times per year.

And there will always be new developments to add to a DAW. CLAP, MIDI 2, Dolby Atmos, Stem Separation, AI etc.

So you never reach the point where the DAW is completed and all your customers have bought it because there is always the next generation of customers out there.

 

[MisterE]

Are users of your DAW prepared to fork out for 10 extra nicknacks when you can't think of anything substantial to add to a near-perfect product anymore? Food for thought

Exactly why I update way less frequently than most. Which isn't to say that I don't understand the mentality of lusting for the latest, greatest thing or feel there's anything inherently "wrong" with it.

 

[brmichael]

The main issue here is that there is just one (maybe two) companies that do this specific funaction.

Stem Sep is not written by Presonus. It may be tweaked slightly to work within S1 - but any major advances will need to some from the folks that Presonus licenses that tech from.

Just found this on the Studio One 7 product page:

"Stem Separation as a technology is still in its infancy, so further performance/quality improvements and feature additions are planned in the near future."

Sounds promising

 

[TimC340]

Just to add that ImageLine's FL Studio has been "free upgrades for life" for over two decades now and they are still going from strength to strength, to the extent that they have bought a few well-known music companies in recent years (UVI, WA Productions).

It seems counter-intuitive but their model is based on finding new customers rather than squeezing their existing ones. Once you own the "all plugins" version of FL Studio there is very little more that an enthusiastic customer can buy. There are a bunch of preset packs but that's about it. Updates are regular minor updates and big updates two or three times per year.

And there will always be new developments to add to a DAW. CLAP, MIDI 2, Dolby Atmos, Stem Separation, AI etc.

So you never reach the point where the DAW is completed and all your customers have bought it because there is always the next generation of customers out there.

I bought the 'all plugins' edition of FLS for my daughter some years ago, and she wouldn't use anything else now. They instigated a cloud service a couple of years ago which requires a subscription to use and offers a whole load more content. She hasn't gone for it, and I'm not paying for any more FLS stuff for her! But I do like their model and I've been pretty impressed with their communication and customer service over the years (about 15 so far, IIRC). Some of their plugins are excellent as well...

 

[Davey]

I bought the 'all plugins' edition of FLS for my daughter some years ago, and she wouldn't use anything else now. They instigated a cloud service a couple of years ago which requires a subscription to use and offers a whole load more content. She hasn't gone for it, and I'm not paying for any more FLS stuff for her! But I do like their model and I've been pretty impressed with their communication and customer service over the years (about 15 so far, IIRC). Some of their plugins are excellent as well...

Oh yes. I'd actually forgotten about the cloud subscription. Not something that interests me and the extras are not that great. So I guess they have come up with a way to take extra money from their existing customers.

I was originally attracted by a couple of the synths, Harmor in particular. The DAW as a whole is a bit of a sprawling mess and the menus and mixer drive me nuts but the front-and-centre step sequencer and the awesome piano roll make it an excellent and quick idea starter. I tend to run it as a plugin in Studio One.

 

[Gary Shepherd]

My calculation is based on the information given by my dealer's website. For example, Presonus: 12m Pro+ subscription including Studio One perpetual license: $179.99. Studio One perpetual license without Pro+ subscription: $199.99.

But don't you have to pay the annual subscription or you lose access? I just upgrade and pay the one-off fee. Otherwise this pricing structure makes no sense.

 

[Lipica]

Ah, the car quote was only intended to say that with 'the ultimate DAW' you buy it once and you're set for life. For the manufacturer of that DAW you're not a potential source of income anymore.

NB. Things won't be that absolute of course, but it is definitely a mechanism manufacturers have to think about. Are users of your DAW prepared to fork out for 10 extra nicknacks when you can't think of anything substantial to add to a near-perfect product anymore? Food for thought

That is one of the reason I prefer not to sub. When an update comes, I just decide if it’s worth the money or not, and spend it or not. As a subscriber, I would have no choice but to open the mouth and eat, and try to convince myself it’s worth the money, because hey, it’s money that is already spent, so why wouldn’t I be very satisfied of what I am feeded with ?

 

[brmichael]

@Gary Shepherd Of course one has to pay for the perpetual license for Studio One. But there is a choice: get the standalone perpetual license ($199.99) or sign a 12m subscription, which includes a perpetual license ($179.99). You get the perpetual license with both options, but the second option saves you $20.

And of course you lose access to all Pro+ content after one year if you don't renew your subscription. But the perpetual license that was included isn't Pro+ content, so you can keep that forever.

@Lipica There's a way to subscribe "without subscription": just sign a 12m subscription, but don't use the Pro+ content. Just use Studio One. After 12 months, the subscription will expire, but for subscribers who don't use Pro+ content that makes no difference: they don't lose anything, while Studio One will continue working. The only thing that actually makes a difference is the price: subscribers pay $20 less for the perpetual license than buyers of the standalone license. That's why I always would subscribe.

 

[Lipica]

Just to add that ImageLine's FL Studio has been "free upgrades for life" for over two decades now and they are still going from strength to strength, to the extent that they have bought a few well-known music companies in recent years (UVI, WA Productions).

It seems counter-intuitive but their model is based on finding new customers rather than squeezing their existing ones. Once you own the "all plugins" version of FL Studio there is very little more that an enthusiastic customer can buy. There are a bunch of preset packs but that's about it. Updates are regular minor updates and big updates two or three times per year.

And there will always be new developments to add to a DAW. CLAP, MIDI 2, Dolby Atmos, Stem Separation, AI etc.

So you never reach the point where the DAW is completed and all your customers have bought it because there is always the next generation of customers out there.

I didn’t know about FL Studio free upgrades for life… Makes me wanting it
Very well seen is your point about getting new customers.

 

[BobF]

I didn’t know about FL Studio free upgrades for life… Makes me wanting it
Very well seen is your point about getting new customers.

I've tried to get along with FLS a few times, but I never managed to.

As far as SO goes, I guess either you're good with their current model or you aren't. As I've said before, my preference is to have the devs well housed and fed. As it stands now, Pro+ is about the cost of a coupla' pizzas and a tank of fuel annually. Easily my least expensive hobby at this point.

 

[Lipica]

@BobF So it’s XL pizzas and you have a big car

I know the discussion went wild, but the initial subject really was the business model from Presonus point of view , not ours, and I never said there were no happy customers, only that there were maybe some that could be satisfied better by Presonus.