The house analogy is valid, you stop paying the rent the landlord can evict you . SIMPLE the comparison is valid no pay no service
I disagree, not all music software is free, some are . If you believe iTunes is free look at the comparative costs of Apple hardware. …
I use a mix of JRIver, Roon and Audirvana , I pay for all 3.
“With Free Software you get what you are paying for”
Software development costs money , why shouldn’t the developer earn a salary ?
Subscriptions are for YouTubers only. Internet radio also has many alternatives. The same goes for podcasts. There seems to be nothing new, the studio just painted the walls of the house black and organized the furniture nicely.
You missed my point. I am talking about comparing the $96 one-time fee for v3.5 and the monthly subscription fee. Everyone knows that a subscription fee structure is like paying rent. And it can become expensive as time goes. Where can you find a house where you can pay a one-time fee equal to about two years’ rent, and you can live there forever until the house is no longer livable?
A computer music player does not have the same value as living in a house. It is a leisure item that allows you to listen to music. In contrast, a house is essential to keeping you safe and away from the dangerous element. It gives you a roof and a bed. So the value of monthly rent is well worth it.
From the value perspective, Adobe and Microsoft office subscription is more comparable to renting a house because subscribers need that two software as a productivity tool to perform their respective jobs.
The value of Audirvana will be determined by how significant is the improvement in music sound quality. Is it good enough that subscribers are willing to pay a perpetual monthly payment to keep using it? Knowing that the moment they stop paying, they don’t get to use the music player again.
What about the MQA license at Audirvana?
Does the subscription include a part for the number of MQA decodes? Roon pays MQA for every decode. Which would mean they split these costs across all customers.
I would rather not pay for the MQA license.
In a subscription-based model for productivity tools, software companies improve the productivity level so that subscribers can perform their jobs better with more efficiency. It’s a win/win situation because subscribers get paid for doing their jobs well.
And when the subscribers no longer need to use the software because their job doesn’t require it anymore, they stop the subscription because the productivity tool is not required. It’s also a win/win because subscribers save money by canceling the subscription.
Audirvana is a computer music player and nothing more. Supposedly, the subscriber paid the subscription fees and enjoyed the “Kernal streaming” and the “upsampling” technologies for the first two years because there were improvements in the sound quality due to a better “upsampling” algorithm. That is $138 ($69 x2 assuming no price increase on the 2nd year) paid so far. Then in the third year, Audirvana maxed out on the algorithm to improve the sound quality any further. Now, the subscribers will ask themselves, “Why am I still paying the subscription fee when there is no further improvement?”
Here is the dilemma. Suppose the subscribers decide that paying more subscription fees is not worth it because there is no improvement in sound quality. In that case, Audirvana cut the subscribers off from using the computer music player due to nonpayment AFTER receiving $138 for it.
The biggest stumbling block for Audirvana charging a monthly subscription fee is that there are no continuing “added” benefits, like new music/video content to enjoy or new productivity tools to improve your job that generate income. If you don’t pay your subscription fee after five years and $345 spent (assuming no price increase), you lost the right to use a PC music player you paid $345 in total!
The thought of it is outrageous. So, I have to ask myself, as a v3.5 licensed owner, the following question. “Why I would want to spend a $49.99 subscription fee to try out Audirvana Studio, knowing that I could get stuck with a perpetual payment scheme for a sound quality that may not get any better after the first few years?”
In a nutshell, Audirvana Studio may be a better music player than V3.5, but it comes with a caveat that the moment you stop paying your subscription fee, no matter how long you’ve been paying for it, you lost the privilege to use it pronto.
Exactly this.
This is the dilemma for audiophiles using local files. Damien may be able to eek more from the SQ and as an audiophile you have to jump on board, but how long will that go one before we hit the ceiling of what computer audio can do? What are you paying for at that point and do you give up something that may well be the best music player out there.
That’s great on philosophical level, but nowadays even the password management tools are using the subscription model. Look at 1Password. You definitely won’t stop using the passwords any time soon, so the need for the password management tool will not go away.
The idea that you can stop the subscription when you don’t need the tool is just a pipe dream. In reality it leads to continuous subscriptions. People that use Adobe CC suite need it all the time, because that’s how they make a living.
Well, there are some points here that are right, but with some details… Subscription model is here to stay, right, but it’s not the same thing for all the services. Microsoft charges for Office, but when you stop paying you can read and print documents. Adobe acts the same, they let you basic management of the files. In this model, as in Roon, you are captive. I see this matter as like Plex, I am a long standing user of the free version, one day I decided to buy a “lifetime” license to get access to some perks and support the developers, but the free version is always there… This is a smaller niche, for audiophiles, what I am not, willing to pay whatever for these services. But, if there is not a affordable version of Audirvana (it hasn’t to be free or cheap), the users like me that paid for 3.5 are going to disappear like the mist. I don’t think that Roon is financed only by the users revenues, and don’t know much people willing to pay a subscription for what these services give.
And remember, all the big company’s have one pay versions of their software, even Adobe.
Adieu Audirvana, bienvenue Roon !!!
a few months ago I bought my license for 3.5. After renewing my trial license and before buying several regular licenses, I asked about the eligibility to upgrade to newer versions - which was also confirmed to me (lifetime …).
At that time, their subscription plan was already fixed (such plans are not created within a few weeks) - so they really ripped me off and cheated me.
Hence the question of Perpetual License version , that needs a response before people subscribe!
Isn’t that out of the frying pan into the fire. Roon has the same subscription system — no pay no service and even worse your metadata goes with it . Start with Roon and you can’t stop …
Even a “modular” model could be attractive. You want multi room? Pay for it, you want rich metadata tagging? Pay for that. Personally, I think there is a bubble with the subscription model and it will break anytime soon… Pay monthly for storing passwords? Make fancy PowerPoint slides? Import playlists from streaming services? One day someone is going to implement the pay per click.
But… Honestly, no pun intended for Audirvana or others, I just think that the cow hasn’t too much milk.
That would start adding complexity which would cost to manage , I don’t think subscription is that bad , if there was a fallback perpetual license.
I had that with Resharper, but it was only useful for a year or so as the program it was embedded into (ms visual studio) moved on leaving my license “stranded”. Eventually the OS will strand Audirvana I suspect, Windows changes almost monthly. Many “old”programs fail eventually due to OS changes
I have a password program that I paid a one-time fee for more than five years ago, and it is still working. A software company can charge users any fee structure it wanted. The question is, “will they lose subscribers with a subscription-based model?”
Regarding subscribers stopping the subscription when they don’t need the tool, it is an example to make my point. If you are making money with the tools, there is no point in stopping the subscription; however, if you are retired or have changed your career that doesn’t require the software, why will you continue the subscription, especially when it is expensive?
Dear Mike,
Since when is a music player a unavoidable necessity of life?
As far as housing is concerned, many people who rent a house do so because they cannot afford acquiring the capital the house represents, that’s all.
Some rent by choice, as they expect their lives to be be less rooted to a location over time, and that is fine too.
What is important here is the choice, if you can afford it…
Oh dear! Wrong again.
iTunes is available on Windows, so it is free, at least on a Windows based system.
Precisely, they generate a revenue out of that use, which makes the subscription acceptable and sensible.
Are you making money out of Audirvana (i.e. are you a rewarded influencer?) 
Open Letter to Damien
Hello Damien,
I hope you are reading all these posts, and now realize all the people that you are alienating from your outstanding product. I have now read through every single comment here and on Facebook about Audirvana’s plans for a new subscription model. Obviously except for a select few people the plan forward has not been well received.
I think everyone here realizes and understands that you need to make money too not because it is only fair but you deserve it!
Why not have a stripped down core (as other’s have now suggested multiple times) that is always updated with the bug fixes and interface updates that only allows people to play their own music that they have lovingly and painstakingly curated with their own metadata. – just the player portion.
Then allow the vast majority of us to upgrade the player when we see fit. It certainly seems that the majority of everyone commenting would be happy to do this.
And it would be another revenue stream… a win - win situation!
Regards,
James
Toronto, Canada
Nope, but I did get to beta test the Studio for about a month now.