Excellent post. Not a gripe in sight and reasoned explanation for subscription model.
I subscribe to: my Newspaper Sydney Morning Herald, phone and internet service, electricity and gas… all services maintained and updated by the provider. And of course, when I can, Audirvana Studio.
Do you subscribe to your reading glasses so you can read Sydney Morning Herald? 
It’s funny you say that because I’m now using Specsavers which is a kind of subscription service, enabling me to cheaply update my lenses yearly. 
If you stop paying them you still get to keep your glasses, though, don’t you?
So it’s totally different.
Not different. Keeping them they are an inferior product. My lenses need updating every 12 months. In the end it is exactly like a subscription and I like it.
Nonsense.
Every time you ‘update’ your glasses you have to pay.
It really couldn’t be more different from a subscription service to computer software.
Nonsense!
Every year I pay my AS subscription. AS keeps updating and improving.
Likewise for my glasses “subscription”.
What if you need/want new lenses after only six months?
Oh yes, you have to pay for them.
But you still get to keep your previous ones.
Again, totally different in every conceivable way from software subscription.
But if it makes you happy, please carry on believing something that simply isn’t true. 
Nuance is my strong point. Thank you for participating.
One great trouble with contemporary education systems is the lack of education in nuance. We see it in politics especially. Demagods in politics exemplify the “louder they talk the less truth” syndrome.
Keep dancing baby.
I count myself fortunate that I did not come through the “contemporary educational systems” to which you refer but, rather, through earlier ones where nuance was understood, appreciated and valued.
Given your bizarre, irrelevant and inaccurate reference to nuances in discussion I can only deduce that you are considerably younger than I am.
But good luck with it all! 
I’m referencing the nuanced comparison with my lenses subscription (prescription) and my Audirvana Studio subscription. Both about $150 a year. Music to my eyes and ears.
74 if you must mock my age.
(The Dancing Poster)
I paid for a lifetime subscription to the previous version…that lifetime turned out to be less than 6 months. I feel ripped off by Audirvana and therefore I won’t be taking up the one off , or subscription to a company that treats it’s customer base so terribly…
There was no nuance, only inaccuracy.
Try again, by all means, but I don’t think I’ll bother reading any more.
As George Bernard Shaw (supposedly) said, “I learned long ago never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.”
I think you will find you purchased a lifetime subscription to a previous version (3.5 et al) . You now own that and it can always be opened and used. I have the last four versions on my computer.
I realise that Phillip ,just that a 6 month period of development ,it didn’t seem to be ve very good value.Even though I like the sound produced by Audirvana ,the features fall far short of other software and subscription based you never actually own anything.
Hi Mick-Taylor
I think you will find Damien will update or at least correct major deficiencies on 3.5.; already an update occurred a few days ago. I’m hoping that continues. Meanwhile, the 3.5 worked extremely well for me; in fact all version prior to 3.5 worked well for me. Maybe my needs are simple. I did just want a simple Mac OS music player that delivers a great sound.
AS looks to be an even better experience once all the glitches are ironed out. Tell Damien what you want. I’m sure he will listen.
Yes I did ,this was the reason I purchased as I thought the sound was superior to other Audio software.However I am annoyed that development of this version will now cease so a “lifetime” is less than 6 months. I feel Audirvana have continued to take “lifetime” subscriptions whilst full well knowing it wasn’t going to continue with this model of software payment.
I think I get what you are saying. And I do wish Damien would make it completely clear to all those who purchased the program in last year whether or not he will fix/correct/develop the latest edition.
This issue has created a lot of ill-will and that is not a good thing. Especially considering this is such a great product.
Write to @Antoine to see if he will clarify.
The ironically sad thing about subscription apologists is that they conveniently forget how 40+ years of software development WITHOUT any of this subscription nonsense have led to multi-million dollar companies that seemed perfectly fine with releasing paid major updates on a regular basis, as were their customers. And for those which did not succeed in that ,well…companies come and go, and life goes on. Yet now the latest “buzz” (probably coming from some kid out of business school) is to tie customers up through recurring payments, just so a company’s cash flow is comfortably kept positive through multiple years as opposed to the need to come up with attractive new versions every year or so.
Another strange twist here is the almost-marxist shifting of the “moral” burden onto customers, as if we all had an obligation now to “support” whatever software house. No, we do not - it is for companies to entice us and keep us as their clients - and if they no longer work for us, they go bust and another company takes their place.
Having said that, I have always been happy to support developers whose products I enjoyed, be they small or huge - but I do NOT need to be pushed into a subscription model to do that; and as many others have said, it may be acceptable for subscriptions to be charged whenever constantly renewing content is provided (i.e. streaming services such as Qobuz and Disney) or, at most (and I emphasize “at most” here), when productivity software is used for customers to make their own money out of their professional activities (such as Adobe and Microsoft).
In fact, I am also a lifetime “subscriber” of Roon (though I now regret it, for reasons associated with their woke corporate culture), as I have, for the reasons of principle above, always refused to engage in the monthly/annual commitments that they push, rather going for the (steep for some, not that much for me) USD 700 amount just so I do not have to worry about that crap anymore.
Final point: for many, the issue is NOT about accumulated payment amounts; it’s about the principle of paying once and no longer worrying about whether something is going to work next month, particularly when the content is coming from somewhere else (your own or streaming) - so I am absolutely sure that a lot of people would be willing to pay a much higher amount if they were offered that option. But with this, comes also the assumption that a developer will, in good faith, make sure that the product will not be abandoned a few months after people buy into it.
There is nothing more capitalist than making most money out of your product you can. The subscription is an easy way to increase the price without the customer feeling the burden too much.
You buy/support a product if you like it. If you don’t like it, there is nothing that can convince you to do so.