Audirvana Studio

[LarryMagoo]

Oh no....Not That!!!!    You claim I spew Propaganda and Lies yet you offer no proof???    I'm glad you beat me to the ignore!

[ActivesAndAudirvana]

Subs models smooth out revenue curves. It’s like automakers making mints on servicing in between the highs of new car sales, or Apple’s upgrade program, where the price of the phone is spread over x months as opposed to a single hit. It helps the producer first, and masquerades as a lower outlay (when you look at it in the context of monthly expenditure) for the customer. It should ensure longevity of the supplier. However, a one month cancellation policy, which is fair to the consumer, means if the supplier screws up and people abandon the system, their cash flow is shot, and they follow.

[The Computer Audiophile]

50 minutes ago, arlese said:

Every company/developer would like a slice of my reoccurring income instead of pricing their products to account for development / service costs.

 

The problem with the “product as a service” subscription model is it’s designed to maximize the benefit to the producer - once you stop paying you no longer have access. Therefore, I have little control over the value decision if/when I decide to invest in paid upgrades. As a consumer, subscriptions reduce my discretionary income and therefore my choices - stop paying, stop listening.

 

The way things are going there may come a day when I cannot listen to music either because I didn’t pay for a music subscription or a software player.

 

Frankly, for the price of the paid version I thought Damien was giving it away but I will not upgrade on principal. Unless you’re my utility, phone or insurance company I’m not spending a cent on monthly subscriptions and enjoy my life instead in the physical world.

 

I pay for quite a bit of software monthly. This gives me a lot of freedom to stop paying whenever I want and I never pay for something I don't use. If people pay Roon $700 for a "lifetime" license and a better product comes along next week, they may be out a substantial amount. In addition, "lifetime" licenses are a liability for Roon who pays based on the content being used within the app. 

 

I like paying for what I get rather than assuming all the risk on the front end. 

[Jud]

While I would prefer paying for something once-and-done myself, unless there is a continuing stream of new buyers, sooner or later there's no money coming in. Some developers can in effect create a continuing charge in the form of purchasing new/upgraded versions, and if the cost is high enough, upgrades don't need to happen that often.

 

Damien chose to keep his price reasonably low, and since the market for high end player software isn't huge, to my thinking that meant money running out and no more Audirvana pretty quickly.  So the choices to keep the product available and supported were to go on some artificial upgrade cycle where we would all be debating whether the new version was worth the cost anyway, or subscription.

[arlese]

I hear all the pros, again not my problem whether revenue dries up or revenue curve is flattened. Innovate and sell me something new or price it high enough to justify staying in business - why do you think Herman Miller chairs are so expensive? I’ve had mine for 37 years, one and done.

[arlese]

21 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I pay for quite a bit of software monthly. This gives me a lot of freedom to stop paying whenever I want and I never pay for something I don't use. If people pay Roon $700 for a "lifetime" license and a better product comes along next week, they may be out a substantial amount. In addition, "lifetime" licenses are a liability for Roon who pays based on the content being used within the app. 

 

I like paying for what I get rather than assuming all the risk on the front end. 

Right, how do you like having to babysit your subs? Sounds like a great way to spend your time. We all know the economics that ownership is less expensive in the long-run hence why everything is moving to a subscription model.

[arlese]

The last thing I will say is I hope the developer is successful. But the reason I am personally bent out of shape is because I chose Audirvana over Roon because it was not a subscription - or a ridiculously high upfront cost that is too risky to make for reasons already cited.

[Jud]

1 minute ago, arlese said:

The last thing I will say is I hope the developer is successful. But the reason I am personally bent out of shape is because I chose Audirvana over Roon because it was not a subscription - or a ridiculously high upfront cost that is too risky to make for reasons already cited.

 

I know you said it was the last thing you would say, but I'm interested in the following (not trying to persuade or challenge, but rather curious):

 

You have said both that the developer must charge a high enough one-time cost to stay in business, and also that you would not risk paying a ridiculously high upfront cost. I know from what you have said that $700 for Roon was too much.  I'm curious what a ballpark maximum upfront cost would be for you.

[WAM]

11 minutes ago, arlese said:

We all know the economics that ownership is less expensive in the long-run

 

I agree. But there is another law you should not forget: it's not about what it costs, but what it yields.

 

 

[Bones13]

Interested to see how this plays out. I have used Audirvana in the past, when I used Macs, and liked it well enough. I got on Roon at the beginning, and have early lifetime licenses (one for the house, and one for the office).

 

I have struggled with players for the other 3-4 locations I work at, usually on laptops via USB DAC/Amps and headphones. I don't listen enough to get that many Roon licenses, and don't want to keep de-activating, and activating those licenses either. I have ended up just having Qobuz on most of them.

 

I did end up getting A+ on my laptop at the beach, as it has a copy of my music files on it. (offsite backup !) And pretty much like the sound, and functionality there - files and Qobuz.

 

I will probably upgrade to Studio if they let me have it installed in several locations, and listen in one at a time. Then I would really try to compare sound and functionality Roon vs Audirvana Studio to see which I preferred. To the victor go the spoils.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, arlese said:

Right, how do you like having to babysit your subs? Sounds like a great way to spend your time.

 

I have no idea what you mean. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, arlese said:

again not my problem whether revenue dries up or revenue curve is flattened.

 

It becomes your problem when apps disappear because the developer couldn't make enough money from it or s/he was offered more money to go work for someone else. 

[Jud]

19 minutes ago, Bones13 said:

 

I will probably upgrade to Studio if they let me have it installed in several locations, and listen in one at a time

 

I believe that is the plan.

[bbosler]

On 5/9/2021 at 2:29 PM, matthias said:

I have a 2011 MacBook Pro

 

I'm sorry if this offends anybody, but an 11 year computer is like driving a 1955 Chevy and complaining it doesn't handle very well.. you need to move on

[CoolHand]

I believe THIS is the plan.....🥴

[LarryMagoo]

26 minutes ago, bbosler said:

 

I'm sorry if this offends anybody, but an 11 year computer is like driving a 1955 Chevy and complaining it doesn't handle very well.. you need to move on

I have my 2012 MAC Mini i7 16GB RAM, dedicated to Roon for my RoonServer, but then I installed a 1TB SSD and another one for back up all in the same box!   It works flawlessly!    

 

I probably should not have mentioned Roon around here ....Jud will claim up I'm spreading "Propaganda and Lies".  But of course he removed that part of the post....

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, LarryMagoo said:

I have my 2012 MAC Mini i7 16GB RAM, dedicated to Roon for my RoonServer, but then I installed a 1TB SSD and another one for back up all in the same box!   It works flawlessly!    

 

I probably should not have mentioned Roon around here ....Jud will claim up I'm spreading "Propaganda and Lies".  But of course he removed that part of the post....

 

 

Jud doesn’t have the ability to remove a post. Stop spreading propaganda and lies. 

[Jud]

29 minutes ago, CoolHand said:

I believe THIS is the plan.....🥴

 

Though as we know, there's truth in it. Guess we should never have paid for cable TV.

[arlese]

4 hours ago, Jud said:

 

I know you said it was the last thing you would say, but I'm interested in the following (not trying to persuade or challenge, but rather curious):

 

You have said both that the developer must charge a high enough one-time cost to stay in business, and also that you would not risk paying a ridiculously high upfront cost. I know from what you have said that $700 for Roon was too much.  I'm curious what a ballpark maximum upfront cost would be for you.

I feel a reasonable amount is $60-$90 initial buy-in and $40-$60 for future upgrades - people’s value perception will be different. My needs are simple, playing local files on Mac with a nice / gui - I would be happy with 3.5 and no further upgrades just maintenance.

 

Roon I feel has taken it too far… why should I as the consumer pay for development features that have not been delivered? As someone already mentioned too high an upfront cost places risk back on me.

 

Personally I think Damien had it right and I don’t see the need to innovate on pricing models. As a consumer, it’s not my responsibility to keep companies in business - I don’t have an obligation to support them, companies to stay in business have to continually deliver enough value for customers to pay for their product or service.

 

Therefore, I think it’s pretty simple and no reason to change what’s worked, you create a product and stand behind (warranty) it from defects (bugs) for a period of time; beyond that it’s fair game. If a major improve or change occurs (new OS) then charge the customer and I can decide whether what I have is good enough for my needs or whether an upgrade is warranted. With a subscription there is no middle, it’s pay to play whether you like/need it or not.

[The Computer Audiophile]

22 minutes ago, arlese said:

With a subscription there is no middle, it’s pay to play whether you like/need it or not.

No, that’s the purchase model. You pay for the whole thing.
 

Subscribe until you no longer want the app. This way you never pay for the app if you aren’t using it. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, CoolHand said:

I believe THIS is the plan.....🥴

I’m cool with not owning stuff. Mahatma Gandhi Was said to have the following possessions. If true, he probably didn’t worry about much related to stuff. 
 

[Jud]

19 minutes ago, arlese said:

companies to stay in business have to continually deliver enough value for customers to pay for their product or service.

 

Yes, agreed. The difference in my personal view is the size of the market for high end player software vs office chairs or similar consumer goods. While there is a fairly consistent and renewing market for these consumer goods, I believe you can saturate the tiny niche market that we represent very quickly, between Audirvana, HQPlayer, Roon, and JRiver (plus Amarra, Pure Music, etc.).

[RunHomeSlow]

Subscribing is paying for something you don’t own, i don’t like that either.

 

I want, i pay, i own, i do what i want. When OS doesn’t work anymore you revert back and stay there with what you bought.

 

this update has to be massive, all bugs before solved + some improvements in sound and in look and possibilities to makes what we like in database vision…and not messing with all that was working in v3.5

[lucretius]

5 hours ago, arlese said:

I hear all the pros, again not my problem whether revenue dries up or revenue curve is flattened. Innovate and sell me something new or price it high enough to justify staying in business - why do you think Herman Miller chairs are so expensive? I’ve had mine for 37 years, one and done.

 

I'm sitting in my Aeron chair right now. One of the best purchases I ever made.

[lucretius]

5 hours ago, WAM said:

 

I agree. But there is another law you should not forget: it's not about what it costs, but what it yields.

 

 

 

So, what does it yield?