JRiver goes Subscription - sort of

Audiophile Neuroscience · February 18

"MC27 & older MUST be upgraded to access JRiver servers" ....Okay, sure, not "subscription" unless regularly repeated and yes, only features that require server access won't work.

I wonder how many find this just a little bit on the nose, or not?

After about 10 years of yearly upgrading I just stopped at MC27. I upgraded previously to support the team but to be honest it just became a nuisance (for multiple devices) and the changes I desired didn't eventuate (it is not important what I wanted, I get that not all wishes can be granted).

The Computer Audiophile · February 18

I think @jriver has the best software licensing model of any software. It’s absolutely fair for all involved.

The current version is v32. If people are five or more versions behind that, AND they need to access JRiver servers, they can shell out around $30 for the upgrade. That’s peanuts.

Audiophile Neuroscience · February 18

11 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The current version is v32. If people are five or more versions behind that, AND they need to access JRiver servers, they can shell out around $30 for the upgrade. That’s peanuts.

So you should be expected to upgrade every 5 years to maintain full functionality of what you already paid for?

Does this mean a vendor can just unilaterally decide to charge extra for the same ongoing functionality whenever they want to?

$30 may not be "peanuts" to some and there is also a principle here.

The Computer Audiophile · February 18

4 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

So you should be expected to upgrade every 5 years to maintain full functionality of what you already paid for?

Does this mean a vendor can just unilaterally decide to charge extra for the same ongoing functionality whenever they want to?

$30 may not be "peanuts" to some and there is also a principle here.

Im not sure the company does this every five years or that many vendors in HiFi, “unilaterally decide to charge extra for the same ongoing functionality whenever they want to.” You can complain about this straw man all you wish, but you likely have better things to do.

My guess is it comes down to either maintaining support for versions older than 5 version back or continuing to improve the newest versions. At some point the old stuff will stop working or we can’t make progress because companies would spend all their time on making old stuff work on new operating systems and hardware.

If $6 per year ($30 upgrade after 5 years)for an app is too much, one has much bigger fish to fry. I also doubt the software license says it will work in perpetuity, just like the day it was purchased.

botrytis · February 18

13 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Im not sure the company does this every five years or that many vendors in HiFi, “unilaterally decide to charge extra for the same ongoing functionality whenever they want to.” You can complain about this straw man all you wish, but you likely have better things to do.

My guess is it comes down to either maintaining support for versions older than 5 version back or continuing to improve the newest versions. At some point the old stuff will stop working or we can’t make progress because companies would spend all their time on making old stuff work on new operating systems and hardware.

If $6 per year ($30 upgrade after 5 years)for an app is too much, one has much bigger fish to fry. I also doubt the software license says it will work in perpetuity, just like the day it was purchased.

EXACTLY! (the quoted part). That is why Apple and MS only support 1 or 2 versions. It takes too much manpower.

Audiophile Neuroscience · February 18

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Im not sure the company does this every five years or that many vendors in HiFi, “unilaterally decide to charge extra for the same ongoing functionality whenever they want to.” You can complain about this straw man all you wish, but you likely have better things to do.

My guess is it comes down to either maintaining support for versions older than 5 version back or continuing to improve the newest versions. At some point the old stuff will stop working or we can’t make progress because companies would spend all their time on making old stuff work on new operating systems and hardware.

If $6 per year ($30 upgrade after 5 years)for an app is too much, one has much bigger fish to fry. I also doubt the software license says it will work in perpetuity, just like the day it was purchased.

I played with the title but subsequently explained the facts that I am aware of, so there is no straw man here as I am not misrepresenting or replacing an argument in order to refute it

It depends on what you mean by "maintaining support" for old versions eg if MC27 doesn't work in windows 11 then it is reasonable to expect to pay for that support and which is out of their control..

This OTOH appears to be punitively restricting access to their servers by their choice if you don't upgrade. As I understand it for example no longer being able to download cover art or tags etc. These servers are running anyway (I presume) for the current version so it's a matter of denying access to something that already exists in order to recruit a further cash injection from many people (how many?). If their servers have been upgraded and no longer work with older MC versions then there would be at least some justification

Audiophile Neuroscience · February 18

1 hour ago, botrytis said:

EXACTLY! (the quoted part). That is why Apple and MS only support 1 or 2 versions. It takes too much manpower.

Just because someone else does it doesn't make it right in my view but at least you know with Microsoft that is their business model for whatever reasons. Also, not continuing active support is different to actively denying access to a resource that already exists.

church_mouse · February 18

I do think Audiophile Neuroscience has a valid point here. Would people be so happy to accept the argument "that is just how the industry works" if they were told that parts of their car would now be switched off by the manufacturer merely because you had not bought a new car from them within 5 years?

I have an old (unused) JRiver licence. I haven't updated it in quite a few years because there has simply been nothing in their updates for which I have any great need/use. They have taken a development line which does not fit my use case.

Chris, correctly, points out that the aggregate cost seems small (unless, of course, someone purchased JRiver when they were financially sound and now finds themself in much harder times where every penny counts). However, that avoids the principle - IF JRiver is switching off access to a service for no reason other than the owner of the software licence subsequently has not bought anything else (an update) from them, how can that be morally right? If the principle is morally right, then the amount is irrelevant and charging $6 per month or per week would also fit the principle.

seeteeyou · February 18

IMHO it could get worse than that, in some cases even offline authorization went kaput for whatever reasons

https://help.reasonstudios.com/hc/en-us/articles/13879491567378-Offline-authorization-is-no-longer-available-for-Reason-11-and-earlier

And then we've got yet another "shining example" as well

https://ipcamtalk.com/threads/cloud-connected-cameras-are-a-scam-vava-sunvalleytek-disable-products-after-the-sale-louis-rossmann.73466/

"You wouldn't download a car" but the whole idea of "ownership" these days could very well be interpreted in so many different ways.

We simply don't "own" anything whatsoever if we're merely storing something in a "cloud" somewhere, in many cases we don't even have the means to create anything that remotely assembles the idea of a backup.

Quote

Stages Of Apple Product Flaws

Ignore the problem

Blame the users

Ignore the problem

Hope the fans blame the users

Deny the problem as being anything other than a tiny minority of users who are not using the product as intended

Acknowledge the problem but still attempt to blame the users

Face a class action law suit

Acknowledge the problem and partly blame the users

Provide a time limited repair/replacement service to minimise their liability

Ignore a subsequent leaked document that proves they knew about it all along, possibly even before the product launch, but took the risk anyway

False claims of liquid damage

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/255200069

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32474942

Quote

Apple has always tried to blame customers whenever they can.

I remember when my MacBook pro 2015 started glitching and Apple voided the warranty by saying there was liquid spillage/fluid damage.

So apparently macbooks have these small stickers inside them which change color upon contact with liquids to help detect liquid damage but the issue with those stickers are that they also change color if you live in a humid area.

They made me pay for that repair even though the customer support guy at the store agreed that the color could change because of humidity but it was company policy to charge for those repairs.

Hardware got "planned obsolescence" built right in under most circumstances, with very little to no repairability to boot.

And then when we do wanna get something repaired that's "supposedly" covered under warranty, "Genius" working at a bar of some sort would quote an amount that ain't too different from getting a brand new replacement

https://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/complete-control-apple-accused-of-overpricing-restricting-device-repairs-1.4859099

In reality it turned out to cost a "whopping" $0 to get the problem fixed, go figure.

Simply put, we no longer "own" anything anymore in a sense that almost everyone should be totally + utterly owned (and pwned, too) by whatever products / services are out there these days.

It's just a matter of "Surveillance Capitalism" when our devices / apps are constantly collecting our data 24/7

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/69367-lmsraudio-an-ai-coded-logitech-media-server/#comment-1269898

In other words, we should be (very) grateful for folks like JRiver (i.e. the "small potatoes" under most circumstances) who don't necessarily need to profit / profiteer from that kinda INSANE business model IMHO.

STC · February 18

6 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

MC27 & older MUST be upgraded to access JRiver servers" ....Okay, sure, not "subscription" unless regularly repeated and yes, only features that require server access won't work.

I think this is about music sharing server. A feature which was introduced many years ago. It was never part of JRiver version earlier. Unless I am wrong. Never used it. In fact, I stopped upgrades since 25 and only recently upgraded to FW32 simply to support a wonderful media player.

DuckToller · February 18

44 minutes ago, church_mouse said:

I do think Audiophile Neuroscience has a valid point here. Would people be so happy to accept the argument "that is just how the industry works" if they were told that parts of their car would now be switched off by the manufacturer merely because you had not bought a new car from them within 5 years?

I have an old (unused) JRiver licence. I haven't updated it in quite a few years because there has simply been nothing in their updates for which I have any great need/use. They have taken a development line which does not fit my use case.

Chris, correctly, points out that the aggregate cost seems small (unless, of course, someone purchased JRiver when they were financially sound and now finds themself in much harder times where every penny counts). However, that avoids the principle - IF JRiver is switching off access to a service for no reason other than the owner of the software licence subsequently has not bought anything else (an update) from them, how can that be morally right? If the principle is morally right, then the amount is irrelevant and charging $6 per month or per week would also fit the principle.

Hi David,
I tend to agree that it would be morally superior if JimH would inform clients about his future business plans before they buy into his product.
From a practical stand-point it looks quite different, imho.
A typical example for cars is the TomTom navigation system in my 2013 Mazda. After 4 years, it stopped updating and asked for a paid subscription. I now pay with my personal data to Google using Waze.

jherbert · February 18

They churn out a new version every six to nine months. I like the software, though it does not get to much use any more after I am through tagging and organizing my library. Also I mostly listen via ROON most of the time. The new features mostly adress multimedia stuff I am not interested in.

So, while I do not actually use it any more, I still buy at least every other new version because I want to support ongoing development of the product. Seems fair to me.

Plus everybody into this hobby probably spends more on questionable accessories than on this piece of software.

ecwl · February 18

I have to admit, I was super confused by this thread because I stopped upgrading JRiver a long time ago but I still recommend a lot of people to use it.

First, I realized this issue/announcement started in May 2023.

Second, I didn’t understand not being able to acces JRiver server means so I ended up looking it up first.

Free JRiver Server Access Has Ended For Older Versions
If you're using JRiver Media Center 27 or older, the player will no longer be able to access some online services provided by JRiver. Core functionality will work, but cover art and CD lookup will fail. These servers are expensive to run and so we will provide them for free only for recent versions of MC (28 to 31 at this time).

So I guess if you haven’t upgraded since 2019, you won’t get the CD data when you rip a CD. That sucks. I think the free exact audio copy gives you the CD data but I can’t remember where the data comes from. But if you’re spending $15 to buy a CD and can’t afford to pay JRiver $30, you have the option to manually enter the CD data and manually download the album art for that CD.

But are there other functionalities that people are missing from not being able to access the JRiver Server?

Also, what would be a payment alternative that people would accept?

Let’s say JRiver knew that running these server for some services would always have an additional cost. And customers expect to have indefinite access to these features once they buy the software.

Should they charge $30 for the software and then an annual fee of $2/year for access to the JRiver server? So that people like @Audiophile Neuroscience can know upfront what features would be indefinite supported and what features actually has annual costs? What exactly is the time limit for cutting off the software support here if there is no subscription model for this server access? Sure, 5 years seems short. But some people would say 10 years, some would say 30 years. Think of people you helped with 5 or 10 years ago. If they come back to you and expect free assistance, do you think it’s fair?

stefano_mbp · February 18

I think this is a totally nonsense claim … JRiver will continue to work, as stated, and just few functions (cloud radio, automatic artwork … who ever used them?) will non be available anymore. For metadata and artwork just use MP3tag or Yate, they are better too.

The thread title is misleading if not a fake news … just to create noise.

The Computer Audiophile · February 18

4 hours ago, church_mouse said:

Would people be so happy to accept the argument "that is just how the industry works" if they were told that parts of their car would now be switched off by the manufacturer merely because you had not bought a new car from them within 5 years?

I think this is a bridge way too far and nothing like the current situation. If we used these extremes, we should then ask if all the people would rather have JRiver go out of business offering free stuff than to pay $30 to upgrade. Fortunately we aren’t in either situation.

4 hours ago, church_mouse said:

However, that avoids the principle - IF JRiver is switching off access to a service for no reason other than the owner of the software licence subsequently has not bought anything else (an update) from them, how can that be morally right? If the principle is morally right, then the amount is irrelevant and charging $6 per month or per week would also fit the principle.

To me, there is nuance and gray areas in everything. Without all the facts, we really shouldn’t jump to the worst possible reasoning for JRiver doing something. Even so, I think the amount matters. If this software was sold for $829.99 like Roon, I’d be more apt to question what’s going on.

Knowing what it costs to operate this site, I’d say JRiver’s explanation that @ecwl posted is absolutely reasonable to me. It costs money to offer a service, that cost has likely increased more than normal with inflation over the last couple years. Perhaps the principled people also see principles working both ways, and realize that it’s unreasonable to expect a costly service to work in perpetuity, also understanding that 99.9% of the application still works perfectly.

church_mouse · February 18

Does it really matter what price was paid for a product, or whether we like a vendor when it comes to a principle? Surely, a principle which varies according to the price is not a principle, it is merely a market calculation?

I accept that I am clearly out of step here with the majority opinion expressed. I will just make these observations:

1. Chris says that my automobile analogy "is a bridge way too far". I accept it is an extreme, but how is the principle any different?

2. Chris then said "we should then ask if all the people would rather have JRiver go out of business offering free stuff than to pay $30 to upgrade". There is something in this save that JRiver was not offering "free stuff" - the CD lookup is referred to on JRiver's Wiki as a benefit of the product i.e. it is something included within the purchase price - a feature, not a "freebie extra".

3. If the alternative is for JRiver to go out of business, then JRiver could:

a) ask for their customers to make a voluntary payment to help out.
b) increase the price or change the pricing model of their future licences.
c) introduce an extra fee to all licence holders, rather than just pick an arbitrary group. (This breaches my principle, but at least applies to all).

I have no animus towards JRiver. I have great respect for Chris (as far as I can judge from his comments on and handling of this site), I just disagree on this occasion (quite strongly on the strength of the arguments so far).

The Computer Audiophile · February 18

35 minutes ago, church_mouse said:

I have no animus towards JRiver. I have great respect for Chris (as far as I can judge from his comments on and handling of this site), I just disagree on this occasion (quite strongly on the strength of the arguments so far).

Its all good @church_mouse different opinions are the spice of life.

AudioDoctor · February 18

Running a server costs money. I suppose you also think that a one time license fee of whatever JRiver was charging when you purchased should allow you to access that server for ever?

I wonder how carefully you read your license agreement.

botrytis · February 18

It is like the game company that released Palworld. The game servers are costing them 500K USD a month to run. Unless they have money coming in, how can they support that.

Audiophile Neuroscience · February 18

39 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

Running a server costs money. I suppose you also think that a one time license fee of whatever JRiver was charging when you purchased should allow you to access that server for ever?

I wonder how carefully you read your license agreement.

Can you please provide specifics

AudioDoctor · February 18

3 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Can you please provide specifics

You want me to ask JRiver specifically how much it costs them to operate a server so their customers can download cover art and tags? Seriously?

Audiophile Neuroscience · February 18

7 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Can you please provide specifics

3 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

You want me to ask JRiver specifically how much it costs them to operate a server so their customers can download cover art and tags? Seriously?

48 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

I wonder how carefully you read your license agreement.

You invoke the license agreement. I presume you have something to share

AudioDoctor · February 18

6 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

You invoke the license agreement. I presume you have something to share

So you haven't read it.

I do not use Jriver.

Audiophile Neuroscience · February 18

1 minute ago, AudioDoctor said:

So you haven't read it.

I do not use Jriver.

I see so you are invoking things you know nothing about.good one😇

AudioDoctor · February 18

2 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I see so you are invoking things you know nothing about.good one😇

Sigh. ok, keep whining. i'm out.

JRiver goes Subscription - sort of

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in