JRiver goes Subscription - sort of

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

"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).

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

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.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

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]

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.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

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

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

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

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

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😇

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

12 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

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

I don't think you were ever in really except for "whining" ...to use your word 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 hours ago, church_mouse said:

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).

 

Exactly, the principle is important and shouldn't be tied to the $ quantum no matter how much some may want to rationalize it.

 

Being "out of step" with majority opinion will depend on where (who) you poll. People will leap to the defense of their favorite cable, technology, brand etc. Apart from audio fora I recently saw this in car forums when I recently bought an expensive Landcruiser. There are those that revere them, defending against all comers, and those that insist they are overpriced mediocrity. As said they are expensive which brings me full circle. For me, money to upgrade to MC32 is inconsequential, it is the principle that counts. Like you, I am not convinced otherwise by the reasoning offered so far in defending the move.

 

That said, $30 is significant for some. I am thinking of a now deceased dear friend who was a pensioner that I gifted a copy of MC because he couldn't afford it.

 

The only people this move would likely piss off would be the folks unwilling to upgrade or unable to upgrade and therefore of no immediate financial consequence to JRiver. I just don't like it.

 

IMO there would have been more ethical ways of going about this than a punitive tactic and NOTWITHSTANDING servers are expensive to run or even...there is a threat we will go out of business....or we are good guys with a wonderful product. As said I supported the team for over 10 years with every upgrade until MC27. basically I just got lazy.

 

You mentioned asking for donations as an alternative but I doubt this would be an attractive alternative. Perhaps some kind of patron model. Perhaps B) and C)

 

5 hours ago, church_mouse said:

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).

 

Or just perhaps a totally honest email along the lines - Hi , we notice you haven't upgraded your MC in over 5 years. We do think you are missing out on some great new features like xyz. We also rely heavily on regular paid updates to run our very expensive servers and wonder if you would consider upgrading at $X dollars. We understand this is optional but it would be a great help to us. Thanks"

 

I just think the marketing machine took a wrong turn here with their current position. Its should be carrot and no stick.  Yes, it is a great product

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

51 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

IIRC, he polled the website about this issue and announced it afterwards.

 

If so, IMO the "poll" should have been an email to all MC owners, not just to the devoted on their website.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

38 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Ok, what if JRiver said it cost ten cents to upgrade. You stilling going to make a mountain out of a molehill?

 

As, said it's not for me about how much. Principles still apply.

 

38 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Sure, some people can’t afford ten cents. But, letting the tail wag the dog is unreasonable. 

making extreme unrealistic examples may be more unreasonable

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

18 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

No worries. One has to pick battles in life and decide what’s going to tick them off. This situation doesn’t even come close in my book. 

No worries, i do completely agree that picking one's battles in life is important but I am in no battle with JRiver or anyone else. OTOH pointing out what I consider to be morally questionable behavior in a vendor is always worthwhile in my book.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

On 2/18/2024 at 7:56 PM, church_mouse said:

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.

 

This captures my feeling about it