JRiver goes Subscription - sort of

[botrytis]

This is a whine thread. I am out also.

 

 

[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 

[botrytis]

1 minute ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I don't think you were ever in really except for whining 

 

He wasn't whining others were.

[Kal Rubinson]

15 hours ago, DuckToller said:

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.

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

[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.

[The Computer Audiophile]

21 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

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

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

 

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

[botrytis]

4 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?

 

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

I use JRiver. It works great for me. 

[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

[The Computer Audiophile]

52 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

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

 

making extreme unrealistic examples may be more unreasonable

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. 

[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