I buy a car, comes with 3 years warranty and 5 years service pack
Year 2 - They added Apple Car Play for life for a fixed fee, they initially wanted to charge 100 a year for the service which i opted out during car configuration.
What does this do to me the consumer? At end of year 5 when i want to change the car, i will first consider the same brand before i go to another brand, because they treated me right.
Thats how i see it, obviously i’m not going to expect them to give me a souped up engine upgrade during ownership (except in a recall case)
I would pay for subscription if Denon replaces my SC5000M with an SC6000M other than that - no way I’ll pay to receive firmware upgrades! What a crazy thread this is. Encouraging a vendor to establish Firmware as a Service… LOL
I think the OP is saying that we’d all get firmware updates for actual BUG fixes free of charge. That’s a given, I’d hope.
But extra features that were never part of the product when it was first released, should be something people get only if they subscribe to those extra features.
Like with the cars comparisons people like to jump into. If my car had brakes that were discovered to have a fault on them, like Toyota had an issue with the antilock brakes not working if you tried braking while driving over a cattle grid, then I’d expect them to fix that firmware free. But if Toyota said separately that they had got a new version of their road holding stability chassis control firmware which responded better when one of the tyres ran over slippery leaves, I’d understand that the upgrade to that would be an optional $100. I’d have the choice to buy it, or not. My choice would be probably down to me thinking if I live in an arid dry country then it’s no use to me, if I live in a wet rainy country and drive down a lot of rural roads, then it’s worth it to me to spend the $100.
Other car manufacturers might not offer the optional upgrade at all on my model of car, and only offer it if I trade in and get their new model - that would be worse than paying the $100
Imagine products were announced and not all features promised make it into the final product. Now you wanna encourage vendors to let us for something they messed up?
Stop comparing car services with music equipment! The OEM business is broken! Manufactures can threaten the government to being forced if certain laws make it - and guess what not only in Europe governments give OEMs the freedom to ruin the nature, charge customers for safety features, etc.
NO to paying for firmwares. Vendors already throw out new devices multiple times a year and stop supporting ‘the old crap from last year’. Denon is not very quick with implementing promised features and fixing bugs. This forum is full of threads where people complain, cry, and whine about Engine Prime, SC5000/M and X1800.
So, you’d just get original bugs fixed and no brand new, never seen before features? Any new features that denon thinks of, or that get suggested, you want all those to only appear on a Mark 2 model ?
Of course everyone wants everything free but it’s not A realistic expectation.
The DAW world doesn’t work on everything being free after the first purchase - and why should daw companies release extra effects plugins and loop sounds free of charge for years and years after the purchase?
Patches to bugs on “out of the box” factory original performance features should always be free for several years after the mixer or deck or software is first released,
But if I want 20 more effects to pick from in the effects menu then why should I expect those free, three years after I buy the mixer. Of course it’s a bonus if they are offered free but that’s the difference between A bonus And an expectation
If any of you can, it would be cheaper and better to write your own basic app for the iPad then to spend on any kind of flagship setup. Subscription services are the future and the priority my friends. And so is marketing.
Serato charged people for a better time stretching algorithm (amongst other things) and I paid it as it brought value to my performances.
I would definitely pay for features. However, only if they are enhanced features that didn’t ship with the original specification and added something to my workflow the that is a big YES. How much they charge though is sticking point. Serato charge for their extra FX pack. I bought that as it was only around $20 or so.
Features take dev time. If greed isn’t rearing it’s ugly head with regards to pricing and they said £20 for 30 new FX or a video plugin, why would I demand it for free? It may have took a developer (or two) six months to a year to code that.
I look at it as paying for apps after buying a computer or phone. Apple offer GarageBand for free but if you want extra you buy Logic Pro. They aren’t under any obligation to give it away for free just because we spent £2000 on a new MacBook Pro. You just have to look at how many new features Pioneer DJ add to their players during their working lifecycle. They could be counted on one hand. What has been added to the Prime units since they launched the first SC5000? Too many to list. The SC range was missing some ‘assumed’ features but not much has been promised that is still to as yet arrive. The only thing I will hold Denon DJ to account for is the lack of StagelinQ while I had my MCX8000. That thing never appeared until four (or five?) years later. I’d long since sold that.
We buy a product for what it can do at launch. I don’t buy a car with the expectation that Ford will send an updated engine firmware that adds 50bhp to it a year after buying it. If they offer that upgrade for £500 as an option further down the line then maybe I’ll take it!
The SC range was missing some nice things that the rival players could do and they took time to finally arrive but they was enhancements. They are the things that benefit the company to have and should never be charged for. They bring the features up to where the competition is.
Enhancing and offering extra things like FX packs, sample kits, video plugins, DMX plugins, better time stretching algorithms? It is the way we’re used to and as they can be developed as new products, alongside the existing product, it’s fine to pay for the bits that you use as extras.
I draw the line at subscriptions though. If I have enough outgoings and don’t want to add another service, then that is fine but at least offer a paid for version. I can’t stand the companies that only offer subscription versions.
The extra I want, implementation of Ableton Link, I would be willing to shell money out for, as long as it was available across the range. It’s never been promised, and isn’t a normal djs thing, but it would be everything to me.
I agree, paying for Engineering and Development that is additional (not fault and bug resolvement) sounds okay for me, like the fx pack for small payment once charged. But clear no to recurring subscrption models. I own several Licences as to mention a very expensive Mastercollection (was nearly 4k invest in soft) or rekordbox too. I bought that Software, but if I wanna use it today, I am forced to subcribe for high fees to receive updates / upgrades and bugfixes and to use the actual Version of the software. My intention would be, that existing custs get a kind of loyalty bonus or can stay on one time paid upgrades. But far from it, existing customers are simply left behind and I have sworn not to pay a single cent any more to companies, that rip off their customers twice or more. I prefer not to use these products anymore. It’s a shame about all the money sunk in licenses that weren’t a good investment after all. Normally if companies change the license system afterwards for a Software product, anyone affected should be able to ask for full money back. Such subsequent changes to the detriment of the customer, the purchased product is virtually devalued.
yeees Ableton link would be awesome, Hope it’ll ever arrive in prime. For such an premium add-on Feature, I would pay an additional one time charge to get it, just like 9.99 USD for Ableton link activation key. Or much better, let the User decide how much to pay as donation (set minimum to 1 USD).
paid or unpaid, as an end user, you have no control over the business which in turn could mean the same development team and the same output at the same frequency. You could end up getting the same updates but are volunteering to pay for them.
This whole thread is so stupid.
As for Serato, it’s software only and with that in mind, you buy your own hardware. In this environment, you are paying top dollar for hardware which is NOT a controller and therefore comes with software (as it should) and what is being discussed here is practically making the hardware functionality paid on top of the purchase price.
SMH every time I see traction on this thread.
I guess what I am struggling to understand is how this bright idea solves anything. Was this idea brought forth as a solution for introducing more updates and more frequently? If so, whoever said that this was the solution? LOL If not, then what purpose does it serve? I just don’t get it.
