If I may.....please note that in my post, I discussed the general impact of subscriptions to software developers and their users in general. I did not specifically mention Cinema 4D nor Maxon and its practices.
But, considering that you are discussing Maxon and subscriptions, then I will also focus my comments on Maxon. You state that subscriptions "leveled out the field even more, increasing competitive pressure". Now I find this a "curious statement" simply because if that was the case, why is Maxon doing everything in its power to discourage perpetual license holders and promote subscriptions? Why are services like Cineversity and access to modeling libraries no longer offered to perpetual license holders and only subscription license holders? Why is the cost of staying current with C4D 32% higher for perpetual license holders than subscription holders? If business is tougher in a subscription world, Maxon would not be selling it so hard. Why are perpetual licenses for Redshift being completely phased out?
Sorry, but while your arguments that subscriptions give your corporate customers more flexibility are true, the fact remains that subscriptions are in-fact a "re-occurring revenue model" (an industry term...not mine) for Maxon and that means a higher percentage of "guaranteed" revenue as well. Stock prices go up for companies with "re-occurring revenue models". They go down if there is increased competition --- so your arguments do not hold up. Case in point is Cisco (the company I work for). They used to sell the IOS software with the hardware and our stock barely got above $30/share. 4 or 5 years ago, we switched to a subscription model and our software revenues are now a huge part of our quarterly earnings and our stock just broke $60/share. Also, our software revenue makes us one of the largest software companies in the world. We are right up there with Adobe! Go figure.
The point I am making is that all companies in all industries love re-occurring revenue models. Maxon does to. And this brings me back to my original argument. All the "guaranteed" cash means less pressure on capturing revenue by growing market share through innovation. You just don't need to compete as hard if a certain amount of your annual revenue is a lock. Trust me, in a few years the next phase will be that revenue (though higher than before) will be flat year-over-year. Everyone is locked into a subscription, inertia sets-in, and there is less market growth. What happens next is that in the face of flat revenue, there will be a move to start cutting expenses because there will always be a constant drive to increase earnings back to Nemetshek. That's what CEO's get judged on and how they earn their bonus. And in the software world people are the biggest expense. Might as well cut headcount if your are not competing on new features as much as you did in the past. Why do you think Adobe products are not improving that fast?
When that point hits and there is downsizing going on (hey...after all those acquisitions, there will be some downsizing) or fewer pay raises or both, please feel free to tell me just how much you love subscriptions.
Dave
