I love Renoise.
I don’t want to sing a praises, but it’s a very special to me, it has a unique approach to write music and awesome UX.
And I really worry about Renoise future.
I have purchased version 2.7 licence in April 2011.
This license is valid for the full version free update, you know it if cause.
And this is what’s making me feel worry.
9 years no paid updates. I don’t really understand how you guys keep surviving with this model?
I really want to support and pay for version 4.0 which will run smoothly on Metal graphic engine, updated interface and great new and updated features.
Please. Resale version 4 and take my money.
3 Likes
9 years no paid updates? v4.0? v3.2 was just released last Aug!! Don’t be getting too ahead of yourself!!
1 Like
That’s right 9 years no paid updates.
I have paid in 2011 for version 2.7 – 3.7
I believe this self–undervalued commercial model will lead developers to collapse.
Ah sorry I understand what you mean now. Free updates = no development funding.
I dunno if a ‘paying for updates’ business model would go down well with current license holders. Most other DAWs do the free upgrade for current license holders thing, and when they don’t they get absolutely slaughtered by the music community. Just look at the hate that Bitwig got when it first came, and to an extent still does.
Renoise is a niche product unfortunately, trackers in general are for music creation. Applying a ‘pay per update’ model to a niche product that has to compete with DAWs the like Ableton, Logic, Cubase, Bitwig, FL Studio, Max/Msp, Reaktor, might end up polarising opinions with current users and be off putting for potential new users who could purchase a different DAW with free upgrades, and end up sinking the whole project altogether.
It’s a shame that things are the way they are, but unless trackers become the new craze over night I think Renoise and it’s business model may be doomed to exist in its current state for the foreseeable future. Maybe I’m wrong though, I hope I am anyways.
2 Likes
Well, this is reality we are facing, but my point was a little bit different.
I personally don’t like subscription model. I prefer “pay for product” rather than “pay for using”
And any local truth is somewhere in a middle.
With all my deepest appreciations to the devs and authors of the Renoise, also, I would like the product would sustain as along as possible.
But, with the current commercial model I predicting it won’t.
All what I would like to spotlight here is sustainable commercial model which will keep devs on surface and continue develop Renoise.
1 Like
My point of view on this subject I think is a little different.
First of all, there really isn’t a “bad” payment method, which is what we can think of when we compare the “subscription for use by the method of” buying a product. "The problem is always the price.
In the case of the subscription, people do not protest for “the subscription” but for how abusive it is. That is, through this method companies intend to make more profit. That is, the client ends up paying more. Then the product is more expensive. The price is higher.
The same goes for the “purchase by product” method. If the product is very expensive (see ProTools or Cubase), the user will also complain.
With the particular case of Renoise, I see it as isolated. We have only one man responsible for this product. If the product dies, it is because this man will abandon it. Otherwise, he will still be alive. And to stay alive, you will need to feel that people are still using your software, that these forums are still full of activity and that there are still people interested in developing tools, and varied content, be instruments and other Renoise exclusive formats.
Renoise is cheap because it can’t be more expensive. To be more expensive you need better support, which you don’t have. That is, people not visible working on it constantly. Renoise has updates very sporadically. In addition, there is no fluid communication between the forums and what the “Renoise team” is supposed to be if such a thing exists.
And this happens precisely because Renoise is a tracker. People are educated to buy pianoroll DAWs that we all know, because there is a lot, a lot of publicity behind. Hardware companies also support certain DAWs, such as Ableton, with ridiculously exclusive hardware only for Ableton (for other DAWs it doesn’t work?). Renoise has none of that. There is no support, there is no publicity.
All this is also due to the people of these forums. Sorry to be so direct, but it’s true. In these forums there is a culture of “everything must be free”. Renoise is very cheap. So many users are not going to invest money in other things, they want almost everything for free. There are many of these users here.
So, do you want Renoise to be more expensive? Let’s pay another programmer apart from taktik? What is the proposal?
I think this topic gives a lot to discuss.
2 Likes
just want to point out that the 12 month Bitwig plan is in a way kinda good cause once you purchase the upgrade
you can activate the update period when you want so you are not purchasing the latest version you’re paying for 12months of free updates so you may as well choose based on whats current on the market or you can time your activation of the plan with announcements of future versions etc
This is a subject to discuss, and it’s also really related to the Renoise owner.
The price of the product is an energy someone’s getting back for the resources and efforts.
We have an unbalanced reward for the efforts we are (as the customers) receiving as Renoise.
I can’t think about any other example of paid software with that huge unplayable updates period.
// There are many of these users here.
I can’t speak on behalf anyone rather myself here, it’s not me
It is not necessary to speak on behalf of anyone. You can know the opinion of some forum users, who openly talk about these topics.
You will find to people that defend that the work must be valued, and the best way to value it is by paying. We will not discover how the world works now.
But you will also see people who will complain, because this people want to get free things.
Why do you think there are no decent sample packages for Renoise? Why is there no legion of XRNI instruments for Renoise? No one pays for this content. And raising this can be a source of criticism. The same goes for the tools.
Actually, the only person who can change the price of Renoise is its creator and main programmer. I suppose that, to make such a decision, it would be necessary to change something before.
For example. If Renoise had an integrated video editor, to be able to synchronize with the tracker, it would be very interesting software. It would be possible to use it for soundtracks, especially for short video clips or video editing for youtube and other channels, where there are many young people who might be interested. What I mean is that it would need weight improvements to justify the price increase.
If you continue with current trends, such as upgrading to VST3 or migrating to MIDI 2.0 or even improving important Renoise frameworks, such as the instrument box, the automation editor or better compatibility and stability for VST, this is just the logical path to keep Renoise up to date, but it would not be strong enough to justify a price increase, for example to € 100 or change the period of validity of a license depending on the version. Some users will even believe they have been scammed.
We could think of all these things. But for that you need more programmers. That means paying more people, distributing the work. Doing that in a market clearly dominated by other non-tracker DAWs is very difficult.
1 Like
To know other opinions you need to read certain topics. I’m not.
All what you are saying might be valuable, might be not. But this is not what I have raised my topic about.
I would not mind paying 100 if we could get another programmer on the board tbh - today a 100E is less than a 100E 10 years ago anyway, this would mean that we have our updates quicker and more features in general. Personally I would like to see Renoise go towards “everything is modular” direction with more advanced modulation possibilities, so I could have a crossbreed between Max and Renoise 
One can wish for. For now more meta devices would be always appreciated. It is still one of the best DAWs around that keeps you focused on assembling and experimenting.
4 Likes
Renoise 4.0 (the Future of Renoise)… Well, some related things have been raised. Maybe you posed a more distant vision of the future.
What model do you propose then what fits with Renoise?
Maybe the vision of its creator is not so close to a company that wants to exploit this software to the fullest, because there is no market to support it (people who want to buy). Surely he will be focused on other things, and will not live of this. If there is nothing to maintain (pay other people, pay advertising), just keep the software and inject a lot of love, it is possible to keep a project alive. Maybe Renoise is close to this. Possibly there is more will than business.
Anyway, version 4.0 is far away yet. Before there will be 3.3 … 3.4 … 3.7 (I supose), which is when your license will expire. And after all that will be 4.0. If it arrives.
2 Likes
We are entered now on the field of big discussion here.
Every single company or developer has it’s own update and upgrade strategy.
Someone for just a few bug fixed can apply a .(figure) version change.
Someone applying the same for a something way more substantial, like adding major new features and upgrading the existing ones.
Also, every major and minor version change has a different lifecycles from the different vendors.
So this is purely subjective and company’s policy based, rather than objective.
But I think we all agree here, that version and sub-version lifecycle of the Renoise are non-viable for the long therm.
This is really unbalanced which I think can cause the collapse.
I’m proposing to rethink this model, currently focus on upgrade version lifecycle and cost, and next on a technical part, the future releases scope and specs.
This is what I would like to discuss here.
1 Like
Yes, but unfortunately, all these changes based on objectivity go through a subjective process, of what the creator wants or his concrete vision. In the end, it is as if the intention is to convince the creator to implement a particular thing, when perhaps the vision of the creator is very marked, according to his subjective conditions. I am talking directly about Renoise’s design (its features or specifications), not about other things, such as the business model. Deep down, it’s all about decisions, wishes or possibilities of someone.
Earlier I commented that it would be necessary for Renoise to have some substantial weight change to justify a price increase. I commented on the topic of inserting a video editor. This would probably need a price increase, because the creator of Renoise doesn’t have all the rights for the most used video formats, and things like that. Is an example.
If Renoise remains as until now, with subjective updates based on the decisions of its creator, it can continue to survive, as it has been basically doing since it was born.
Currently, the user is almost obsessed with updates. The companies have made this work like this. Change, change, change. So that the software is obsolete in a short time, with the excuse that it is necessary to improve it, almost as if to release version 1 it is a badly made software.
Changing the business model in a niche market, unfortunately, I don’t think it’s very feasible. To change it, it would be necessary to change the Renoise team (add more members). That implies investment (usually money borrowed or saved). Apparently, Renoise doesn’t have that strength (many sales), to afford more programmers. And a programmer must be paid, not exploid it.
It is based on a tracker. Today, most people who use Renoise (and other trackers) are not young people. You would have to convince another part of the market to buy a tracker. Let’s see how you do that. With word of mouth?
Let’s pretend that its creator raises the price to € 100 with the next update, which will be like any other update in the past. Will there be more sales? Less? Will people, with their subjective vision, protest?
I believe that Renoise is currently working within the possibilities of its creator. As long as this creator has energy, Renoise will continue to update. It’s as if everything that happens around doesn’t matter. It only depends on the creator of the software and his will.
To be clear, Renoise “is taktik”. It will be what he wants. If the user wants a subscription model with more periodic updates, he will have to tell this man to hire another programmer at least or change your life. Spend your money on Renoise to get more money. Is this viable in a niche market? Does this man have time for this?
This is basically a very complex issue. Today, any user wants to learn everything very quickly. Any stupidity can be an excuse to not buy a product. Take a young user profile (broad market to look at), and introduce Renoise. Most do not even know that it exists. They will buy Ableton, FL Studio or Logic, which are pirated programs, with a lot of publicity, and thanks to these two things everybody knows them.
Look at the market and the business model… Pro Tools has just announced a revolutionary update for its software: “add folders for your tracks”, in order to keep your subscription model and keep all your customers happy with “a new update”. Curious! But it seems like a bad joke.
So what model do you propose? What specifications do you propose so that Renoise doesn’t die??
From a conceptual point of view, Renoise is a software almost finished, completed, with errors (like any other DAW), and with possibilities of improvement in aspects that do not transform the software (as it would be to add a video editor). All this is based on a subjective vision (someone’s wishes). If it continues to be updated, it is forced (the operating system changes, the hardware changes). Then, it is possible that every 2 years or so receive an update (major or minor), to the extent that its creator wishes, that person who has all the rights of the software.
2 Likes
I’m proposing not to increase the price.
The income has two major streams – selling new licences and upgrades for existing customers, which is usually ~ 40% – 70% less the new licence price.
I have paid for the new licence almost 9 years ago. That’s the problem for the dev.
I’m proposing to create more logical upgrades/updates distribution timeline where existing customers will pay for the upgrades/updates within shorter period, say ~2-3 years.
Additional funds could be invested to hire a new dev, which will (potentially) shorten new feature development and more functionality of the app in the same period of time.
I believe to pay additional £30 – £40 in a 2–3 years isn’t a problem for most of the existing customers.
1 Like
Only for reflection. There was once not many months ago that a user proposed to do a crowdfunding campaign. You know, raise money to give it to the creator of Renoise (or something like that). This was alarmingly ignored by both parties, or had no significance.
I think the main reason was not to avoid the feeling that the software was going to die. The reason was to pay in some way for the buyer user to have “some control” over the new features. You know. Users agree so that certain features are improved / added (or removed). This idea clashes directly with the creator of the program, who probably wants full control. Hey! I pay you, but you must listen to me!
This is what is happening with other DAWs. The user asks, and the programmer (or team of programmers) listens, decides and implements. The user asks, because he understands that he has bought a software with support that implies periodic updates (such as the subscription). But this must be maintained. And this is where the matter is.
IMO, Renoise has never had a medium-sized business vision to obtain great benefits. It was rather the vision of a programmer-musician and some partners who decided to continue the legacy of another Spanish programmer who died too young, with more modern software with a vision of the future, if possible with a maintenance as cheap as possible, at least With the passage of time, because the software was not going to return much profit to keep “a team” for a long time.
Redux is another software package to “keep the ship afloat”, as another alternative to continue using a tracker in other “more modern” DAWs.
On the other hand, Renoise has no competition. There is no other DAW based on a tracker that is similar. Therefore, there is no hurry to change anything. There is no pressure in this regard, nor will there be.
I don’t know economic data about Renoise. I only know that it is very cheap software for everything it offers and that its creator is extraordinarily generous with all its clients, and that it does not want to be tied, because it has its own life to live.
2 Likes
I don’t think it’s a problem for the dev, because he could change this. I would be surprised if @taktik makes a living of Renoise, i guess it’s more a project for his heart and not for his pocket. He also has a family, hobbies and of course other work to do.
Ask yourself a question. What does Renoise really miss that can’t be solved otherwise and has to be part of Renoise?
I guess the main goal for @taktik is to keep Renoise working stable on modern operating systems the way it do in it’s momentary state. Every new feature is a bonus.
I don’t see any reason for asking that question to myself.
I have all the functionality in Renoise I need at the moment (excluding the UI drawing problem, I think because of the Catalina dropped OpenGL/CL support).
Of cause there is always a room to expand.
So then, don’t worry about the future of Renoise and enjoy it. 
2 Likes
I don’t see any logic with you previous question and this conclusion.