firmware upgrades with new features (major releases). the non subscibers should always get bugfix (minor releases). the firmware should be tied to a machine-id. to avoid circumventig subscriptions with “pirate” firmware.
2 Likes
This is interesting and the first time I remember reading about this.
2 Likes
I think the difficult parte in the “deal” is finding the sweet spot between what’s free and what’s under the paywall. Few people would pay for a physical device that requires a constant expense for it’s to be functional, but if the subscription service gives you back too little, few person will opt in to that…
Assuming the company goes open source for most of it software, which I think it’s the only solution, since 1) many people were drawn int MOD just for this 2) many independent plugin makers provided their work just for this 3) even some internal developers worked on the project just for this, let’s remember that free as in free speech does not mean free as in free beer.
More than one company living on open source have a software model that is based on a “community” software package, which is free, little officially supported, basic in features but fully functioning. That’s the entry level for people that do not want to pay the extra price and still can contribute with patches, imprvements and whatever. The “premium” software package adds some extra stuff for pro and experienced customers who are willing to cash extra money for very valuable features.
Being the MOD ecosystem already based on the online store that seems to be the most logical point where to act. There are already some commercial plugins.
I see also the Guitar Synth and Cardinal interesting enough to be put under the paywall: they are both so cool and peculiar to the MOD devices that I would personally pay a reasonable amount to have them, but they are appealing to a restricted part of the audience, so that thoese who do not want to pay for them will not feel cheated.
The same could be for advanced cabinet simulators, or advanced IR files for them. The AI pedalboard making software that has been discussed in another thread is another pretty good candidate.
Then premium curated pedalboards and lessons or tutorials seem a logical choice.
5 Likes
Just a thought but this really rubbed me the wrong way (MOD already had some paid plugins). To be fair, it’s probably because I compared MOD to Line6/Fractal/QC which offered a superior guitar-centric product without asking the user to pay anything beyond the price of the product.
Then again, Akai sells “packs” for their MPC line of products (which are perhaps a slightly closer comparison to the Dwarf), but from what I’ve read on their subreddit, many users seem to resent that.
Also, the current example of the store being down doesn’t really inspire confidence.
All that being said, I really don’t want to be a negative Nancy, so here’s an idea. The most attractive thing about MOD is the interface, which allows for fairly easy creation of complex routings. It’s kinda like a giant modular software synth, that regular human beings can actually understand, and make something usable with it, in just a few connections. Now, I need more audio plugins like I need a hole in the head, but if you decided to monetize MOD via exclusive paid plugins would the following be possible:
- You already have this implemented in Dwarf (mostly free, open-source plugin selection, some paid plugins).
- How hard would it be to port the Dwarf OS to Linux, and then eventually Windows platform (so that users can open MOD ecosystem inside their DAW)? Think Helix/HX Stomp vs. Helix Native. The box still has its advantages (portability, input designed for instruments, etc.) but Native has basically the same functionality.
- You could still make Dwarf valid beyond the above advantages (discounted paid plugins for example).
Since software development requires fewer resources and generates fewer problems than hardware, this may be a way to make the “plugin store” way of monetizing MOD more viable.
You could and probably should explore ways of monetizing things on top of that (the aforementioned “premium pedalboards” etc.). I realize this is essentially another “make more stuff” request, so let me clarify that you’d start implementing the new way of monetization with what you currently have - the Dwarf. I’m just saying that this could be the way of meaningfully expanding the user base, that could appear attractive to potential investors.
1 Like
I would never buy an unfinished product (which Dwarf and DuoX currently are, since compagnies tend to see users as permanent beta testers nowadays) for which I would have to pay for the updates.
C&G, Elektron, Make Noise, Polyend, none if them monetizes updates or upgrades. The cost of R&D is passed on to new final retail prices, which is fair.
Even when finished and refined, the perspective of purchasing a (rather expensive) unit, and then having to pay for its features, is what prevented me to go for stuff like the Eventide H9.
5 Likes
Maybe we should just put a survey out then we can all vote on what we think should happen next.
That way you have a finite answer to the question.
To be honest having thought about and read every response my answer is No Reboot. Move on. What you ask of the group is too much and what we ask of MOD is too much. The product was a good idea , some love it and some don’t, like every product out there.
Er … it is running Linux. And you can already run the entire OS from a usb drive on any amd64 computer → https://github.com/moddevices/mod-live-usb
There was already a survey at the start of this topic, with 543 responses, that has now been completed → MOD Reboot - Community Survey #1
1 Like
Sorry dreamer you were right - completely forgot, think I just got lost in the thread a bit. And yes I completed it.
Apologies
I know, but what I meant was a user-friendly (and/or business viable if you will) version that can be hosted inside a DAW, etc.
Frankly, though I do agree with @Austin73 that it’s probably game over, which sucks cause I think that the existence of MOD/Dwarf as a viable product would be good for consumers in general.
Rewriting the entire MOD stack to run as a plugin would take years of development time (if even deemed feasible). This doesn’t make any sense at this stage and I can’t imagine any investor thinking that would be a good focus of efforts.
@dreamer That’s fair. I’m not a dev, so that’s why I started by asking how feasible this is. Guess the last paragraph of my previous post still stands then. What about opening this version inside of a Linux machine, and routing it into a DAW track (disregarding the business viability of this admittedly, not a very user-friendly solution, I’m just wondering for myself)?
If MOD as a company is no more, given that it was largely open source, and what it produced could be repurposed by the users (as evidenced by this version that can be run on the USB stick) I wonder if it could make Linux more viable for music production. I know this is not an impossible use case for Linux, there are people out there making music with the OS, but as with everything Linux, the experience is not seamless.
I don’t have enough time in my day to divide it between using and troubleshooting my machine, so I never thought about daily driving Linux, but I’ve been itching to install one on my secondary machine for the longest time. If I could install some popular distro like Pop! Os, open something resembling MOD inside it and route it to a track in my DAW, that could be really cool. Perhaps cool enough to merit some time investment into learning new OS and troubleshooting the setup.
1 Like
Hi everyone
I have posted the survey results and our follow-up in this new topic:
6 Likes
I share your sentiment overall, as a user/consumer. However there are examples of products following this path (Peloton being one of them) that did find mass adoption. So although this bothers some users, it has been proven to be a viable business model.
This. The difficult part is finding out how many users are really willing to pay and how much revenue they can generate monthly. Ideally, in my opinion, we don’t want to depend so heavily on hardware sales. That would be the business model I think is more likely to survive and allow us to have time to grow.
Just let me make clear (again) that I too, as a user, hate paywalls, and I hate subscriptions. But I also rather have a product in a viable business model that pays the bills than not having a product at all.
One example I’ll give you about this (as a consumer) is a tennis store near where I live called Tennis Express. They have a few subscriptions that gives access to special deals, discounts and a few other perks. As a consumer, I honestly have no interest in paying them a monthly fee. However, I realized that if I don’t, then Amazon will eat their dinner. So I chose to pay them (it’s like $100/year) because I can, and because I want the physical store to exist so I have a place to walk around and see/try/shop tennis equipment. It’s a deliberate choice.
I really hope you don’t feel that way. This is not about squeezing maximum juice from our user base. It’s about finding a viable business model. I’d love to say that just selling hardware works. Without mass adoption, I don’t think it will. How can we work together and keep the company afloat until mass adoption finds us? Your sentiment here is important because if in the end that’s how everybody feels, then we have ultimately failed.
I think that would no longer be a problem because the company should be structured in such a way that recurring revenue pays the bills of the team responsible for software updates, cloud, content, etc. Producing more units, R&D and etc. would have to be financed some other way.
I think another business model that is starting to get traction is paying a recurring fee to get access to a bundle of professional plugins rather than buying perpetual licenses. This is exactly what Apple is doing with some level of success. Software, in general, is moving away from the perpetual license model and there are good reasons for it.
This isn’t a perfect solution though. There are a bunch of new problems with this idea. We could be in a situation where a user have to pay a fee or else they can’t do a gig which uses a pedalboard that has a plugin that is part of a paid bundle. That would be terrible. But maybe there’s a way, I’m not sure.
All in all, thanks for all the inputs and ideas.
6 Likes
I work in the fitness industry so this really caught my eye. Peloton has really suffered since the pandemic has loosened up, but they aren’t exactly broke either. However the thing to remember if using them as an example is that their users are paying for content: new videos come out on a regular basis, and access to the back catalog of video workouts.
That actually may be useful as a business model if you can produce the content cheaply enough and the content provides enough value. Of cource that’s a huge challenge, even for Peloton. For MOD the “content” that springs to mind is maybe pedalboards. Pay a fee and get access to the premium pedalboards with new ones coming out every week or so. Basically “get a new sound as a service.” Maybe though it will be too expensive to get someone sufficiently capable in sound design to do this. Or maybe there won’t be enough interest to get sufficient uptake. It will be extra challenging because a preset for a ambient post-rock guitarist will be “unuseable” to a metal band. Can you create enough value in the content that both would subscribe and feel like it’s worth it?
If you can get the value and price right though, there are fitness companies sending people hardware for free as long as they stay subscribed long enough. But I think it’s just a lot easier said than done.
And JFTR I hate subscription models too. 
2 Likes
To some extent, it would be much easier if we did business the old way by creating a device that has 100% of its feature defined before the unit reaches the shelves. With no online capabilities. Just play what you got.
That wasn’t our choice, though we wanted to test what if a device could connect to the cloud and do X? Now, what if it could do Y? And down that rabbit hole, it brought us to this predicament which feels like fitting a square object into a 20-point star hole.
6 Likes
I like the idea of paid updates. You get new features and you pay for them. That will help pay for the continuous improvements made by developers well after the device is purchased.
You could also change the store to a subscription based points for purchasing model. I’ve seen this before with a company called Poliigon who make 3D texture assets. You pay a monthly subscription which gives you a certain number of points per month that you can use to purchase assets. If you end the subscription, you still keep the assets you purchased with the points up until that point.
Audible operates in a similar way. You pay a subscription and you get one free book of your choice per month. When you end the subscription you still have those books you got.
With these models, there’s no break in usability if you don’t pay. You just don’t get something new.
13 Likes
This seems palatable, and preferable to an access model.
3 Likes
yes; i like it too!
it has the side benefit of incentivizing engaged ongoing usage of the device, since each update encourages you to reassess your dedication to the device itself, as well as to the particular benefits of its current (new) state.
3 Likes
It’s a reasonable reaction but I’ll offer that in my experience in the Headrush world, users will often purchase additional IR or rig (pedalboard) packs on top of their multi-hundred dollar device. The devices are platforms intended to give you a nice starting point. For some users the base model might be all they ever need and more. But most people who consider themselves more than hobbyist musicians tend to be opinionated and want have some appearance of uniqueness or personal style. They are willing to spend amounts that are a small percentage of the base price to customize their devices, much in the same way people will opt for various options in their car purchase.
From my own experience, I’ve purchased a handful of add-ons for my Pedalboard. I purchased some blues pedalboards that give a nice range of sounds out-of-the-box. I purchased a set of pedalboards to emulate the sound of a favorite artist and I found the default presets to be very recognizable and work without any fiddling for a range of songs. I’ve purchased a few IRs and other pedalboards that I liked the sound of in demos. I’m pretty sure I would have paid for similar offerings in the MOD world if the quality was decent. I’m one of the users who understands and loves the power under the hood, but as a working dad, kids coach, etc, I don’t have the time or motivation to figure out dialing in target tones as much as the geek in me would love to. So I’m pretty firmly in the “let me throw my money at the curated solutions” camp.
6 Likes
Got to admit this isn’t for me really. I own a Helix and ALL updates have been free and give more fx and features. Sure there are paid presets and IR’s that people love but most of us don’t buy them, well not enough to keep a hardware company afloat.
And surely the whole point of the MOD system is to be flexible beyond anything hardware out there. Not to be a HELIX or GT1000.
I have already paid for the dwarf, then paid import duty, then new power supply, di box , isolator I don’t think I want to be paying €50 euros for an update and a couple of blues presets. Or subscribe to ongoing content. Its good pedal but it’s just not that high on my agenda to keep throwing money at.
I’m sure I’m not the only one to feel this way and I’m sorry that I can’t help much more.
I do worry that even with 1600 enclosures waiting to go it’s just delaying the end. Pelton like teams etc had a huge subscription / sales due to Covid far above and beyond what was expected enabling them to growth and become stable. Mod on the other hand was battered by problems due to covid. The fan base, fanatical as it is not as strong.
2 Likes