Duet Display for iPad Gains 'Pro' Drawing Features

[melorama]

HUH?!?! Adobe did this for more than 20-years. They switched over to to subscription because they knew they would make more money, a lot more money...not to better develop their software.

No. The reason why they switched to a subscription model is because people simply will not "purchase" software anymore at the up-front prices that they used to pay for them (and the people who wouldn't pay for them simply resorted to piracy). It can be debated that iOS/Mac App Store pricing models was the most significant contributor to this proverbial "race to the bottom", in terms of software pricing, but it certainly didn't help.

Listen to every single user and they will say that Adobe apps have suffered since they switched.

I have been a user of Adobe apps, every single day of the week for the past 20 years (After Effects, Premiere and Photoshop), and nothing can be further from the truth. Since the Creative Cloud subscription model, the frequency of new features and improvements to these apps is nothing short of spectacular. Where we used to have to wait (and complain) a couple of years just for an important bugfix or a useful, but not sexy-for-marketing feature, these things now come out at a relatively breakneck speed.

You can love or hate subscription models, but you certainly can't say that Adobe is doing it just as a cynical money grab. They're doing it because it's the only real way to sustain the development of a complex software suite these days, because even otherwise reasonable people have a hard time paying $3.99 for an iOS app, let alone over $1000 for a productivity app that can actually help you recoup your costs of the software. This is the current reality of the software development game, in 2016.

I would also have to guess that the subscription model has all but eliminated the majority of instances of piracy among working professionals, which was shockingly rampant in the pre-subscription days.
[doublepost=1477419839][/doublepost]

Adobe after effects has been suffering a lot in the last 2 years. Real time playback no longer works correctly and they keep saying it's coming as a "new feature" but yet it's still broken.

As a daily user of AE, I agree with this. It's super annoying. But AE has over 20 years of legacy code baggage that Adobe basically needs to destroy and rebuild from scratch in this regard. They can't just "fix" this as a dot-update, because the rendering and playback engine is so integral to the entire app. From the sounds of it, they are literally building a whole new architecture from the ground up. Doing that without breaking a ton of other things isn't the easiest thing in the world to do, and releasing it in a less-than-bulletproof state would be a PR disaster.

Adobe has a lot of faults, but I just dont agree with the idea that they are all just throwing piles of cash on their beds and rolling around naked on it.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Lost me at "subscription" - Sorry

 

[phillyboy82]

HUH?!?! Adobe did this for more than 20-years. They switched over to to subscription because they knew they would make more money, a lot more money...not to better develop their software. Listen to every single user and they will say that Adobe apps have suffered since they switched.

Developers make more money by developing better software and offering the upgrades at a lower price to people that update than the new clients.

Software is a "product" not a "service". Netflix is a "service" not a "product".

You just defined product and service along your own arbitrary lines. Try again.

Also:

Adobe software selling prices: $1000+

Duet Pro: $20

Are you seriously comparing the two?

Also:

Jesus Christ tightasses it's TWENTY DOLLARS PER YEAR for software that people are going to use for their professional jobs. TWENTY DOLLARS PER YEAR FOR PEOPLE TO USE, THE SAME PEOPLE WHO ALSO BOUGHT $1000 iPADS. Get some perspective...

 

[turbineseaplane]

Jesus Christ tightasses it's TWENTY DOLLARS PER YEAR for software that people are going to use for their professional jobs. TWENTY DOLLARS PER YEAR FOR PEOPLE TO USE, THE SAME PEOPLE WHO ALSO BOUGHT $1000 iPADS. Get some perspective...

It's not a "tight ass" thing in so far as that we are all getting subscription fatigue mainly. If you start adding things up, it becomes a daunting amount of "per month" for everything.

I'm happy to pay year over year - But not as a subscription. I want to own the current copy and be able to choose for myself if the yearly upgrade is compelling enough to justify more money.

 

[superberg]

Jesus Christ tightasses it's TWENTY DOLLARS PER YEAR for software that people are going to use for their professional jobs. TWENTY DOLLARS PER YEAR FOR PEOPLE TO USE, THE SAME PEOPLE WHO ALSO BOUGHT $1000 iPADS. Get some perspective...

Some people have things called "budgets," where they set aside only a specific amount of money every week/month/year for the things they want. They buy a new computer or tablet every few years, not every release.

Owning a $1,000 tablet does not mean one has money to burn. It could simply mean one is frugal in other ways in order to get the things that they want.

Software-as-a-service is starting to bleed people dry.

More to the point, Duet Display is a decent app, but I'm not paying an annual subscription for pencil functionality. It's neither responsive enough nor high resolution enough to be worth paying for over and over again. A 13" Cintque has greater performance for less than the cost of a Pro+Pencil+Duet.

 

[coolfactor]

We have a ton of future improvements, upgrades, and new features we are working on, and want to resource for that. It's a sophisticated product that requires constant updates.

And honestly, I think subscription is far better for the customer. Instead of the one time large purchase, we have to continuously earn your business, so we will focus on making the product better instead of marketing to new customers.

Yes, many people don't understand the constant investment that developers make into apps, just to keep their "customers" happy. Think about this — a customer buys an app once, and then expects updates for free... possibly forever. How does a developer run his/her business that way? It's not realistic. What's the alternative, that each new release come with a new purchase price? Users don't like that approach either. They want free, and they feel that a one-time payment is "enough". So the business is faced with having to constantly increase market share, but there's only so much that can be done.

A software subscription price may not be attractive, but as you say, it's far better than a large one-time purchase price. $20 a year is ... $1.67 per month. People waste more than that every day on stuff they _don't_ need. #perspective

 

[Bob Zimmerman]

And honestly, I think subscription is far better for the customer. Instead of the one time large purchase, we have to continuously earn your business, so we will focus on making the product better instead of marketing to new customers.

That is somewhat valid, but the big counterpoint is that subscriptions are easy to leave in a steady state. People typically default to inaction, and with a subscription system, inaction means another payment. Because of this, subscriptions for most software (such as Adobe CC) strike me as abusive on-par with casinos and microtransactions in games.

I am fine with subscriptions for a service such as the oft-cited Netflix. Also fine with things like support contracts (You want to open a trouble ticket? Buy a subscription.). When we get to software that talks between a machine I own and another machine I own with no machines anybody else owns involved, subscriptions to maintain steady-state functionality are not okay with me.

I understand your point. I agree with your right to make a living. I do not agree that subscriptions are the right way to do this. I recognize my disagreement may partially come from a lack of perspective, as I do not make my living in the same market.

 

[coolfactor]

Software-as-a-service is starting to bleed people dry.

Yes, you have a good point. I don't think Software-as-a-service is the real problem, but the nickle-and-diming that consumers are faced with now. A couple of dollars here, a couple of dollars there... constantly... like a constant trickle that is a drain on one's resources.

I think there's an opportunity for a new way to approach this problem, rather than trying to get rid of the cause (many small payments to various vendors).

 

[jimbobb24]

We have a ton of future improvements, upgrades, and new features we are working on, and want to resource for that. It's a sophisticated product that requires constant updates.

And honestly, I think subscription is far better for the customer. Instead of the one time large purchase, we have to continuously earn your business, so we will focus on making the product better instead of marketing to new customers.

I pay a subscription for a piano teaching program that is much more expensive than this app. This app could seriously help with my job if the pencil works smoothly.

I think a subscription is reasonable if they update regularly. If they do subscription AND have new versions you need to pay for that is junk. But some of these apps are very expensive to make and maintain. This is not candy crush - the price reflects the effort. Well it does for the piano app so I hope the yearly fee reflects that here. If it works for my job $20 a year is a steal.

 

[phillyboy82]

Some people have things called "budgets," where they set aside only a specific amount of money every week/month/year for the things they want. They buy a new computer or tablet every few years, not every release.

Owning a $1,000 tablet does not mean one has money to burn. It could simply mean one is frugal in other ways in order to get the things that they want.

I'm not buying it - someone who purchases a $1000 iPad can pay $20/year. Period. You presented an edge case argument at best - your priorities are not where they should be for your "budget" if you cannot afford to spend that on software you "want" if it means giving up other amenities.

Software as a service is the only way that professional productivity applications (Adobe, Duet Pro, 1Password, Office, Omnisuite, etc. etc. etc.) are going to survive in the future. People think they can buy software and have it "for life" but then conveniently forget about the concept called software maintenance (which isn't free - the developers have to "budget" for that too...).

Read this for perspective:

https://stratechery.com/2013/adobes-subscription-model-why-platform-owners-should-care/

 

[melorama]

Some people have things called "budgets," where they set aside only a specific amount of money every week/month/year for the things they want. They buy a new computer or tablet every few years, not every release.

Owning a $1,000 tablet does not mean one has money to burn. It could simply mean one is frugal in other ways in order to get the things that they want.

Software-as-a-service is starting to bleed people dry.

More to the point, Duet Display is a decent app, but I'm not paying an annual subscription for pencil functionality. It's neither responsive enough nor high resolution enough to be worth paying for over and over again. A 13" Cintque has greater performance for less than the cost of a Pro+Pencil+Duet.

I think you've passionately explained an otherwise simple concept: If you don't find the product useful enough to pay for its creation or continued development, then don't buy it.

But your complaint about the performance of DD aside, it can't be over emphasized that Applications don't just grow on magical Application trees whose fruits you can pick at whatever cost you want. Hundreds/thousands of hours of time are spent writing code, debugging, researching etc. In addition, there is there is the cost of being an Apple Developer (Developer ID, and Apple's 30% cut), business licenses, taxes, advertising and other costs of promotion.

You don't just create an app as good as DD by hacking away on Xcode over a couple of weekends. Paying $1.67 a month to support the development of the app seems like a silly thing to be complaining about, especially when you consider the alternative scenario of the developer discontinuing the app because they couldn't financially sustain it's development.

 

[Nuvi]

We have a ton of future improvements, upgrades, and new features we are working on, and want to resource for that. It's a sophisticated product that requires constant updates.

And honestly, I think subscription is far better for the customer. Instead of the one time large purchase, we have to continuously earn your business, so we will focus on making the product better instead of marketing to new customers.

Thats an epic fail right there. FYI you are not Adobe, Microsoft, Avid or some cloud based service company. Instead of subscriptions you should use upgrade path. Make your iOS client free and charge the fee to unlock the Mac client. Saved 30% right there for you guys...

 

[duervo]

Wait, what?!?! $20 a year? That's a joke right. I'll stick to Astropad with no yearly "rental" fee.

I have AstroPad. It's nifty, but one feature I wish it had (that this one does) is support for Windows, as I use a mix of both macOS and Windows devices. No way I'm going to pay $20/year for this though. It's enough already to be paying for Office 365, iCloud Storage, Apple Music, and Netflix.

Maybe if it was $10/year ... maybe.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

$20.00/month subscription??? They must be out of their minds!
Subscriptions are for magazines and newspapers, online services, etc. Not for functionality.

 

[duervo]

$20.00/month subscription??? They must be out of their minds!
Subscriptions are for magazines and newspapers, online services, etc. Not for functionality.

Where does it say "per month"? (I must've missed it.)
[doublepost=1477424573][/doublepost]

HUH?!?! Adobe did this for more than 20-years. They switched over to to subscription because they knew they would make more money, a lot more money...not to better develop their software. Listen to every single user and they will say that Adobe apps have suffered since they switched.

Developers make more money by developing better software and offering the upgrades at a lower price to people that update than the new clients.

Software is a "product" not a "service". Netflix is a "service" not a "product".

Well, come on now ... that's not 100% entirely true. While it's partially true, it's only so with the understanding that Adobe lost potential revenue due to piracy. They are, in a way, "making money" with their subscription model by reducing the amount of piracy, but that is in no way the same thing as what you're suggesting.

I do agree that the argument about doing it to get additional development resources was most likely not the driving force behind adopting a subscription model. It was an effort to recoup their suspected lost revenue from piracy, while simultaneously reducing the amount of piracy. The "additional developmental resources" is a fringe benefit as a result of getting that "lost revenue" back, and is not the driving force behind going to a subscription model.

However, this product mentioned in this article ... well, that is a money grab pure and simple. It doesn't have the market presence that Adobe has, so can't really say it's to reduce piracy at all, and let's face it ... if you didn't have a tablet, would buy a tablet to use this software? I sure as hell wouldn't. Would a professional design company buy tablets just to use this software? ... I dunno ... maybe, but I can guarantee that any market that represents is a lot smaller than the consumer market. Is it big enough to sustain their business now and into the future? Who knows. My thumb in the air guess would say, "probably not". They'll either launch new products to diversify and grow their user base, or get bought by a bigger company, or fade away. Time will tell.

 

[subjonas]

We have a ton of future improvements, upgrades, and new features we are working on, and want to resource for that. It's a sophisticated product that requires constant updates.

And honestly, I think subscription is far better for the customer. Instead of the one time large purchase, we have to continuously earn your business, so we will focus on making the product better instead of marketing to new customers.

Good argument for the subscription model. It's true there are some advantages for the customer, and you pointed out a compelling one. But on the flip side, some customers don't need constant updates. Some only need core functionality. It doesn't make much sense for them to be paying a continual subscription for updates that never change their use case. (And I'm talking about subscription software in general, not just Duet.) Some just want to buy a tool and keep it in their posession to use or not use as they see fit, and don't need to improve upon the tool. Or if they do, they'll decide at that time whether or not they want to upgrade. I think the main reason subscriptions are becoming so prevalent is that it benefits companies to have that steady source of income. Yes, it also benefits some customers, and other customers don't think much about it but are just drawn to the low up front cost, but for others, it doesn't make efficient use of their money, because the software completely disappears after they stop paying, and that doesn't sit well.
In my opinion it makes much more sense to offer a one time purchase for the base software, optional one time purchase upgrade packages, plus maybe an optional subscription on top of those one time purchases for those who want the constant updates. And whenever you stop subscribing, that's the software you end up with. Your money didn't vanish. Fair.

That said, I want to say, I'm VERY interested in what you guys are doing. I have regular Duet Display now which is very handy. I also have Astropad but the lack of second display is troublesome. I may get this Pro version, even if it's only subscription, simply because I need the functionality and there is no better option. Keep up the good work! (But please consider one time purchase models..)

 

[phillyboy82]

I have AstroPad. It's nifty, but one feature I wish it had (that this one does) is support for Windows, as I use a mix of both macOS and Windows devices. No way I'm going to pay $20/year for this though. It's enough already to be paying for Office 365, iCloud Storage, Apple Music, and Netflix.

Maybe if it was $10/year ... maybe.

Thats an epic fail right there. FYI you are not Adobe, Microsoft, Avid or some cloud based service company. Instead of subscriptions you should use upgrade path. Make your iOS client free and charge the fee to unlock the Mac client. Saved 30% right there for you guys...

Why does it matter that they are not a big giant software company or some cloud based service company? Hell they can rent the cloud nowadays, did you know that? *mind blown*

You guys really like making a mountain out of a molehill here. Go buy Astropad and vote with your wallet if this is such a big deal. These guys need to eat and actually make money and this is what they are going with. Instead of trying to reach a million buyers with the next "hit" app they realize it is going to be a small user base so that changes the economics of things.

Disclaimer: I own an iPad and do not own either Astropad or Duet Display. I just like trolling emotional macrumors threads.

 

[Zimmy68]

Help me out, I'm scanning the article over and over and missed the part where current owners of the product are grandfathered in, like 1Password.

So people who already paid for the Pro (only) version previously get nothing that someone paying $10 today does?

Nice way to treat your customers!

 

[rahulda1]

Good argument for the subscription model. It's true there are some advantages for the customer, and you pointed out a compelling one. But on the flip side, some customers don't need constant updates. Some only need core functionality. It doesn't make much sense for them to be paying a continual subscription for updates that never change their use case. (And I'm talking about subscription software in general, not just Duet.) Some just want to buy a tool and keep it in their posession to use or not use as they see fit, and don't need to improve upon the tool. Or if they do, they'll decide at that time whether or not they want to upgrade. I think the main reason subscriptions are becoming so prevalent is that it benefits companies to have that steady source of income. Yes, it also benefits some customers, and other customers don't think much about it but are just drawn to the low up front cost, but for others, it doesn't make efficient use of their money, because the software completely disappears after they stop paying, and that doesn't sit well.
In my opinion it makes much more sense to offer a one time purchase for the base software, optional one time purchase upgrade packages, plus maybe an optional subscription on top of those one time purchases for those who want the constant updates. And whenever you stop subscribing, that's the software you end up with. Your money didn't vanish. Fair.

That said, I want to say, I'm VERY interested in what you guys are doing. I have regular Duet Display now which is very handy. I also have Astropad but the lack of second display is troublesome. I may get this Pro version, even if it's only subscription, simply because I need the functionality and there is no better option. Keep up the good work! (But please consider one time purchase models..)

That's a great point and honestly if you stuck to one version of macOS, one version of iOS, and one version of Photoshop, our product would probably not break. But the sand beneath us moves and it is far simpler for a professional to pay just over a buck a month and have the latest app that won't break.

 

[Nuvi]

Software as a service is the only way that professional productivity applications (Adobe, Duet Pro, 1Password, Office, Omnisuite, etc. etc. etc.) are going to survive in the future. People think they can buy software and have it "for life" but then conveniently forget about the concept called software maintenance (which isn't free - the developers have to "budget" for that too...).

You know that worlds most profitable and biggest companies are tech companies? So your worry about these companies going belly up is bit far fetched or some form of borderline paranoia. Anyway, have you ever heard about upgrade pricing? It was kind of popular concept before some greedy bastards got an bright idea of copying one particular concept from old media - the subscription model. However, these bastards were even more clever than old media guys. Instead of giving out release schedules they give promises like:

We have a ton of future improvements, upgrades, and new features we are working on, and want to resource for that. It's a sophisticated product that requires constant updates.

WTF!?! "We have ton of future improvements, upgrades and...". Seriously, is that kilo ton of future improvements or WTF are you talking about?!? Since I should now pay a subscription I would very much like to know exactly what I'm subscribing into. What these guys are now selling is snake oil and hot air. It seems that many software companies don't even understand what subscription model and SaaS means and requires. To them its quick way to make more money even if their product is really not fitting SaaS model.

 

[rahulda1]

Help me out, I'm scanning the article over and over and missed the part where current owners of the product are grandfathered in, like 1Password.

So people who already paid for the Pro (only) version previously get nothing that someone paying $10 today does?

Nice way to treat your customers!

Hey, so sorry about the confusion. New customers get exactly what old customers do, no functionality has been removed.

Users can even use the Apple Pencil as a touch device for free. The only features that require a subscription are pressure & tilt sensitivity, which has never been released.

 

[melorama]

Help me out, I'm scanning the article over and over and missed the part where current owners of the product are grandfathered in, like 1Password.

So people who already paid for the Pro (only) version previously get nothing that someone paying $10 today does?

Nice way to treat your customers!

It's responses like this that are an unfortunate byproduct of software developers that attempt to fairly balance the need for keeping their product's development sustainable and profitable, while at the same time not completely alienating their existing user base.

That anyone would complain about having to pay $1.67 a month in order to continue to support the development of an app they probably already paid a fair-for-the-user "up front" cost, is absolutely mind boggling. It's one thing if you only use this app 2-3 times a year, in which case, I can understand the complaints. But if this is an app you use all the time, complaining about a measly $1.67 a month is no different from you expecting a restaurant to give you free meals for a year, just because you paid a lot of money for a meal at the same restaurant over a year ago.

"They" aren't treating their customers unfairly. You are being unfair to a developer who--to continue to the food analogies--needs to put food on their table, which still being able to sustain the development of the app.

 

[Traverse]

Wow! I am stoked for this!

 

[duervo]

Why does it matter that they are not a big giant software company or some cloud based service company? Hell they can rent the cloud nowadays, did you know that? *mind blown*

You guys really like making a mountain out of a molehill here. Go buy Astropad and vote with your wallet if this is such a big deal. These guys need to eat and actually make money and this is what they are going with. Instead of trying to reach a million buyers with the next "hit" app they realize it is going to be a small user base so that changes the economics of things.

Disclaimer: I own an iPad and do not own either Astropad or Duet Display. I just like trolling emotional macrumors threads.

Thanks for the disclaimer ... muy agradecido

 

[Zimmy68]

It's responses like this that are an unfortunate byproduct of software developers that attempt to fairly balance the need for keeping their product's development sustainable and profitable, while at the same time not completely alienating their existing user base.

That anyone would complain about having to pay $1.67 a month in order to continue to support the development of an app they probably already paid a fair-for-the-user "up front" cost, is absolutely mind boggling. It's one thing if you only use this app 2-3 times a year, in which case, I can understand the complaints. But if this is an app you use all the time, complaining about a measly $1.67 a month is no different from you expecting a restaurant to give you free meals for a year, just because you paid a lot of money for a meal at the same restaurant over a year ago.

"They" aren't treating their customers unfairly. You are being unfair to a developer who--to continue to the food analogies--needs to put food on their table, which still being able to sustain the development of the app.

Sorry you feel that way.

As a consumer, when I invest in a full priced IOS app, I expect a complete app.
The worst thing you can do, and a huge slap in the face to legacy customers, is add a feature and bolt on an in app purchase, (never mind a subscription!)

That is just how I see it.

Go ahead and make a Duet Display 2 and charge $100 for it with $200/yr subscription, I will happily ignore it.
Just don't come and say, hey loyal early customer, thanks for the $20, we are adding a cool new feature but that is extra. And as a bonus, the people who got here late to the party get in for half price.
Sucks to be you, but again, thanks!

You can't have it both ways in my eyes.