One-off purchase of Audition

[nathananstice]

Hello! This has probably been asked before but can't see anything for it.

Just wondering if it is possible to purchase Audition as a one time purchase? I don't want to be paying each month for it as IMO that's just money grabbing nonsense. I love the older versions of Audition and have used them at a few workplaces previously, but would love to have the latest copy at home to use for some volunteering work I do for the local hospital radio. (Registered charity 508017 if interested).

Thanks

[emmrecs · Accepted solution]

All versions of Audtion after CS6 are strictly subscription only.  Yes, it is a pain!

[nathananstice]

Very much a pain, I would happily pay in the hundreds for this software as a one off, I just hate paying monthly, I can save up money to fund a one-off payment, but harder to save for regular IMO... Ah well, thanks for confirming my suspicions

[default0fkbi4v6jrar]

Are you kidding me? So if I have Audition for 5 years it's going to cost me $1,260.00!!!???

[SteveG_AudioMasters_]

If you have just Audition, then yes. It's a lot better value if you do what Adobe would like, and have the whole CC suite...

[SteveG_AudioMasters_]

And if you are wondering why it's like this, you can blame the US government fair and square. They rushed through the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation after the Enron scandal, with plainly inadequate scrutiny, and this forced all software makers into having to make an expensive declaration each year about any software they'd released in what was referred to as a 'final' release. Didn't take several companies very long to realise that if you don't declare any software as 'complete' you don't have to fill in the expensive form. The consequence of this is that in order to comply with Federal law, they can't actually 'sell' you a licence to use the software in perpetuity at all, because it's not declared as complete, finished or final or anything like that; this means that you are just renting a development version, which is all they can legally do. Sneaky, eh?

A lot of big companies actually like this, because then the software isn't a capital cost, but just a running expense.

[default0fkbi4v6jrar]

Thanks for your response.

The bottom line is companies like Adobe have seized an opportunity to make
a fortune and blame it on the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation instead of just filing
the required declaration each year about their software.

As always, big tech finds a loop hole and the consumer suffers!

[SteveG_AudioMasters_]

Sort-of. But the other way to look at it is that it keeps a regular income coming in, and the developers continue to be paid, so there are regular software updates. In terms of the whole suite, the licence fee isn't bad at all - it's just the single-app users who appear to be being punished. And it's always been like that, and people have complained about it since its inception.

The software updates are not just about improvements to the program - they are also about keeping it compatible with the operating systems it runs on, and since micro$oft and Apple keep changing things around all the time (they blame 'security issues'), it's reasonably important that these updates happen.

So yes it's a pain in some ways, but as long as you budget for it and get the use out of it, it's worth it - certainly for the whole suite anyway.

[Roberto219637966xjc]

I see, but at the end of the day, Adobe is loosing loads of money: I would have buy it because I would like to use it from time to time, but, although a wonderful product, I can't afford pay that much.

It could be useful only for people working with that everyday.

I don't know, it is really disappointing.

Roberto

[SteveG_AudioMasters_]

If Adobe was losing that much money, then they wouldn't be doing this. But they aren't - the big ticket users are delighted to be getting their software from their operating expenses budgets rather than their capital ones, and so it's kerching all the way for them and Adobe. We're talking about users with seats into 6-7 figures, not individuals here, and unfortunately they are the ones that count, not us.

So no, they're not losing money; they're making it, hand over fist.