New licensing options

Regarding "install and use the Software for your internal business purposes on one central processing unit (CPU) per single developer to enable the development of Licensee Content", does this mean you need to buy 3 licenses if work on Mac, PC and Linux?

I am using Bootcamp on a mac for my windows development, so the one CPU rule doesn't necessarily mean "only one OS".

This means rather that you can use it on one computer at a time, and to reinforce the fact that it is a per-seat license. 

You do need to buy separate licenses if you want to deploy on Android and iOS, but only one license is required per developer for Mac, Windows and Linux. 

That's right, the Projucer will complain if you use it on several machines at the same time, but you can use the code several machines while you work deploying across platforms.

Nice to hear.


BTW: Any ETA of the dsp module?

DSP is scheduled for Q1 2016. 

Thanks for the reply. I'm just shocked that if I bought a license yesterday I'd have saved $2000. 

The subscription model is not cost effective and is not favourably priced I don't think. To pay 2/3 of a full license in a year and own nothing seems like a bum deal. That said, I don't believe in renting software so I wouldn't see this as an option anyway.

the thing that scares me most about a 200% increase in cost is that buying in for $1000 is a risk worth taking if things don't work out. Buying in for $3000 is a hell of a lot for a sole trader. I'm also scared about buying into a platform and a company that would hike prices 200% without any warning. What if I buy in for $3000 and next year when 5 comes out its another $500 per platform to upgrade. I've never seen this kind of price hike before, and to explain it away with bug fixes and better support is quite weak. 

Ive been following juice for sometime now and only recently in the last couple of weeks committed time to it after finding a project that it was applicable for. What has happened in the last 24 hours has really changed my impression of what Juve is about. Seems like making money has become the prime objective since the takeover, which is fine if that's the case, but now something to be considered.

the proof of concept for my project will finish tomorrow and there would have been a license purchased as Juce does all I need, and very well. But at $3000 instead of £699 I just don't think I can justify that. To be fair, I expected some increases for 4 as I think the deal was very good value, but 200%  increase is kinda crazy - brilliant for existing customers, but making new customers pay for bugs to be fixed in a product they've not owned before....???

1 Like

In the past there’s been quite a while between major version numbers of JUCE. My concern is that there’s nothing in the agreement that defines the term in months. Personally, I’ll need a full license but have no interest in Projucer - so a Projucer-free license for all platforms would have been appreciated… The biggest incentive to buy the license right away, rather than wait until the project is complete, is prioritized support.

I do think there’s ambiguity in the agreement between the Software and the SDK/JUCE Framework… The agreement refers to decompiling the Software for instance and limitations on usage of the Software… But do those exact same limitations extend to the JUCE source code?



To be clear, commercial licence is not really cross-platform anymore, including android and ios, that's it?

Wow. thanks for the surprise, I would have bought it 2 days ago...  :(


1 Like

I echo the sentiment of leehu, mxf and others here.

I have worked for years on an evening-and-weekends project, which I plan to release in the coming months.

I've been wanting to do a public beta, but was holding out on a license, since I didn't have the money, and I expected that the ROLI aquisition would mean you want to attract a wider user base, and thus perhaps introduce friendlier prices. Instead what happened is the opposite.

I will of course pay for a license for the desktop release. But this new policy has made the Android and iOS platforms impossible for me - I don't have that money. And the subscription service is silly in this context. It is still a lot of money, and in the end after a year you have nothing.

So, yes, of course I'll buy a license, I am sitting on a huge pile of code I want to release. But, no, I will definitely not be releasing on Android and iOS anytime soon.

Thanks, Leehu. We completely understand the difficulty for a sole trader to pay upfront for tools, hence the monthly option. We understand also that the increase is quite steep, but so has been our investment to get the best JUCE 4 possible. 

I don't think however that the picture you draw is fair to the features that we're bringing to V4. And if you look around for alternatives,  you will see that JUCE is priced sensibly, especially given that JUCE is the only framework that truly focuses on real time and audio. We're certainly not asking people to pay for bug fixes, and if you look through this forum, you will see that requests are often about people's specific requirements, and that bugs are fixed diligently. 



Although I seem to be one of the lucky guys that bought the license just before the v4 upgrade got excluded I still think this new pricing model is not chosen very wisely. Before today I was thinking about releasing some of my stuff on iOS and Android knowing there isn't really much money to be made on these platforms with audio software. Prices per unit are too low on the mobile stores and you have to give a huge cut to the store owners. 

Seeing the price for the mobile platforms that will hit me once Juce 5 is released now will make me think again. Realizing that most code is shared between all platforms makes paying the full price three times seem a bit steep. It will most likely stop me from using Juce on mobile platforms in the future. For me Juce has lost an advantage with that and now the licensing feels like the old model the Unity Game Engine was using where you also had to pay for each platform separately.

I believe just having a desktop and a mobile license would have been enough. I know you guys have been working hard on the android part, but I think that's where you now have the worst deal. For pro-audio only a few devices are supported (so far), google play is a very hard place to earn anything and the Juce android license costs a full extra price. If there was just one mobile license, an android release would be less risky.

Overall I'm sorry to admit I'm a bit disappointed. I thought of Juce as a tool to bring platforms more closely together and maybe bring more pro-audio stuff to the mobile world and now licensing terms sort of work against that.


Lastly I have a question about Projucer.. I haven't tried it yet. Am I correct to assume it requires an internet connection to launch/run? The one-machine only thing certainly suggests that to me. Does this mean it's impossible to use Projucer on the road?



I'm no MBA but:

How about, an indie license for a grand which include all platforms, but none of the red-carpet treatment; and another license for those with money, which also gives preferential treatment to bugs and suggestions.

That way you get a tiered pricing strategy but without putting the indie devs off releasing on mobile platforms.

The important question here I think is how long do you think it will take to get to Juce 5?

Thanks for the reply. I don't wish to seem unfair and understand you are investing time and effort in developing the platform. I guess I'm just a bit frustrated. Personally, I don't really need any features of 4 currently. I'd even be happy if I could still buy a 3 license and upgrade to 4 in the future if needed. Seems like there are no options for this tho. 

As echoed in other responses below, maybe charging full price for your first platform and then %ages for additional platforms would be more reasonable rather than 100% for each platform.

for me, I'm doing mainly midi stuff at the moment and would be using Juce to ease cross compilation efforts for graphics etc.  Maybe you've hit the nail on the head with the points about real time audio and that Juce isn't really the correct platform as I'll not be taking advantage of these features.

I agree with onar3d.

For a casual plug-in developer that wants to test the market with a closed source product before investing to much, I think Juce have suddenly become less attractive. Which is a pity beacuse it's such a great product and certainly worth much more spread, something I don't think the new pricing policy will give it. Like suggested, I think there's room for additional license types; alongside the new one, apparently aimed at big companies with need for premium bug support and ditto feature requests, there ought to be room for a license type for non (or low) commercial companies or persons with hobby projects that don't have the need for projucers or premium support, but still don't want to go open source.

What about an additional license type aimed at non-commercial but closed source projects including all platforms and more in line with the previous price tag of £699? Then I think you would keep the indie developers but still get the money from the bigger companies.

wholeheartedly agree with this

I just want to echo dissapointment at the price increase. I have also been working for over a year on a project, evenings and weekends, and have made some small contributions to JUCE and Introjucer. I had been holding out buying a licence until my app was ready for beta testing. I am planning desktop, iOS and Android releases. £699 is a lot of money for me right now, but $3000 is an unwelcome surprise... even $147.00 per month to have my app on both Google Play and the App Store is not feasible for an app that may not bring in that much per month! 

It almost takes the attraction out of writing cross-platform apps - If this license model had been in place before I started development, I may well have decided to write each version using native mobile API's instead of going the cross-platform route with JUCE... 

Surely a cheaper option for indie developers would attract more licences and possibly balance out income for ROLI from JUCE?

Having said that I'm excited to try out Projucer. How long is the trial for?  

What about introducing the new pricing model at the summit? Or giving a flash "sale" on the new price for the next week? Thus allowing people that are actively involved in projects that may have budgeted on the old pricing model to have a chance to purchase a license immediately before the new pricing structure comes into effect...?

Or something along these lines... Although I still think multiple levels of license may also be a good thing in the long term...

I'm joining the voices of the independant developer, who I may incorrectly perceive to be the bulk of the JUCE users. This pricing scheme has me questioining my 6 year commitment using JUCE. I would love a more affordable price that does not include the Projucer, or the improved support, etc.