Paid Subscriptions

[lconway]

I have to say, if it is true that all participants have to get the higher plans to use them, that seems a little overambitious. Why not do it like zoom, where the host needs to have the account, but the participants can then take part for free.

The whole idea of a growing community gets defeated that way. It was difficult enough to get colleagues to invest into the equipment needed and set it all up, now one also has to persuade them to pay monthly fees. That's not going to work, you are cutting off your user base that way.

I am not against paying for the service, but I don't think this has much of a future, if indeed it works like this.

Zoom is different from JK in one critical way. In Zoom the host is hosting and managing and presenting (or allowing presentations) while everyone else essentially observes. In a JK jam, everyone is actively engaged in playing: it's more of a collaboration than a presentation. That takes more resources than being a passive participant on Zoom. I think we're going to find out that a Gold or Platinum user can start sessions of any length and manage them (just like Zoom), lower-tier users are going to be able to join those sessions but will be limited in the number of hours per month (or per session for basic users). So they'll be able to join a session, but once their time runs out they'll be bumped. This doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

I do hope that there will be some sort of group plan though, where a Platinum user can start a session and others can pay maybe $5 per month and be allowed to play with their "group leader" (and other group members) for as much time as needed. That would work for band practice, choir practice, and lots of other group activities.

I'm also wondering about the teaching/learning tiers. I don't mind having to be a Platinum subscriber to teach, but it doesn't seem reasonable (or enforceable) to ask a student to be a Gold member if they're only there for a lesson once a week. Perhaps my $5 per month "group" suggestion would work for this purpose as well: we could establish a group for our students and they could pay for that tier or more if they chose.

Cindy Harris
Pittsburgh, PA

Cindy,

You wrote: So they'll be able to join a session, but once their time runs out they'll be bumped. This doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

This seems HIGHLY unreasonable to me. If I can't keep the group together for a full rehearsal despite my high tier subscription, why would I EVER buy that higher level? Rehearsal requires everyone be aboard. In fact, why would I use JK AT ALL in these conditions?

I have to concur with others who have commented on how this seems a "not ready for prime time" plan that is being launched prematurely. When I go the the DETAILS page, there aren't many. Every issue being discussed here has "Will write more on this later" as the description. Just not ready to answer the valid questions.

I support JK. I don't WANT to start with another service. But I will if things go badly here.

[StuartR]

I have to say, if it is true that all participants have to get the higher plans to use them, that seems a little overambitious. Why not do it like zoom, where the host needs to have the account, but the participants can then take part for free.

The whole idea of a growing community gets defeated that way. It was difficult enough to get colleagues to invest into the equipment needed and set it all up, now one also has to persuade them to pay monthly fees. That's not going to work, you are cutting off your user base that way.

I am not against paying for the service, but I don't think this has much of a future, if indeed it works like this.

Zoom is different from JK in one critical way. In Zoom the host is hosting and managing and presenting (or allowing presentations) while everyone else essentially observes. In a JK jam, everyone is actively engaged in playing: it's more of a collaboration than a presentation. That takes more resources than being a passive participant on Zoom. I think we're going to find out that a Gold or Platinum user can start sessions of any length and manage them (just like Zoom), lower-tier users are going to be able to join those sessions but will be limited in the number of hours per month (or per session for basic users). So they'll be able to join a session, but once their time runs out they'll be bumped. This doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

I do hope that there will be some sort of group plan though, where a Platinum user can start a session and others can pay maybe $5 per month and be allowed to play with their "group leader" (and other group members) for as much time as needed. That would work for band practice, choir practice, and lots of other group activities.

I'm also wondering about the teaching/learning tiers. I don't mind having to be a Platinum subscriber to teach, but it doesn't seem reasonable (or enforceable) to ask a student to be a Gold member if they're only there for a lesson once a week. Perhaps my $5 per month "group" suggestion would work for this purpose as well: we could establish a group for our students and they could pay for that tier or more if they chose.

Cindy Harris
Pittsburgh, PA

Cindy,

You wrote: So they'll be able to join a session, but once their time runs out they'll be bumped. This doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

This seems HIGHLY unreasonable to me. If I can't keep the group together for a full rehearsal despite my high tier subscription, why would I EVER buy that higher level? Rehearsal requires everyone be aboard. In fact, why would I use JK AT ALL in these conditions?

I have to concur with others who have commented on how this seems a "not ready for prime time" plan that is being launched prematurely. When I go the the DETAILS page, there aren't many. Every issue being discussed here has "Will write more on this later" as the description. Just not ready to answer the valid questions.

I support JK. I don't WANT to start with another service. But I will if things go badly here.

Larry,

You bring up some valid points. Please email your comments above to

support@Jamkazam.com

Don't assume they'll necessarily see them here.

[rswiv]

I have to say, if it is true that all participants have to get the higher plans to use them, that seems a little overambitious. Why not do it like zoom, where the host needs to have the account, but the participants can then take part for free.

The whole idea of a growing community gets defeated that way. It was difficult enough to get colleagues to invest into the equipment needed and set it all up, now one also has to persuade them to pay monthly fees. That's not going to work, you are cutting off your user base that way.

I am not against paying for the service, but I don't think this has much of a future, if indeed it works like this.

Zoom is different from JK in one critical way. In Zoom the host is hosting and managing and presenting (or allowing presentations) while everyone else essentially observes. In a JK jam, everyone is actively engaged in playing: it's more of a collaboration than a presentation. That takes more resources than being a passive participant on Zoom. I think we're going to find out that a Gold or Platinum user can start sessions of any length and manage them (just like Zoom), lower-tier users are going to be able to join those sessions but will be limited in the number of hours per month (or per session for basic users). So they'll be able to join a session, but once their time runs out they'll be bumped. This doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

RSWIV:  Please note the difference between Zoom Meetings where everyone is participating simultaneously and Zoom Webinars where a host or co-host is presenting and just taking questions.

I do hope that there will be some sort of group plan though, where a Platinum user can start a session and others can pay maybe $5 per month and be allowed to play with their "group leader" (and other group members) for as much time as needed. That would work for band practice, choir practice, and lots of other group activities.

I'm also wondering about the teaching/learning tiers. I don't mind having to be a Platinum subscriber to teach, but it doesn't seem reasonable (or enforceable) to ask a student to be a Gold member if they're only there for a lesson once a week. Perhaps my $5 per month "group" suggestion would work for this purpose as well: we could establish a group for our students and they could pay for that tier or more if they chose.

Cindy Harris
Pittsburgh, PA

[Johannes]

Zoom is different from JK in one critical way. In Zoom the host is hosting and managing and presenting (or allowing presentations) while everyone else essentially observes. In a JK jam, everyone is actively engaged in playing: it's more of a collaboration than a presentation. That takes more resources than being a passive participant on Zoom. I think we're going to find out that a Gold or Platinum user can start sessions of any length and manage them (just like Zoom), lower-tier users are going to be able to join those sessions but will be limited in the number of hours per month (or per session for basic users). So they'll be able to join a session, but once their time runs out they'll be bumped. This doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

I am sorry, but this is simply not quite true. Anyone who has a payed member$p with Zoom can make others Co-Hosts, and they can do everything that the Host can do, including managing the session, presenting, sharing screens, invite participants, mute participants, you name it. We do this all the time in education, for instance for guest lectures. This is exactly what I think JK should support.

Also, Zoom just stops the session after 45min if you are not a paying member, but it doesn't give you a tiny monthly allowance, which I think is a ridiculous idea for JamKazam. It took us as many hours to get everything working in the first place. 

I would actually become a Platinum user if this kind of hosting was allowed. I think that way JamKazam could really make an impact, especially in teaching, but also in rehearsing situations.

With the current schemes I will only last as long as there isn't another option that works, and I believe there are some like SoundJack which look very promising. My guess is that JamKazam will not survive, unless they allow hosting in the way suggested.

[StuartR]

Zoom is different from JK in one critical way. In Zoom the host is hosting and managing and presenting (or allowing presentations) while everyone else essentially observes. In a JK jam, everyone is actively engaged in playing: it's more of a collaboration than a presentation. That takes more resources than being a passive participant on Zoom. I think we're going to find out that a Gold or Platinum user can start sessions of any length and manage them (just like Zoom), lower-tier users are going to be able to join those sessions but will be limited in the number of hours per month (or per session for basic users). So they'll be able to join a session, but once their time runs out they'll be bumped. This doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

I am sorry, but this is simply not quite true. Anyone who has a payed member$p with Zoom can make others Co-Hosts, and they can do everything that the Host can do, including managing the session, presenting, sharing screens, invite participants, mute participants, you name it. We do this all the time in education, for instance for guest lectures. This is exactly what I think JK should support.

Also, Zoom just stops the session after 45min if you are not a paying member, but it doesn't give you a tiny monthly allowance, which I think is a ridiculous idea for JamKazam. It took us as many hours to get everything working in the first place. 

I would actually become a Platinum user if this kind of hosting was allowed. I think that way JamKazam could really make an impact, especially in teaching, but also in rehearsing situations.

With the current schemes I will only last as long as there isn't another option that works, and I believe there are some like SoundJack which look very promising. My guess is that JamKazam will not survive, unless they allow hosting in the way suggested.

I've brought the possibility of a hosting subscription tier to the JK team. I think they are open to the idea.

[lconway]

I've also interacted with Dave about the idea of some "group" or "controlling" level rate that would allow the host's plan to control the group's access. Without something like this, any larger groups will find another option of necessity. He did not dismiss the idea or agree to it. I'm cautiously hopeful.

Larry

[rhalgaln@gmail.com]

Dear Jamkazam,
I'm fine with subscription, but payment method with only credit card makes me feel uncomfortable.
Especially as the Information ist routed somewhere (recurly)

How about amazon payment, facebook payment or paypal ?

I think I will stay off subscription until there are alternatives to giving my creditcard credentials somewhere.
I do not trust the form in JamKazam and I have no Idea about recurly.

Or let us make an account at recurly and then put a recurly id to Jamkazam.

[Don Cody]

I would suggest that JamKazam needs to: (1) provide more clarity regarding the relevance of higher bit-rates allowed in higher paid tiers (normally 128kbps is enough for good audio, as in MP3 files, but presumable it degrades faster when there's Internet congestion and latency); (2) provide a more modern user interface with user-friendly menues and more recommendations for choosing among configuration options (including differentiating between recommended vs. use with caution), and with more complete recommendations for choosing adequate and appropriate personal hardware configurations and network speeds/settings; (3) provide the option for subscribers to opt out of recurring charges unless authorized every month or every year (it's not clear that this option will exist - but no one likes a surprise charge a month or year later); and (3) improve software testing and versioning control (In my information technology management career, i.e. the career that actually made lots of money - lol, I've never seen software that had so many and so frequent version updates - typically there is more robust software update testing and staging before it is put into production).  Additionally, I would add that people are unlikely to subscribe or continue to subscribe if the software remains as buggy as it has been - which defeats the purpose of raising revenue for improvements.  I presume that JamKazam will use a distributed, multi-tiered computer platform approach to minimize performance issues (which doesn't come cheaply).  The platform needs to move to stability quickly if JamKazam expects to have paid subscribers.  Musicians will be willing to support development of this platform - but not if it continues to fall short when more than a few join any one session and latency problems, drop outs and other serious performance degradation begins to occur.

[backinterrapin]

Dear Jamkazam,
I'm fine with subscription, but payment method with only credit card makes me feel uncomfortable.
Especially as the Information ist routed somewhere (recurly)

How about amazon payment, facebook payment or paypal ?

I think I will stay off subscription until there are alternatives to giving my creditcard credentials somewhere.
I do not trust the form in JamKazam and I have no Idea about recurly.

Or let us make an account at recurly and then put a recurly id to Jamkazam.

It's all about PCI-DSS compliance. recurly.com is PCI-DSS compliant. From their web site page: https://recurly.com/product/security-and-compliance/ 

Your merchant bank account requires your business to be PCI compliant, and Recurly helps you meet those requirements. Recurly is PCI-DSS Level 1 compliant, the highest level of security a business can offer. Cardholder data is sent directly to Recurly to minimize risk to your business. Recurly meets and exceeds all industry-standard payment security practices to protect you and your customers.

[Johannes]

Has the scheme actually been activated? Is there a way to see how much of the free time has been used up?

I really think JK is shooting itself in the foot if there aren't going to be host accounts where one person pays and invites, and the others can take part for free in the session, unlimited and with high enough quality and recording enabled for the host (and with the WAV files saved locally by all participants.

For this I am happy to pay the platinum fee.

For teaching accounts perhaps even extra, but again, only if students can join for free.