What everyone is missing, is all software has hit a maturity point in this particular cycle of technology. As I've mentioned - there is no money in software anymore. Crapple, not only helped put the final nails in the coffin of the music industry (Pete Townsend famously called Crapple a digital vampire, and not even The Beatle's could force Crapple out of the music industry - copyright), but Crapple also brought about the current situation of software no longer being profitable. The 3 dollar app.

For the most part...and I've said this before too, Sonar works very well. It's only when you start using crap 3rd party plugs, or older bits of interface technology does Sonar have a fit. Certain Windows configurations and hardware too.

It's an interesting time, we're on the cusp of the next big push technologically. The PC, Mac included is not going to change that much more - it's the same as software...the PC is a mature product. Almost 20 years ago...we still played through the nose for DVD burners and 100 gig spindle hard drives that we're unreliable...Maxator anyone? It's the interface where the next big push will come from. What we need to think about in reference to Sonar, because support and capability isn't really an issue...yet, but what we need to start organising is how we keep legacy products running into the future. All the major DAW makers need to address this, because no one still gets it, that depending on how you use said software - a DAW like Sonar is now an instrument. For me...I don't want to lose my stradivarius...and nor do I want to learn to use another stradivarius. I still have my Fender acoustic guitar, that I brought for 500 bucks in 1991, I painted it and this seems to have deepened the sound and protected the guitar from aging. I also have my Yamaha electric, which I brought in 2000...it needs to be rewired...but it too is still a great guitar. Humbuckers. I'm a one instrument kind of guy.

The fact that you had to make up a story rather than take one from actual history speaks volumes.
 
In real life, all of those companies you mentioned are thriving. And could never give their products away for free because there is so much cost in materials and labor to produce each individual unit.
 
This is unlike with downloadable computer software, where the cost of goods for an individual unit (not development, which in this case was overwhelmingly paid for in one payment) is in server space, bandwidth, maintaining a user database, etc.
 
How about we examine the examples of Netscape, Opera, Chrome, Firebird, and Internet Explorer? I don't know if you consider it cheating to use a real life example instead of making one up, but it's all I got. I was a business major at university and they encouraged us to do that. Hard habit to break.
 
20 years ago Netscape owned the marketplace, the company was the biggest software IPO in history to that point. Its browser was a commercial product, regarded as the industry standard, untouchable, kind of the Pro Tools of its time.
 
Microsoft, a well-funded company (as is Meng's), came along and bought up the slightly out-of-date Mosaic and started giving it away for free as Internet Explorer. It was not well-regarded at first, but Microsoft persisted and threw better and better engineering talent at the project.
 
Other browser companies jumped in like Opera, also a payware browser, but much cheaper and less bloated than Netscape had become.
 
Google became a powerhouse, a company based on giving away all of their services to the consumer for FREE, including their browser, Chrome. They make their enormous fortune by upsells and selling to businesses services that their employees learned to use as individual consumers. People don't need to be trained to use GMail or Google Docs or any of that because most of the time they have already been using them. Because they became the industry standard by giving them away for free to consumers!
 
Fast forward 20 years to now. Chrome, rooted in the freeware world, has almost 2/3 of the market. Internet Explorer and Netscape (now evolved into Firefox, long since freeware) are still around with about 1/10th of the market each, and a plethora of others, with Opera still around (now free), Edge, a new (free) one from Microsoft, and many others, many of them using code from Chrome, which allows its code to be used for free.
 
And that godawful name! GOOGLE Chrome? "Google" sounds like something that would come out of the mouth of a toddler.
 
It beat out "Opera," "Firebird," and "Explorer," though. I guess squeamish people can just call it "Chrome."
 
Consumering Lesson #0: This is not your father's software industry. Upsells and in-app purchases rule. Kick back, enjoy the free stuff, let the people do what they do. We don't need to understand it any more than a client needs to understand everything that we do when we engineer their project. Don't build your entire studio on a skillset with one DAW. Everything goes away. Everything changes. Also, as long as the name trips off the tongue, you're good to go. It will take on its own meaning
 
Guys, no matter how much it pisses you off that people like me now get your expensive tool for free, the new owner is never going to start charging us for The DAW Formerly Known As SONAR that you paid so much for. The new licensing model is in place, the bird has flown. We are already seeing the value in not needing to justify selling licensing fees by stuffing in flashy new features at the expense of bug hammering. The thing was a crash monster 4 months ago and is now a rock.
 
Your licensing fees created a GREAT DAW and new users like me are in your debt. Now you and I and tons of other people get a new, better product without the fees, you get to keep what I understand are some killer plug-ins that none of the rest of us is even able to buy yet.
 
Also, no matter how much the name may embarrass you, "Cakewalk" has 30 years of recognition behind it. Meng's company bought the Harmony guitars brand so my guess is that he understands the value of a brand's strength.
 
I propose that for all of you who think "Cakewalk" sounds too lame, how about you call it 'Walk. Like Strat or Tele? "I'm gonna go into the studio and lay down some badass tracks in 'Walk.'" Or "Cake." Do you remember when it was cool to call money "bread?"
 

Keano66
There were once three cars: A Ferrari, A Porsche and a Rolls Royce. They were all good cars. People paid money to buy these cars - they were so good. It was hard to tell which was the best, as they all had merits. Some said the Ferrari was the fastest, some said the Porsche was the more stylish and others said the Rolls Royce was the more elegant. They were all good and the people valued them equally and exchanged money for them.

And then, inexplicably, the Rolls Royce makers said to a stunned market, that everyone could have a Rolls Royce for free. What? The people who didn't own the Rolls Royce proclaimed that "this must be proof that the Rolls Royce must have been a defective car to begin with, for if they are giving the car away for free, it must mean that it is inferior".

Marketing lesson No.1: Have faith in your own product because if you don't, then nobody else will.

And change the bloody name. Cakewalk? Embarrasing. Give it a name that reflects how utterly great this software really is. Make it sound special. Make people WANT to desire it.

There are 3 main DAWs - Protools, which has AVID and thus a company that owns the major audio and video editing software.  They will really have to screw things up to lose their position.  Live!, which, captured the "DJ" performance market for, not surprisingly Live performance (it is in the name).  Finally their is Cubase, which works well on both OSs and is owned by a large and successful megacompany that makes physical things, not software.  And a lot of music hardware, not just motorcycles, with which they can introduce and capture large swaths of home musicians.
 
When I was first deciding which PC DAW to go with years ago, there was Logic, Steinberg and Cakewalk.  Cake was the first one to incorporate Loops naturally, so I went with it.  And I don't regret it.  Today their are far more choices, which means a middling-sized company like Cakewalk was squeezed by both the majors and the new, minor players which were small with a small staff that didn't require much overhead (Reaper was a one man job).  Bitwig, hardware company Presonus, Mixcraft all had these advantages over Cakewalk, which couldn't take advantage of Roland's hardware distribution since they never developed for the Mac.  If I was Roland I'd be pissed too that not only did I buy a DAW but had to license another one for my Mac company.  But they knew that going in.  I guess a program to turn PC code to mac code didn't quite work.
 
There is just too much small competition in the PC market for a mid-sized company with all the associated overhead to make it on its own.  If there is a hardware stream to suckle off a large DAW can work, or a small company off revenues.  But I think Bandlab is on the right track with a small-sized company they can afford to carry long enough to make it work.  Ideally, they want a lot of people using their free DAW and free social site, with enough users to pay for major software development.  In the meanwhile, enjoy one of the best DAWs out there for literally nothing, with nice clean up programming on a monthly basis, and hope Bandlab reaches liftoff.

bdickens
Exactly. It's the guitarist, not the guitar.

Three young gents came into my friend's music shop with a guitar to trade in for a new Fender.
 
My friend, who is an excellent guitarist, looked it over for possible damage - then plugged it into an amp and began to play.
 
As he played, the eyes of the three gents got bigger and bigger.
 
After my friend's last double-handed hammer-ons came to a wailing, dramatic stop, he asked:
 
"The guitar's in good order. So which Fender did you want to trade it in for?"
 
The leader of the group said, "Ah. No, it's OK, we don't want a new guitar. We changed our minds".
 
The guitar was obviously not the problem.