Are bug-fix updates free after the one year of rolling updates?

No, and if support is an important criteria i would  read these  forums carefully  before committing to Sonar.  

vorxio
If I bought a software with a defect (that can be introduced in the last rolling update) I would like to have it fixed without "buying it again"

You are not "buying it a again." You would be purchasing continuing support and updates. The software is practically guaranteed to have defects at the end of your membership. Development is an ongoing process. Depending on the severity of the defect, it would be up to Cakewalk to decide if the defect was severe enough to provide the fix to past members. It is really no different than if you purchased any software today that does not offer free updates for life (which is the majority of software).

What you really want is the SONAR Platinum Lifetime Update version. However, I think it is no longer for sale. At least I can't find it anywhere.
 
If you purchase Platinum now I suspect (with absolutely NO INSIDE KNOWLEDGE) the Lifetime Update plan may be offered within a year. A larger number of Platinum owners climbed aboard that train last year and are for the most part very pleased with that description.

slartabartfast
This is certainly not an issue unique to Cakewalk, but it is not a concern that should be dismissed out of hand.
 
The concept that "the software is practically guaranteed to have defects" is almost certainly an accurate observation, but it raises a major issue in commercial law.

 
The End User License Agreement for all software pretty much lets software companies off the hook. Part of the "fuzziness" comes from trying to define how much a bug impacts the usefulness of the software. It's obvious SONAR is very capable of making commercially successful music in a variety of genres. Some people consider any bug a showstopper, others consider no bug a showstopper if there's a workaround, others weigh one program's flaws against another to try and determine what's best for them, and others will never encounter particular bugs because they don't encounter those bugs in their workflow. As far as they know, the software is bug-free.
 
SONAR is a little different because of the rolling updates. There are three main types of bugs:
 

• Ones that exist in the current version of the software, which a consumer can anticipate and therefore judge whether or not it matters. 
• Bugs that come as a result of new features.
• Bugs caused by interactions with something else (e.g., a poorly-written plug-in, a Windows update) which Cakewalk cannot anticipate.

 
The reality is that the majority of software requires payment past a certain point if you expect ongoing development and bug fixes. Avid is very upfront about their subscription program being necessary if you expect to have bug fixes. Most (not all) stop fixing bugs for a version after a new version is released, so you basically have to do an upgrade.
 
Bear in mind that with the rolling updates, whatever you have will continue to work, and if a previous update was more to your liking, you can continue to work with that. Noel has said that if there was indeed a bug of monumental proportions (e.g., a change in Windows that makes any version prior the very latest unusable), it would be made available.
 
The ultimate question is not which software has a greater or lesser number of bugs, it's which software is best matched to your intended usage. 
 
As to support, it depends on what you mean by "support." This is a term that's thrown around very loosely. To me, support means having a problem with software that is not revealed by an internet search, in an FAQ, or in the case of SONAR, cannot be resolved by the forum. I have seen instances where people have complained of not receiving support from Cakewalk for something that's explained in the documentation or solved in under 5 minutes using Google. I personally feel these kinds of queries deserve to go to the end of any support queue. 
 
I use a lot of programs and have found that the internet and forums are the best ways to resolve issues quickly. I still have open tickets with non-Cakewalk programs regarding issues that do not lend themselves to simple solutions; the support people acknowledge the issue but don't know how to solve it.

There is also "Bugs" where a thing worked in Xn but is broken in Platinum.

ampfixer
As a former member of the American Society for Quality, I can't get behind a design philosophy that says defects are inevitable. It breeds complacency...

 
Hmmm. I'm not a member of any fancy-sounding societies, but I don't see where "defects are inevitable" was offered as a design philosophy. It's just a reality, whether it is acknowledged or not, and more so in the world of insanely complex software, and Cakewalk has its particular approach to trying to mitigate it as much as possible in a way that strikes a balance between product development and innovation against customer satisfaction. Not necessarily the best possible balance or the best possible approach, but one that seems to work for lots of users, myself included. Craig simply articulated a bit more about how it works. 
 
I would say that "pretending that bugs and defects aren't inevitable" is arguably a more flawed philosophy than acknowledging reality, and trying to find ways to work around it as much as possible, with maximum customer satisfaction and viable business continuity as paramount operating goals. 
 
Any company which purports to guarantee a product without a single defect or bug or flaw... probably shouldn't be trusted. As Wesley put it in The Princess Bride... "Life is pain, Princess... Anyone who says differently is selling something"

ampfixer
As a former member of the American Society for Quality, I can't get behind a design philosophy that says defects are inevitable. It breeds complacency. Points 2 and 3 of Craig's list can be mitigated by the developer. Point 1 is an embarrassment. If you make something that has a defect through successive revisions, you need to get your house in order. Why? Because that defect will become harder to fix as everything around it changes and more features are added.
 
Don't disagree with Craig's comments but I do have a different view. 

Well I actually agree with your view as to how things should be. The problem is "the real world." My gold standard for bug-free operation used to be the Mac OS, but that's no longer the case, and iOS is even more of a moving target.
 
This may be a naive attitude but I figure if a company like Apple with virtually unlimited resources can't avoid major bugs in a released version of the software, no music software company can come even close unless the software is a closed environment.
 

ampfixer
I worked with a large corporation that took pride in the fact that their production compliance was always above 97%. They reported it every month and the employees thought they were knocking it out of the park. What they didn't report to the employees was that the ~3% non-conformance was costing the company over a million dollars per month and limiting their ability to do things like give the employees a raise. They also didn't mention that their chief competitor was always at a compliance rate above 99% and taking some of their business.

 
Now THAT is the kind of real-world viewpoint often missing in forum discussions about business, software, engineering, etc. Errors have consequences beyond customer dissatisfaction.

ampfixer
As a former member of the American Society for Quality, I can't get behind a design philosophy that says defects are inevitable. It breeds complacency. Points 2 and 3 of Craig's list can be mitigated by the developer. Point 1 is an embarrassment. If you make something that has a defect through successive revisions, you need to get your house in order. Why? Because that defect will become harder to fix as everything around it changes and more features are added.
 
Don't disagree with Craig's comments but I do have a different view. 

As an enthusiast I couldn't afford to buy virtually bug free software. Do you consider the big three OSs bug free? They aren't. The closest thing I know to bug free is termed safety critical - and that is not bug free, but it's as close as you will get. That is software that, if it fails, could result in the loss of human life. Safety critical OSs cost thousands of dollars. There is a class of tests called modified condition decision coverage -
 
“every condition in a decision in the program has taken all possible outcomes at least once, every decision in the program has taken all possible outcomes at least once, and each condition in a decision has been shown to independently affect that decision’s outcome. A condition is shown to independently affect a decision’s outcome by varying just that condition while holding fixed all other possible conditions” - Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification, Document No. RTCA/DO-178B.
 
And that is just one class of tests, albeit the most expensive. That wouldn't be just the host, but all VSTs and VSTis have to be tested the same way. Safety critical SW has to be certified on specific HW, so you wouldn't be free to buy some generic HW - there would only be some small number of HW platforms you could use. So the HW would likely cost 2 or 3 times what most people are paying and windows/OSX/iOS apps wouldn't run on it so it would be dedicated HW. In general safety critical SW costs about 10 times as much to develop as normal SW, but if there are real-time constraints, think tracking, that number goes up to 20 to 30 times non safety critical costs.
 
Instead of $399, best case, Sonar Platinum would be around $7999, but it would be really solid  Of course you also have to double or triple the cost of the PC you're running on and throw in a couple thousand for the OS so a base DAW would be $12000. Omnisphere would add $9580, but it would be cheaper if it were a HW synth, so we wouldn't have it! Reaktor 6 $3980. 
 
Really?
 
http://www.rtcmagazine.com/articles/view/100010
 
http://www.risktec.co.uk/knowledge-bank/technical-articles/an-introduction-to-safety-critical-software.aspx
 
My 2 cents.
 

Don't feel guilty, the question was answered in the first few posts and the subsequent discussion is worthwhile. The cost of music software is very low compared to the potential market size and amount of work required. Companies generally can't do more than they're already doing, or they would do so to gain a competitive advantage. What faces companies is deciding whether they're making the correct tradeoffs. 

bapu

scottfa
No, and if support is an important criteria i would  read these  forums carefully  before committing to Sonar.  

This forum is an excellent peer to peer help resource.
 
If you are patient and describe your problem in detail I want to say nearly all problems can be solved by many of the users here. I've seen it time and time again and in my own little way I've helped a few too.

Absolutely true... But as has been stated  many  times  this is not support. If the helpful people here such as yourself leave the forum for some reason the end user is out of luck. I can tell you that i have, as an experiment, tried booking a support phone call at least  once a week since last  May and have been unable to do so. If Cakewalk did not have the wonderful people on this forum i do not believe they would still be in business .  

scottfa
 
OK, for your sake, let me explain without bring delicate..... If scook or Mr Anderton DIE

 
Uh-oh...do you know something I don't know? 

Sorry, Mr Anderton, i was hoping to keep the info confidential........ LOL
In all seriousness, thanks for your contributions, i know you don't have to answer questions here.