jamesg1213
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 21760
- Joined: 2006/04/18 14:42:48
- Location: SW Scotland
- Status: offline
Re: As popular as SONAR is, how was it not financially sound for Gibson?
2017/12/03 16:45:14
(permalink)
DrLumen
How many here think the name CakeWalk might have had a little something to do with their demise? That name always causes me to cringe a bit. If you had a mega studio trying to attract business would you want to be known for using software named after a child's game?
I don't know if it had anything to do with, but that name also made me cringe a bit, and not because it was a child's game (I didn't know it was).
Jyemz Thrombold's Patented Brisk Weather Pantaloonettes with Inclementometer
|
aghschwabe
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 37
- Joined: 2014/10/07 00:22:44
- Status: offline
Re: As popular as SONAR is, how was it not financially sound for Gibson?
2017/12/03 16:48:44
(permalink)
guitz
Unless Gibson ditches their other pro audio lines (KRK, Cerwin Vega, Neat microphones) ... I don't see how they can say they want to 'focus on consumer electronics' more than pro audio....and....is there really much overhead to software??....*puzzled*
I don't understand...it has GOT to have at least as many users as Cubase et al, across all versions, right? Otoh, it bounced from owner to owner in recent years so something must've been amiss....
Gibson believes the world needs another bluetooth speaker with a Phillips label on it.
|
DrLumen
Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
- Total Posts : 621
- Joined: 2005/07/05 20:11:34
- Location: North Texas
- Status: offline
Re: As popular as SONAR is, how was it not financially sound for Gibson?
2017/12/03 16:50:35
(permalink)
jamesg1213
DrLumen
How many here think the name CakeWalk might have had a little something to do with their demise? That name always causes me to cringe a bit. If you had a mega studio trying to attract business would you want to be known for using software named after a child's game?
I don't know if it had anything to do with, but that name also made me cringe a bit, and not because it was a child's game (I didn't know it was).
FYI, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cakewalk_(carnival_game). Perhaps child's game was a bit too strong but we played it at elementary school carnivals. Hendershott may have had the name locked up but TwelveTone would have been much better. IMHO.
-When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
Sonar Platinum / Intel i7-4790K / AsRock Z97 / 32GB RAM / Nvidia GTX 1060 6GB / Behringer FCA610 / M-Audio Sport 2x4 / Win7 x64 Pro / WDC Black HDD's / EVO 850 SSD's / Alesis Q88 / Boss DS-330 / Korg nanoKontrol / Novation Launch Control / 14.5" Lava Lamp
|
jamesg1213
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 21760
- Joined: 2006/04/18 14:42:48
- Location: SW Scotland
- Status: offline
Re: As popular as SONAR is, how was it not financially sound for Gibson?
2017/12/03 16:54:55
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby tlw 2017/12/03 23:06:22
Jyemz Thrombold's Patented Brisk Weather Pantaloonettes with Inclementometer
|
musicjohnnie
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 227
- Joined: 2009/09/20 18:38:43
- Status: offline
Re: As popular as SONAR is, how was it not financially sound for Gibson?
2017/12/03 17:04:48
(permalink)
Hello all,
Interesting thing happened just the other night. I have been talking with the wife about the going ons of gibson. (notice little g......hehehe). She walks in last night with a box of little Christmas lights for a plant. I look at the box.....Phillips......omg....I tell her we have to return the product..?with an explanation. ...she looks quizzical. ....next thing I know the lights are on the plant.......my wife doesn't even care about our plight.......Lol
Just saying,
MJ
Dell XPS 9100 Studio I7 930.....16G ram Win 10 anniv.(now back to win 7) Sonar Platinum (lifer)
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re: As popular as SONAR is, how was it not financially sound for Gibson?
2017/12/03 17:33:38
(permalink)
I don't think Gibson owns the lights, electric toothbrushes, etc.,just the consumer audio products.
|
DrLumen
Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
- Total Posts : 621
- Joined: 2005/07/05 20:11:34
- Location: North Texas
- Status: offline
Re: As popular as SONAR is, how was it not financially sound for Gibson?
2017/12/03 17:35:41
(permalink)
FWIW, I don't think the lighting division was part of Gibson's deal. Philips are still making and selling light bulbs. They bought out Sylvania some years back. I think they got the GE lamps division too but not sure about that.
Back to the OP...
-When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
Sonar Platinum / Intel i7-4790K / AsRock Z97 / 32GB RAM / Nvidia GTX 1060 6GB / Behringer FCA610 / M-Audio Sport 2x4 / Win7 x64 Pro / WDC Black HDD's / EVO 850 SSD's / Alesis Q88 / Boss DS-330 / Korg nanoKontrol / Novation Launch Control / 14.5" Lava Lamp
|
kitekrazy1
Max Output Level: -40 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3524
- Joined: 2014/08/02 17:52:51
- Status: offline
Re: As popular as SONAR is, how was it not financially sound for Gibson?
2017/12/03 17:59:10
(permalink)
MANTRASKY
fireberd
I don't think Sonar is/was as popular as we would like to believe. As I talked to others in recording I was the only one using Sonar.
The Gibson acquisition as it appears didn't do it any favors. Face it, a company doesn't dump something if its profitable and maybe even marginally profitable. Finally, Gibson appears to want to get on the consumer electronics bandwagon and I would be surprised if other brands they have go the way of Sonar or get sold off.
That's exactly my experience, most if not all of the Professional studios never used Sonar, though they tried it and their iterations and felt it wasn't up to Pro-Level with so many "Bugs & Crashes?" I felt like I was the only one to believe in it? Even though Sonar "Crashed many times" I stayed with it. Since moving to S1 with heavy recording schedule "Rock Solid" and became 2nd nature surprisingly fast, "Very Nice DAW".
Professional studios are a small speck in the software industry. Even those are shut down. I don't think software is driven by endorsements. Pro Tools seems to have dodge some bullets though probably because they were there first. Gibson's first attempt in the software industry failed and it happened again. No surprise there. Their flagship product is also criticized for lack of quality control. Expensive products that are poorly made forgiveness by the consumer doesn't come easy. See the US auto industry in the 70's. They got the wrong person running things.
Sonar Platinum, W7 Pro 32GB Ram, Intel i7 4790, AsRock Z97 Pro 4, NVidia 750ti, AP2496 Sonar Platinum, W7 Pro, 16GB Ram, AMD FX 6300, Gigabyte GA 970 -UD3 P, nVidia 9800GT, Guitar Port, Terratec EWX 2496
|
paulo
Max Output Level: -13 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6218
- Joined: 2007/01/30 05:06:57
- Status: offline
Re: As popular as SONAR is, how was it not financially sound for Gibson?
2017/12/03 18:46:01
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby SteveStrummerUK 2017/12/03 19:17:07
dcmg
As so many others have pointed out, SONAR never really had the "pro street cred" of PT and others.
Financially, Avid conditioned its users to a cost of doing business that was higher and reinforced that notion that this is the cost of playing with the big boys. Pros and novices alike bought into that.
SONAR, on the other had....had ( has?) users that whine about $99 upgrades and complain about not getting their "lifetime" of software updates. Apparently that's not a very lucrative market 
Which begs a question: Knowing what you know now, how many of you might have happily paid a little bit more if you knew it was the difference between keeping SONAR alive and having it shuttered?
<raises hand>
Based on this forum, prior to the introduction of the monthly system, the majority seemed to not only be more than willing to pay for yearly upgrades but actually looked forward to them. It wasn't the customers who dreamed up the pay once for lifetime updates idea so you can't really blame them if they bought into it and yes they are entitled to feel hard done by for not getting something they paid for. Again, based on this forum a little more honesty about the reality of the situation would probably have harvested many who were prepared to pay a bit more if the alternative was to be the situation we find ourselves in now. Unfortunately, all we ever got was the head cheerleader constantly telling us all how great things were going and how bright the future was for CW so it's hardly surprising that users became complacent and waited for the sales before buying anything.
|
THambrecht
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
- Total Posts : 867
- Joined: 2010/12/10 06:42:03
- Location: Germany
- Status: offline
Re: As popular as SONAR is, how was it not financially sound for Gibson?
2017/12/03 19:32:27
(permalink)
I always wondered why Cakewalk is "by" Roland. But there was nowhere to be read that Cakewalk is "by Gibson".
So I thought always that Cakewalk is a independent company with a a parent company.
For me it is mysterious that Roland or Gibson don't sold the software as "Roland SONAR" or "Gibson SONAR".
Therefore, I first thought this days, that Cakewalk can be a company by itself. But if they ever had made profit, they had never need a parent company.
We digitize tapes, vinyl, dat, md ... in broadcast and studio quality for publishers, public institutions and individuals.4 x Intel Quad-CPU, 4GHz Sonar Platinum (Windows 10 - 64Bit) and 14 computers for recording tapes, vinyl ...
4 x RME Fireface 800, 2 x Roland Octa Capture and 4 x Roland Quad Capture, Focusrite .... Studer A80, RP99, EMT948 ...
(Germany) http://www.hambrecht.de
|
sharke
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 13933
- Joined: 2012/08/03 00:13:00
- Location: NYC
- Status: offline
Re: As popular as SONAR is, how was it not financially sound for Gibson?
2017/12/03 19:35:48
(permalink)
DrLumen
How many here think the name CakeWalk might have had a little something to do with their demise? That name always causes me to cringe a bit. If you had a mega studio trying to attract business would you want to be known for using software named after a child's game?
Personally I don't think there was anything wrong with their name and it probably had nothing to do with their demise. What about Fruity Loops - despite being named after a child's breakfast cereal, it's been one of the most popular DAW's of all time and is quite often seen in pro studios.
JamesWindows 10, Sonar SPlat (64-bit), Intel i7-4930K, 32GB RAM, RME Babyface, AKAI MPK Mini, Roland A-800 Pro, Focusrite VRM Box, Komplete 10 Ultimate, 2012 American Telecaster!
|
sharke
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 13933
- Joined: 2012/08/03 00:13:00
- Location: NYC
- Status: offline
Re: As popular as SONAR is, how was it not financially sound for Gibson?
2017/12/03 19:37:45
(permalink)
THambrecht
I always wondered why Cakewalk is "by" Roland. But there was nowhere to be read that Cakewalk is "by Gibson".
So I thought always that Cakewalk is a independent company with a a parent company.
For me it is mysterious that Roland or Gibson don't sold the software as "Roland SONAR" or "Gibson SONAR".
Therefore, I first thought this days, that Cakewalk can be a company by itself. But if they ever had made profit, they had never need a parent company.
I guess whether or not a company calls a child company "Child Company BY Parent Company" depends on the company. Roland will have made the decision to attach their name to Cakewalk, and Gibson will have made the decision not to.
JamesWindows 10, Sonar SPlat (64-bit), Intel i7-4930K, 32GB RAM, RME Babyface, AKAI MPK Mini, Roland A-800 Pro, Focusrite VRM Box, Komplete 10 Ultimate, 2012 American Telecaster!
|
JohanSebatianGremlin
Max Output Level: -82 dBFS
- Total Posts : 402
- Joined: 2016/03/17 22:27:15
- Status: offline
Re: As popular as SONAR is, how was it not financially sound for Gibson?
2017/12/03 19:38:00
(permalink)
kitekrazy1
Professional studios are a small speck in the software industry.
Small spec though they may be, they have influence on market trends. Often within a group of musician friends, at least a few will do work with commercial facilities. Those particular individuals will tend to gravitate toward a DAW which is supported by the commercial studios they work with. While that's only a few individuals among any particular group of friends, they will also tend to be most prolific and most well seasoned. The others in that group will fall more into the category of semi-pro and hobbyist. So when those semi-pros and hobbyists are in the market for a DAW, what are they gonna do? They're going to look at what everyone else they know is using. They will especially look at what their pro friends are using. Thus a speck on the industry though pro studios are, they have influence. Sonar was never a player in that market and it definitely had an impact on sales.
If gear was the determining factor, we would all have a shelf full of Grammies and a pocket full of change. -microapp i7, 32gb RAM, Win10 64bit, RME UFX
|
slartabartfast
Max Output Level: -22.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5289
- Joined: 2005/10/30 01:38:34
- Status: offline
Re: As popular as SONAR is, how was it not financially sound for Gibson?
2017/12/03 19:56:03
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby SteveStrummerUK 2017/12/03 20:17:54
cityrat
They're $500 mil in debt for a reason. They make products that aren't competitive and the management cant figure out how how to fix things and at the same time not spend as much.
So the only avenue left is to somehow increase stock price. They cant do it by actually MAKING things, so the only thing left is to say that by doing xyz they will generate more growth. Thats the only thing that you cant actually (yet) measure, so it's easier to "make stuff up" about how doing xyz will blacken the skys with some new consumer product. Lather rinse repeat. Always keep moving, dont let them actually see the smoke and mirrors.
You do know that Gibson is a closely held company i. e. they do not sell stock to the public. Since free money has been easily available since 2008, the idea of selling stock to raise cash has become a quaint affectation most companies no longer bother with. The new model is issuing bonds or private lending. Public companies have to disclose all kinds of information, and if the stock is sufficiently distributed the management falls prey to the potential of having its judgements second guessed by shareholders. It appears that Gibson's problems are at least in part due to borrowing the money needed for a bunch of acquisitions which have not returned the profits they had hoped for. In that sense Cakewalk was part of the problem, and simple abandonment of Cakewalk makes sense as a gesture that Gibson management has finally come to grips with the reality of their mistake in hopes that new money can be found who will trust them in the future. I expect that without Gibson's willingness to carry a losing asset, we would have been here years ago.
|
bdickens
Max Output Level: -74 dBFS
- Total Posts : 847
- Joined: 2007/09/13 18:14:13
- Location: Hockley, TX
- Status: offline
Re: As popular as SONAR is, how was it not financially sound for Gibson?
2017/12/03 20:21:12
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby tlw 2017/12/03 23:22:58
I always thought "Cakewalk" meant "using this software is so easy, it is like a cakewalk."
|
SteveStrummerUK
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31112
- Joined: 2006/10/28 10:53:48
- Location: Worcester, England.
- Status: offline
Re: As popular as SONAR is, how was it not financially sound for Gibson?
2017/12/03 20:31:53
(permalink)
How did you come to name the software Cakewalk?
Right before I placed the ad, literally two days before the deadline, I had picked another name for the program, and I found out it had been used by other software. I think it was something like Opus. So I had this little dictionary of music terms, and I saw Cakewalk. And I thought, wow, that’s nice. It’s a simple English compound word, you know how to spell it, and it has this connotation of ease of use even if you don’t know the musical history.
And what about “12 Tone Systems?” Because who doesn’t like twelve-tone music, I guess, right?
So the name of the company was 12 Tone Systems — because it’s everyone’s favorite, most accessible style of music. [laughs] I thought it was kind of fun. For many years, people would call up and say, “is this Cakewalk?” I decided, instead of correcting people, we’d just change the name of the company to Cakewalk and that’d be simpler.
Greg Hendershott
~Interviewed in 2007
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re: As popular as SONAR is, how was it not financially sound for Gibson?
2017/12/03 21:15:58
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby Mitch_I 2017/12/03 23:05:49
paulo
Unfortunately, all we ever got was the head cheerleader constantly telling us all how great things were going and how bright the future was for CW so it's hardly surprising that users became complacent and waited for the sales before buying anything.
I assume by "head cheerleader" you're referring to me, and of course, thinking you're oh-so-clever. Try to locate some recent posts by me telling you all how great things are going and how bright the future was for CW (i.e., since I found out that the plans in place that I thought would keep Cakewalk solvent were not going to be followed through, which was at least several months ago). Then compare that to all the posts I've made that unlike yours, present useful, fact-basedinformation to users, including tips and product support. Then look up the word "constantly" to find out what it means, and while you have a dictionary open, look up the word "exaggerate."
|
jbow
Max Output Level: -0.2 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7601
- Joined: 2003/11/26 19:14:18
- Status: offline
Re: As popular as SONAR is, how was it not financially sound for Gibson?
2017/12/03 21:30:03
(permalink)
cityrat
They're $500 mil in debt for a reason. They make products that aren't competitive and the management cant figure out how how to fix things and at the same time not spend as much.
So the only avenue left is to somehow increase stock price. They cant do it by actually MAKING things, so the only thing left is to say that by doing xyz they will generate more growth. Thats the only thing that you cant actually (yet) measure, so it's easier to "make stuff up" about how doing xyz will blacken the skys with some new consumer product. Lather rinse repeat. Always keep moving, dont let them actually see the smoke and mirrors.
Its a generic trend all over the industry.
So then... they are part of the Government?? 😮
Sonar Platinum Studiocat Pro 16G RAM (some bells and whistles) HP Pavilion dm4 1165-dx (i5)-8G RAM Octa-Capture KRK Rokit-8s MIDI keyboards... Control Pad mics. I HATE THIS CMPUTER KEYBARD!
|
jpetersen
Max Output Level: -61 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1499
- Joined: 2015/07/11 20:22:53
- Status: offline
Re: As popular as SONAR is, how was it not financially sound for Gibson?
2017/12/03 21:51:26
(permalink)
jbow
That’s nice but I fail to see the connection with this and Cakewalk.
From published statements originating in the Roland days it appears Cakewalk was losing money and increasingly so. Any business must be profitable to survive, Gibson especially. jbow
...If Gibson doesn’t see profits in continuing Cakewalk products because they made the dumb move (or crooked move) of selling Lifetime updates...
We have it now from two inside sources that the idea came from the Bakers and it was only offered to Platinum users who form a small segment of Sonar users. IIRC, this was also clarified at the time the deal was offered (I was one of the skeptics). It is also not without precedent in the industry, apparently. jbow
...unless you assume they planned to sell the lifetime updates, offer some... for a while, then take the money and run while lying about the reason to avoid liability.
Again, the insider source (where is that reddit AMA link?) said the motives were well intentioned but the execution lacking. Gibson was not involved. jbow
This Phillips is not the reason, rather it’s an excuse.
Gibson presumably feel this is where they can generate income and move forward. Philips is a Dutch company and yes, they are big in Europe.
|
anydmusic
Max Output Level: -85 dBFS
- Total Posts : 251
- Joined: 2015/07/17 08:30:23
- Status: offline
Re: As popular as SONAR is, how was it not financially sound for Gibson?
2017/12/03 22:00:47
(permalink)
Sadly I think the simple truth is that Sonar just was not popular enough and in spite of the many efforts made to change that like the bundling of third party VST and content along with some great innovations like ProChannel and the creation of instruments and effects that could be sold separately it never sold as well as it should have.
I resigned myself years ago to owning a DAW that most other musicians that I met had not heard of.
Graham Windows 10 64 bit - Intel i7-4790, 16GB, 2 x 256GB SSD Cubase 9.5 Sonar Platinum (Rapture Pro, Z3TA 2, CA2A, plus some other bits) Delta 24/96, UAD 1, UA25 EX, 2 x MidiSport, IKMultiMedia - (SampleTank 3, Miroslav 2, Syntronik, TRacks 5, Modo Bass), Band In A Box, Sound Quest, VS Pro, Kinetic, Acid, Sound Forge, Jammer Waves MaxxVolume, IR 1, Aphex Enhancer, Abbey Plates Korg Legacy, VStation, Bass Station
|
SteveStrummerUK
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31112
- Joined: 2006/10/28 10:53:48
- Location: Worcester, England.
- Status: offline
Re: As popular as SONAR is, how was it not financially sound for Gibson?
2017/12/03 22:19:03
(permalink)
jpetersen
... where is that reddit AMA link?
HERE
|
THambrecht
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
- Total Posts : 867
- Joined: 2010/12/10 06:42:03
- Location: Germany
- Status: offline
Re: As popular as SONAR is, how was it not financially sound for Gibson?
2017/12/03 22:21:19
(permalink)
I always had the thought that Cakewalk was not profitable - since the day it was selled to Roland.
As then Roland selled to Gibson I was shure - they are not profitable.
Because I have my own little business with digitizing tapes, vinyls ... I don't understand how a small company can go down with so much customers.
I'm convinced that Cakewalk would be alive, if they where a few freelancer developing software for professional musician.
We are sometimes asked if we would sell our company - but I say always no way.
We digitize tapes, vinyl, dat, md ... in broadcast and studio quality for publishers, public institutions and individuals.4 x Intel Quad-CPU, 4GHz Sonar Platinum (Windows 10 - 64Bit) and 14 computers for recording tapes, vinyl ...
4 x RME Fireface 800, 2 x Roland Octa Capture and 4 x Roland Quad Capture, Focusrite .... Studer A80, RP99, EMT948 ...
(Germany) http://www.hambrecht.de
|
chuckebaby
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 13146
- Joined: 2011/01/04 14:55:28
- Status: offline
Re: As popular as SONAR is, how was it not financially sound for Gibson?
2017/12/03 22:33:19
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby tlw 2017/12/03 23:24:14
jpetersen
Again, the insider source (where is that reddit AMA link?) said the motives were well intentioned but the execution lacking. Gibson was not involved.
I don't believe anything I read on Reddit as dependable information. Just like I wouldn't buy the SS minnow from a guy named Gilligan on Craigslist. It was interesting and left one to believe it was real but its not something I would quote as fact here in these forums.
Windows 8.1 X64 Sonar Platinum x64 Custom built: Asrock z97 1150 - Intel I7 4790k - 16GB corsair DDR3 1600 - PNY SSD 220GBFocusrite Saffire 18I8 - Mackie Control
|
slartabartfast
Max Output Level: -22.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5289
- Joined: 2005/10/30 01:38:34
- Status: offline
Re: As popular as SONAR is, how was it not financially sound for Gibson?
2017/12/03 22:33:20
(permalink)
anydmusic
Sadly I think the simple truth is that Sonar just was not popular enough and in spite of the many efforts made to change that like the bundling of third party VST and content along with some great innovations like ProChannel and the creation of instruments and effects that could be sold separately it never sold as well as it should have.
Popularity is indeed the key to software success. Consider that the development cost of creating one copy of the software is very close to the total cost of production and distribution (especially given online distribution) of all the copies sold. Price per copy is largely limited by the competitive market, unless the product is so uniquely valuable that it becomes the unchallenged leader, or unless interoperability concerns make it the de facto standard. If you can sell a humongous number of copies, your profit is assured. Support of purchasers of the software is the major drag on that profit. A large and complex program requires heavy investment in the development stage, and once the market is saturated, new sales fall off unless old users can be enticed to buy new versions. At some point current users are likely to find they have all they need to do what they want and then stand pat until technology, OS updates etc. make their current version obsolete. At that point there is little to be done except to recruit new users. Typically that requires convincing people who have another program that also probably does all they need to switch or convince first time buyers that your product is the absolutely only place to start. Both of those efforts require massive mind control via promotion or advertising which is usually unaffordable for a company that is not doing well financially.
|
tlw
Max Output Level: -49.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2567
- Joined: 2008/10/11 22:06:32
- Location: West Midlands, UK
- Status: offline
Re: As popular as SONAR is, how was it not financially sound for Gibson?
2017/12/03 23:47:23
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby sharke 2017/12/04 02:17:15
dcmg
As so many others have pointed out, SONAR never really had the "pro street cred" of PT and others.
Financially, Avid conditioned its users to a cost of doing business that was higher and reinforced that notion that this is the cost of playing with the big boys. Pros and novices alike bought into that.
One of the things ProTools has/had going for it goes right back to the early days of DAWs sufficiently capable of replacing tape-based systems. It offered, at a price, a combination of hardware and software that would be certain to work together. It worked with external ADAT-based hard drive recorders such as the Alesis HD24. They were thought - whether correctly or not - to offer protection against a studio owner/manager/accountant’s nightmare of recording the clients then having a computer crash that lost data. And all this was supported, at a price, by a dedicated help team and engineers who knew PT and the PT approved hardware very well indeed. It also interfaced with existing analogue and digital hardware and basically offered a simiar paradigm to tape but with the added copy, cut and paste editing functions of digital so the razor blades and sticky tape could be slung in the bin and forgotten about. A combination which made it relatively easy for PT to become a studio standard. Not because it was “the best” at everything, or even the best at anything, but because it removed a big bundle of uncertainty about new-fangled computers and new-fangled multi-track digital recording. And once the capital, testing and training time has been invested the tendency when considering an update is to go with the latest from the company you know. Once the “big boys” in any industry are seen to be using something the lower reaches tend to look to the same stuff. If the leaders have tested it all out and are happy with it, then for a smaller business buying the same stuff saves on an awful lot of worry. And the customers read up on what the top studios use, and again assume that using a studio that has the “industry standard” is a wise decision, because it’s the “industry standard”.
Sonar Platinum 64bit, Windows 8.1 Pro 64bit, I7 3770K Ivybridge, 16GB Ram, Gigabyte Z77-D3H m/board, ATI 7750 graphics+ 1GB RAM, 2xIntel 520 series 220GB SSDs, 1 TB Samsung F3 + 1 TB WD HDDs, Seasonic fanless 460W psu, RME Fireface UFX, Focusrite Octopre. Assorted real synths, guitars, mandolins, diatonic accordions, percussion, fx and other stuff.
|
tlw
Max Output Level: -49.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2567
- Joined: 2008/10/11 22:06:32
- Location: West Midlands, UK
- Status: offline
Re: As popular as SONAR is, how was it not financially sound for Gibson?
2017/12/03 23:58:44
(permalink)
DrLumen
As to Philips, has anyone actually bought anything Philips that wasn't a light bulb?
Valves. Or “tubes” if you’re on the Western side of the Atlantic. Though they are mostly designs originally made by Mullard (UK) and Sylvania (USA), and modern manufacturers finally seem to have more than caught up on 80s era Philips. Other than that, cheap consumer electronics that weren’t exactly brilliant quality. The Asian electronics industry has pretty much swamped the market segments Philips operated in in the 1970s and 80s.
Sonar Platinum 64bit, Windows 8.1 Pro 64bit, I7 3770K Ivybridge, 16GB Ram, Gigabyte Z77-D3H m/board, ATI 7750 graphics+ 1GB RAM, 2xIntel 520 series 220GB SSDs, 1 TB Samsung F3 + 1 TB WD HDDs, Seasonic fanless 460W psu, RME Fireface UFX, Focusrite Octopre. Assorted real synths, guitars, mandolins, diatonic accordions, percussion, fx and other stuff.
|
dubdisciple
Max Output Level: -17 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5849
- Joined: 2008/01/29 00:31:46
- Location: Seattle, Wa
- Status: offline
Re: As popular as SONAR is, how was it not financially sound for Gibson?
2017/12/04 00:30:34
(permalink)
Can any of us say with any certainty that Sonar is popular? I know Cakewalk has a loyal base, but that an popularity are not that same thing. I honestly don't know. I don't know anyone under 30 outside of this forum that uses Sonar personally. In fact , I don't know anyone under 30 who has heard of Sonar. Obviously that could just be persecution or just my circle. I do have a pretty big circle though and it seems odd that Sonar is practically non-existant in that circle. I work at three schools, have worked for tv stations and ad agencies. Belong to several production and post production organizations, including being a board member at one time for for a national media organization and sadly randomly running into cakewalk users was like finding a unicorn. This forum is the one area of my life where cakewalk abounds. Even in music software magazines, cakewalk is usually an afterthought and gets less coverage than reaper. It seems odd that controllers and other accessories rarely list Sonar when mentioning compatibility.
|
dubdisciple
Max Output Level: -17 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5849
- Joined: 2008/01/29 00:31:46
- Location: Seattle, Wa
- Status: offline
Re: As popular as SONAR is, how was it not financially sound for Gibson?
2017/12/04 00:32:23
(permalink)
sharke
DrLumen
How many here think the name CakeWalk might have had a little something to do with their demise? That name always causes me to cringe a bit. If you had a mega studio trying to attract business would you want to be known for using software named after a child's game?
Personally I don't think there was anything wrong with their name and it probably had nothing to do with their demise. What about Fruity Loops - despite being named after a child's breakfast cereal, it's been one of the most popular DAW's of all time and is quite often seen in pro studios.
beat me to it. If Fruity Loops can be successfull (and most still call it that despite name change), the name is certainly not the main factor.
|
tlw
Max Output Level: -49.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2567
- Joined: 2008/10/11 22:06:32
- Location: West Midlands, UK
- Status: offline
Re: As popular as SONAR is, how was it not financially sound for Gibson?
2017/12/04 00:36:07
(permalink)
Anderton
I don't think Gibson owns the lights, electric toothbrushes, etc.,just the consumer audio products.
Woox Innovations, which is what Gibson bought, was not a Philips business I’d have been entirely happy to invest in back in 2013/14. Philips had been looking for buyers for it for some time. In 2013 it looked likely to be sold to Funai for $150,000,000 then that deal was off and in 2014 Gibson acquired the company for $135,000,000 plus ongoing royalty payments to Philips, though minus the TV side of the business until 2017. Woox had 1900 employees at the time of acquisition, based in Hong Kong. If the DAW market is over-saturated then consumer audio/video is at least equally cut-throat. Competing successfully with Sony, Samsung, LG etc. is likely to require both a lot of capital and a wait for any financially positive returns. Gibson Brands is what, around 100 companies now? I find myself wondering if the master plan was to buy up cheaply companies in difficulties, rapidly turn them around and sell them on for a capital gain to offset the group losses in the hopes of turning things around. If it was it doesn’t seem to have worked so far.
Sonar Platinum 64bit, Windows 8.1 Pro 64bit, I7 3770K Ivybridge, 16GB Ram, Gigabyte Z77-D3H m/board, ATI 7750 graphics+ 1GB RAM, 2xIntel 520 series 220GB SSDs, 1 TB Samsung F3 + 1 TB WD HDDs, Seasonic fanless 460W psu, RME Fireface UFX, Focusrite Octopre. Assorted real synths, guitars, mandolins, diatonic accordions, percussion, fx and other stuff.
|
guitz
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 232
- Joined: 2004/12/26 18:29:42
- Status: offline
Re: As popular as SONAR is, how was it not financially sound for Gibson?
2017/12/04 02:43:35
(permalink)
We had a lot of sound engineers in our studio that laughed about SONAR.
But as they saw what we do, they were absolute surprised. They all said, that there ProTools or Logic cann't do that.
They all remembered very early versions from SONAR about he year 2000 and never had a look on this software.
But you are forgetting that MAYBE the far and away biggest purchasers of cakewalk aren't professionals, they are home users or musicians or semi-pro users, simply because 'we' outnumber an actual pro , probably 10,000 to 1, worldwide....So sales to professionals is very unlikely to be the culprit... Indeed, what I liked most about SONAR, was all the very cool 'songwriting' aids (instruments, MIDI stuff, note input by piano roll or notation, etc,etc,etc ) it has or could've been developing...
|