As we near one year of a subscription model, what say you? Are we better or worse off?

I am very happy with SPLAT and I think you pretty well summarized all the good points of the new subscription model. I will be resubscribing when my present one runs out.
 
Walt

There is no Cakewalk subscription!
 
2015 was a GREAT year for S-Plat, IMO.

I couldn't be happier with this model. It is the only way I could have afforded Plat....and the goodies are  the cherry on top.

I consider it a splurge since I can't really justify it from a financial standpoint. I see nothing wrong with a splurge. I'm not a studio bringing in revenue so anything I spend on it is the expense of the hobby. I'm happy that I am getting what I feel is a real value in that I get updates and additions that would cost more seperately. I think the model is helping the software to get better and better, although it probably puts a ton of responsibility on the bakers to deliver a different improved quality product every month.
 
I think the motivation for the model was partly financially motivated to keep the bakers afloat.
 
When a person can get into something like Reaper for $60.00 for life it's tough to convince anyone who hasn't used the software. I actually came off looking like a DAW snob in another forum because I said I thought Reaper wasn't as good as Sonar Platinum.I think the future will hinge on this very thing.....Sonar is more expensive than some of the others in the end. Is the extra expense worth it to you? If the regular income stream helps to make better software the expense can be justified. So far I believe this is the case. It isn't about expense as much as value for the money in my thinking.
 
At some point we should see a really large gap between something like Reaper and Sonar. The next closest competitors are Cubase, Pro Tools and Studio One 3...only one of those offers anything similar. The other two are great DAWS. If they make it appear like they throw in "free" updates some will think Sonar looks like less of a bargain. In reality there are no free updates. Somebody pays...only we pay up front for it. Presonus has a large hardware sector to lean on for income, Cakewalk has Tascam, Gibson and KRK. It looks like a pretty level playing field. Selling software also helps to sell hardware...so there's a lot at stake. Studio One hasn't yet opted for a monthy model but they might. Reaper will likely still be around but will be a lot more utilitarian.
 
.....sorry didn't intend to sound like I'm pontificating :) Just thinking out loud. I won't be leaving the Sonar camp any time soon....sorry guys :)  It'll be interesting to see how this all pans out.
 
 

I think the program is great and while I may not use every new item that is presented they are available should I need them for future projects. I like looking forward to the monthly updates and have utilized many in my current projects. The forum and community here is great and a good way for Cakewalk users to communicate and share.  I am very satisfied with the program and look forward to new developments.
 
Blackie

Actually just happened to open Sonar 4 Producer the other day,looked and clicked around in it for a few minutes, exploring things that I have gotten use to in the Platinum version, and found myself saying  wowwww.  And to think that back then I thought Sonar 4PE was more usable for me than the DAW's that were out at that time (specific to my style and flow of working of course).
Even looking back on X3e (very good version). 
That being said, I must admit, I think the way that the new system flows, rollouts, updates, features ect, This model is working very well for me, the program (Platinum) is almost invisible,letting me just focus on the work and not the deficiencies (not that I can state any at the moment) of the program (I guess it's relative to your priorities and what's important you workflow wise. Rolling updates, I find them to be a much more added and nice "bonus". I am not one to update immediately on every update rollout (that's just me), and try to avoid the "let me play with the new toys syndrome that can be a trap at times. My way to deal with that is to try and not update until I have finished the current open projects that I am working from the previous version (unless the new update has something in it that will definitely benefit my workflow on current projects). I'm actually still on "G" Glouchester and trying to get these projects out of the way in anticipacion for the next update which I have a feeling will be a nice step up from Glouchester for me (my personal opinion).  We could never argue about a personal matter of taste. For some it's working and for some it's not (reality).
I don't see the payment option structure as a huge difference from the option I had before, which is to be able to buy sonar straight out the gate and own it and whatever comes out on rolling updates in that 12 month period, and then consider after 12 if I want to do it again. I am one who skipped updates before the new model anyway (Started in Sonar 4PE >> Sonar 8PE>> Sonar X2 PE >>Sonar X3e PE>>Sonar Platinum) as needed for my workflow as opposed to new toys . Although i am not against new toys, finishing work is my priority and sometimes new toys can lead to sidetracking (thats just me, not a rule i would demand be law for everyone).
Short answer: Yes, after a little less than 12 months, I would say we are better off (Great Product).

+1 Cakewalk

I couldn ´t be happier with  Splat,
the monthly updates are wonderful and offer a lot of
workflow enhancments to me.
I got  Splat for a small yearly amount 
and take in hand not to upgrade - like every year, and than ....
It deepends on what a new  Sonar  version offers.
Splat offers more than enough for my needs.
 
 
 
 

Doktor Avalanche
To say that there is no demand for stability releases (as has been stated only recently) is a ridiculous statement. 

Of course that's ridiculous. Everyone wants stable software, and it's clear some months have concentrated more on fixes or more on features. But it's also unwise not to satisfy those clamoring for more features. Cakewalk learned that the hard way when SONAR 2015 was introduced.
 
I think no one would dispute that out of the gate, SONAR 2015 was much more stable than X3 because so much emphasis was placed on "under the hood" work between versions. However, there were people who felt the new features in 2015 were "underwhelming." If they can't see that fixes were made, or if the fixes relate to issues that didn't impact them, as far as they're concerned there's no perceived value to the update. And if X3 worked for them, they wouldn't update unless they saw new features, or took it on faith that when people in the forums said 2015 was more stable, those stability fixes would create a better experience. They wouldn't know it was a better experience unless they updated, which they wouldn't do sans new features.
 
To me the biggest advantage of the monthly releases in terms of fixes is that they're ongoing, they don't stop after 5-6 months or whatever it took for X3 to stop doing fixes. Yes, of course bugs will be introduced with new features...but again, unlike the big yearly update where all features hit at once and it can take months to squash everything, it really does seem that if there's a bug introduced in a release it's fixed in the next one, sometimes even with a hotfix that occurs within weeks. This to me is far preferable to the old model, which also of course didn't have the option to roll back...so whatever bugs you had were there until Cakewalk could fix them.
 
What would make the system better is more resources for QC but that's a chicken and egg situation. The more people who sign up for membership, the more resources become available. Paradoxically, those who harp publicly and repeatedly on what's lacking in SONAR drive potential users away from the program, thus making it more difficult to fix the issues about which they complain, so then they complain more. As in other aspects of life, negativity begets negativity.
 
Of course negative issues should not be ignored, and obviously, a lot of the fixes have been driven by forum comments. But ongoing repetition of the same laundry list of issues is counter-productive. Fixes are prioritized based on multiple factors, including perceived good for the greatest percentage of active users, timing (there's no point in fixing a bug if the functionality is going to be changed in the near future), feasibility, whether or not a workaround exists for an issue (it makes more sense to prioritize issues that don't have a workaround), and impact on time that would preclude developing new features in order to remain competitive and satisfy those who don't have stability problems and want more features. 
 
Now, for some comments on features as a SONAR user who depends on it for my livelihood. What I like most about the monthly updates is being able to absorb a limited number of features at a time, and choose whether or not to include them in my workflow. I find it far less disruptive to learn a little bit every month than a whole lot every year.
 
I've also noticed that few of the new features are "global" features I use all the time in every project. Instead, they are more targeted...there are some projects where VocalSync is essential, some where Mix Recall is essential, sometimes I'm on a laptop and need the virtual controller, Drum Replacer I haven't used all that much but when I have, it's been essential and made a huge improvement...some plug-ins need upsampling, some don't...etc. So I see the new features more like new tools in the toolset than fundamental reworkings of the program.
 
 

As with many things, it all comes down to individual preferences, what type of work you do, how you use the program, etc. I for one REALLY like the new monthly update model, and I'm a big fan of the features that have been introduced since X3.  Bar none, patch points take the cake.  I would've dumped $200 into a new version of the software for that feature alone.  Some of the new features and content I don't need or expect to use at all, but who's to say that someday I won't?
 
There has been much discussion about certain elements that haven't seen much (if any) improvement, but I personally don't really use them anyway, so from my vantage point, I'm happy with the direction Cakewalk is going.  Likewise, aside from the goofy toolbar issue a while back, none of the bugs introduced with new updates have affected me either.  On the other hand, there are so many different ways to use Sonar, and for some people, the bugs did cause some workflow problems.  And features I personally don't use could be very important to someone else's workflow, so I can understand how limited attention to lacking features could really frustrate some.
 
I do think that because of the monthly update schedule, the bakers are implementing new features/fixes much more quickly than they did with a yearly release schedule, and some of the new developments seem to be a direct result of feedback from this very forum.  For example, there was discussion quite a while back about allowing the bus pane to live with the track pane, and initial response from Cakewalk was that it wasn't really a necessary feature since the existing track/bus architecture worked fine.  But after more discussion, a few months later the patch point feature was announced, which addressed that particular request and opened up a ton of routing flexibility that wasn't there previously.  Maybe Cakewalk got a lot of feedback outside of this forum and saw that there was a larger user base that wanted more flexible routing options, but I like to think at least some of what we discussed on the forum led to the implementation of that new feature.  It really does feel like Sonar is evolving based in large part on user feedback, and that's a pretty awesome thing in my book.
 
I am curious to see what may be in store for upcoming releases, but at this point I'm definitely inclined to drop another year into Sonar.  I'm diggin' it.

How will I be notified when my year is up?