@Craig... ah yes... the Yamaha OTP... manZ... the years have past...
 
i guess at that time the SDK was still in its earliest infancy and nobody knew what to expect, how or where to go; it was kind of the wild west for electronic music and midi. if i can remember, Cakewalk, Cubase and Sound Diver were somehow connected and there was always some latency issue along with some SysEx Data thinngy... It was a time where everyone in industry was experimenting and couldnt make heads or tails of things... hahaha   (a fun time to be around though...)  
 
hmmm.... guess you'd be right on the point of collaboration where users will have all the same tools by staying together with one company. Still, IMHO, i believe the main concern for most of us here is not wanting to pay for subscriptions just to continue to use a buggy tool, however, to pay a small but reasonable fee for some new features or perhaps "repair" work to the existing platform. If however, a brand new platform is offered, i think it would be fair to either pay for the new "toy" or to have the option to "so called - trade in" / upgrade to the new platform version. What do you think... 
 
many thanks again for your replies...
 
@dubdisciple, yup i get it... bad Sony, they should have just left Sonic Foundry alone...  this new release will be really great for a new installer as it has much to offer and or perhaps someone upgrading from SF8 and below. 
 
true la.. i really agree that from X1 to X2, there are major improvements, one of them i particularly would enjoy is the improvements to the PRW; no doubt small, but we are moving along; also splitting the "automation" lanes in the main area.... i think the zoom timeline was taken from Ableton...  but thats all good too.... 

i am still on X1 though as i have about 11 tracks open-ended; during the launch of X2, i did preview the demo and it is impressive. X1d has been super stable all this while, i do get the occasional BitBridge Crash but other than that all is exceptional... hopefully, when X3 does come along, i might make the switch. 
 
what you mentioned about AE is also very true... i didnt look into those features you mentioned. for us,  we do a lot of compositions in 3DS MAX and usually upon render, we would compose the footage with AE using the standard camera track utilities. its an older way of works i guess...
 
however, if you are into AE, play with the Particle System... its extremely impressive and takes a lot less time to render compared to 3DS.
 
once again, many thanks for your replies..
 
cheers all... 

Keyz.  I actually feel that Sony's problem is that they need to make the product theirs.  I have a bit of nosalgia for Sonic Foundry  but I think 10+ years is enough of a transition ;)

I personally think many here are jumping the gun on this (Craig included) None of the audio DAW producers are in fact doing it are they? Presonus does not look like doing it, Steinberg is not doing it, Logic is not doing it. In fact for $200 you get to do download and use the program forever. Image Line have got the opposite view, pay one fee for every update for life!
 
Adobe has acquired Cool Edit Pro which is an audio program and as it now under the Adobe banner. And yes the vision software producers may be going down that road but it does not necesaarily mean all the audio guys are going to jump on that bandwagon.
 
I say wait and see what happens. Hypothesizing about won't really get you anywhere. If and when all the audio DAW guys do it then we will have something to think about but not until then really. As they say let's cross that bridge when we come to it.
 
And let's hope they don't go down that road too. I think for professionals who are earning decent amounts of money from it then it may not be such a bad thing but for those who don't earn a lot from using audio software then it could be seen as unfair.
 
Don't forget too that many of these bigger vision programs are quite expensive and the percentage of use in more professional and teaching applications is probably much higher (compared to audio) so they mey be thinking this model might be OK. Also there is much more dominance and less competition in these programs too compared to audio programs and that may have something to do with it. They may not be able to get away with that in the audio world so easily.

I doubt Cakewalk goes that direction either.  They are simply not in the same position as adobe is in respect to their field.  A graphic professional is far more limited in what they could do without photoshop than an audio artist is without Sonar. 

Jeff Evans
I personally think many here are jumping the gun on this (Craig included) None of the audio DAW producers are in fact doing it are they?

My job is to stay ahead of the curve...I know for a fact that many software companies are thinking about the subscription model, so I asked what this forum thought of it (as well as my Sound, Studio, and Stage forum) because the level of discourse in both forums can be thoughtful and constructive. I think this thread confirms my assessment. Better to ask while companies are still formulating their opinions rather than afterward, when they've already committed to something where users may or may not have had any input. This also why I published a column on the subject in Pro Sound News and an editorial in the Harmony Central Newsletter...I'm trolling for opinions.
 
Another reason I asked is because I DO think there is probably a way for subscription software to work, and there are enough smart people here I thought maybe someone would have a solution. I don't.   I expect that someday, some company will look at the subscription model with a fresh viewpoint and come up with something obvious and clever that will have users saying "Of course! Why didn't someone think of this before?!? This is great!"

Craig,
 
If you bullet list user's pain points like...

• I use primary functionality plus staff view and want those two things... not Pro Channel or new plugins (which I buy elsewhere)
• I use primary functionality plus soft-synths heavily... I do TV Composition. I don't care too much about translating midi guitar parts into notation. I need very high reliability because I'm professional
• I mix recordings of my friends and mostly want it to be fast and easy. I don't buy software outside of Sonar. I buy guitars.
• I'm a student and want to learn music through use of the DAW. I'm interested in learning many DAWs and the differences between them.
• I run a small studio and I use most of the functionality some of the time. I don't always work in Sonar, but when I do, I want to be the best in the room using it.
• I run a large studio and have Sonar specialists whose job it is to know how to do everything in Sonar. We maintain multiple Sonar DAWs for different studios. We are a Sonar only studio.
• I run a large studio and use whatever DAW the client prefers.

I'm sure Sonar knows their use-cases much better than I can guess at. My point is that a model that could suite lots of the different users would be well positioned to succeed.
 
Interestingly, there are a fair number of people who want a particular version (say 8.5) to developed further, and don't care to be on the main development path. Keeping up with the pace of change in Sonar can be exhausting. What about those people?
 
When I break it down like this, it looks like a-la-carte model of buy what you want and not what you don't might please some users. The problem with this model is that there is virtually no cost to the company to giving the software it has developed to users who might use it... In other words, there is value for Cakewalk to take a customer interested in Soft Synths and give them Staff View anyway... just in case... or Pro Channel or ... you name it.
 
Let's say there is relatively inelastic demand for what we want (we'll pay a lot for what we really want) and extremely elastic demand for what we don't. We'll only buy what we'll use and our appetites won't grow. So for the same reason it's profitable for McDonald's to hand out extra soda and fries (in the long term by making consumers stomachs bigger), Cakewalk helps grow demand for Soft Synths among traditional musicians by giving the soft synths out with Pro Channel. :-)
 
So, the a-la-carte model would help Cakewalk know where consumers want development time focused based on demand.
 
The subscription model is really a step away from the a-la-carte model. In the subscription model, the company gives subscribers everything... Beta Versions ... the works. You can have customer feedback earlier in the development cycle because you will have more users consuming the products with caveats prior to 'shipping'. For Microsoft, they are able to see what customers are interested in and what they are happy with by the rate of adoption of new software. You know Office 97 was good if you have trouble selling 2000. In the subscription model, if users don't adopt the new version, you know it isn't because of the cost. The users have already paid for it. You know it is because the pain of upgrading isn't overwhelmed by the desire for a better product.
 
Recurring revenue is a huge benefit to the software industry. Really, DAW software has proved to be about as sticky as cars. Daw consumers are experts in the software and reasonably brand loyal (for a big group of least-techy techies). To justify recurring costs to the user base, the industry will have to come up with a way to guarantee recurring revenue.
 
Currently, Cakewalk cycles through interesting add-ons in different versions. I didn't realize until my latest install that Dim Pro isn't part of X2 install. You have to have X1 or some other older version. Anyway, what if several vendors went in together for a subscription model... each taking a share. It would be a significant risk to the software companies. Imagine being able to download Pro Tools, Cubase, Sonar and others. You could only use one at a time with your subscription, but you could use any of them. Now there is an attractive offer!
 
Now, you really get to check out the different software without commitment and without throwing the fits you see around this forum. It's a very similar licensing model to the one we already have.
 
I can totally see people paying a subscription fee for this privilege. And they might do it for a year until they choose a favorite and they might do it forever. I think that's a risky idea worth talking about.