Starise
 
Fact- Good products with bad marketing still don't sell well.
 

 
This what happens with premium priced products that are perceived by the market as "other".
 

Starise
 
Might be way too late. Probably is.
 

Yup!!! 

cparmerlee
I believe you are speaking as a hobbyist who derives pleasure from the exploration of new technology.  There's nothing wrong with that.  While I also appreciate the advanced technology, most of the time, the DAW and its plug-ins are a MEANS to the end, not the end in themselves.

DAW, plug-ins and other programs/hardware/instruments are just TOOLS. In any activity, at work as a professional and at home as a hobbyist,  I prefer to use whatever tool is better for the job. If there is a new accu. screwdriver, I do not think "I continue to use my old lovely screwdriver, it is old and has no motor, but I know how to use it...".
 
As Craig (and other) has mentioned many times, normally if you are a "pro" you all the time have more then one DAW. Just because no single DAW (tool) does everything good (fast), and the time and quality (for a "pro") are the only important aspects.
 
PS. I have approximately calculated how much I have payed for music (lessons for children, instruments, equipment, software, etc.) during the last 10 years. At least $15000 (around $9000 from that for lessons). I mean that is hobby level, at least where I live now...
 

Starise
Fact- Other daw makers are still in business and if they weren't making money they wouldn't be in business.

I don't think you can generalize that into a "fact."  After all, look how long SONAR was apparently unprofitable.
 
Take a look at PG Music Power Tracks.  I doubt that is "profitable" as a stand-alone product, and would drive minimal sales on its own.  But PC Music is able to throw it into BIAB bundles, and thereby get a little more money from the bundle.  And they probably spend next to nothing for ongoing development.  So what does "profitable" really mean?
 
If we are talking about DAWs that are actively developed and have more-or-less a full set of modern features, I'm not so sure it is easy to be profitable with this many product in the marketplace.

Starise
Fact- Other daw makers are still in business and if they weren't making money they wouldn't be in business.
Fact- As a percentage, the daws that went under in the last 10 are small compared to the total number.
Fact- There have been recent daw startups that are presently profitable.
 
Question- Given these facts, why do you think the daw market is over crowded?
 
I'm fairly certain that if you were a daw maker you probably wish there were less to choose from giving you more of the market. There is competition in all markets. If you have a good product at a good price point it will sell. The demise of Cakewalk is likely a relief to some, although I wouldn't stake my life on thinking it won't be repurposed.
 
Fact- Good products with bad marketing still don't sell well.
Fact- Bad product decisions turn off buyers.
Fact- Pricing a product above the competition is usually a very bad idea, unless an extra value can be proven to the customer.
Fact-If you spend more than you make you can't continue. 
 
If you're going under you do whatever it takes, discontinue the lifetime updates, stop production. Call a huddle. Regroup. Restructure. 
 
Just food for thought- Move out of Boston to some place you can afford the rent. Hire Indian programmers. Lay off the dead weight. Streamline yourself. Look at your options. Make good decisions from now on.
 
Might be way too late. Probably is.
 
 
 

And you just hit the nail on the head right here. Cakewalk' s business model was unsustainable, and Gibson having zero experience in that market bought a company with a red ledger and then sat back while they continued to lose money.

For the things you propose to have happened would require someone buying cakewalk who is intimately familiar with the market to buy them and actively force change to happen. I'm sure the bakers wouldn't have been pleased to have someone come in and tell them how to run their business, but if they had Cakewalk might still be around.

We might see a few more drop away in the future. I hope not.
 
I had similar thoughts that profitability isn't easy. Being unprofitable for a short time isn't a death sentence.I'm sure many daw makers have bad quarters. The ups outweigh the downs or the company goes under. Some companies can wait longer to see a good quarter. Other companies like Gibson who was already in trouble didn't have that luxury.Counting a loss can get a business a tax break. There is a tipping point though.
 
 
Being unprofitable for a long time has predictable results. If the company has a hardware interest, they can weather the storm better and justify some of the loss by allowing that the software is indirectly aiding the sale of hardware.They offer starter versions of their software with hardware further driving sales of software. What Roland started with hardware integration was a good thing, but they didn't follow through with it or continue support for the products. They must have eventually seen Cakewalk as a loosing venture.IMO IF Roland would have stayed the course they would have lost money in the short term but gained money in the long term. As the hardware became more visible it could have been a win/win situation but Roland must have only been concerned with profits in the short term. They weren't willing to ride it out until profits started to show up.
 
Gibson would have been in a good position to integrate Cakewalk well with Tascam, but I don't think they were financially solvent enough to see it through. Really a bunch of bad moves and turns for Cakewalk.
 
IF a hardware vendor picked up Sonar and stayed with it over the time it takes for products to catch hold it would be an eventual success. That means money though and no one wanted to be the company to venture that investment.
 
 
 

Starise
Gibson would have been in a good position to integrate Cakewalk well with Tascam, but I don't think they were financially solvent enough to see it through.

I don't think SONAR, per se, is a very good platform for bundling.  At a time when other products are opening to Android and Linux -- and of course IOS, SONAR's Windows-only situation made it impossible as a bundle. In addition, there is such as thing as being TOO function-rich.  SONAR had accumulated decades of features, many of which were not really needed in light of newer features. But the user base would not let them go. This makes the product overly challenging for a new user, especially a new user who was mostly interested in the hardware in the first place.
 
What we have is a whole collection of problems that combined to be fatal:

• The X1 quality problems that drove users away and never brought them back as quality improved
• The failure of the IOS port
• Decades of legacy functions that added to clutter
• Significant product weaknesses in key areas like notation
• No real hardware tie-ins. That would not be fatal on its own, but the rationale for both the Roland and Gibson acquisitions was hardware synergy, and that never happened
• The subscription thing. Again, might not have been fatal by itself, but why do it?  It just scares customers away.
• Momentum; could have been a good thing, but didn't make very good marketing sense after abandoning the IOS port.  I do believe Momentum-style products will succeed in the marketplace. Songwriters are always looking for help.

I don't agree that the mac port was an issue.  If anything the mac port is a red herring.  It may have not cost much to produce, but it was a rabbit trail that led to nothing.  FL Studio has been very successful being PC only.  The fact is that most people have Windows not a Mac, they had plenty of potential market.  The problem is they weren't even in 3rd place among PC users.  Cakewalk should have focused on it's core competencies instead of getting into a market where they had no shot of competing against $200 Logic.
 
The stability issues drove away some people but not as much as the change in pricing structure.  $250 for annual updates without people really knowing what they were going to get, or if they were going to get it.  That was never going to fly.  Again think about it, $250 for annual updates vs, $200 Logic.
 
Starise hit the nail on the head, but in order to implement those kinds of changes meant Cakewalk needed to be owned by someone who would force those changes.  Gibson bought a company that was bleeding red ink and they were "hands off" in their approach which was a bad move because if anyone needed change forced upon them it was Cakewalk.

I don't know, lots of people bought the Roland V studio . Also Roland recording interfaces and keyboard controllers. I think much of that was A.Because they were already Cakewalk users and B. The V Studio was a nice piece of hardware.
See the splash article in SOS 2008. HERE
 
Unfortunately Roland sold Cake and left v700 development. To this day the V Studio can be made to work albeit not without some work in newer setups.Lots of people still using this hardware. Once again, I don't believe  Roland gave the profit cycle enough time to develop. If they had rode through the storm they might very well be sitting in a similar place to Yamaha. JMHO The quad capture probably sold better because it was aimed at the bedroom musician and sold for less.
 
And I agree, they just made a bunch of bad moves. Most you already mentioned. I personally liked the skylight interface and I think that idea would have flown much better if they would have bug proofed it better before they launched it. The combination of bugs and a new GUI killed away those who loved 8.5. By the time X3 came around it was too late. Many had already decided they didn't like it which is sad because X3 was a stable program for the most part.
 
the iOS port is likely what happens to an idea after it goes through upper management. It probably had good beginnings and declined from there. I'm guessing management wasn't really listening to what they worker ants were trying to say ...or didn't care.
 
The idea that legacy functions somehow choke a program is not a totally proven concept. Coders work around issues all the time and the software works just fine. Much current software runs on older code. I do agree that the code kept them from a good iOS port. The last example of Sonar is still on my computer humming along nicely.
 
In one sense you're subscribing to any software that has a yearly release. It just isn't called that. You still pay to upgrade or continue development. At least this is how I see it. I think the word "subscription" scares people away. Even though Cake was careful not to call it a subscription.
 

 

denverdrummer
 
 
Bitwig is a very interesting one.  I think they will mainly be a pain in Ableton's side for years to come, but they have thought outside the box a bit, and if they can continue to keep development costs low, and engage their already loyal fanbase, they should be able to keep going.
 
But the reality is, that anyone not named Pro Tools, Cubase or Logic, is potentially vulnerable.  Doesn't mean they are doomed, because nobody right now is going to unseat those three.  But it does mean staying profitable and staying competitive is a must.

Agree about Bitwig.
 
I don't see either Ableton or FL Studio as being vulnerable. Those two are here to stay (at least for the foreseeable future).

Bitiwg is like an annual update like Finale and older versions of Sonar.  Bitwig is $299 right now.  Interesting that Sonar is still sold in Guitar Center stores.