This thread has meandered so much I had to go back to the OP to re-read it, and think the answer really lies with the question (and much of the below has already been hinted at if not stated outright). DAWs do not rake in funding; however, when linked, integrated, and deployed with hardware, they get more exposure. The ones who are integrated with hardware parents can flaunt that, and do.
Gibson came in all excited to integrate Tascam and Cakewalk, but that didn't come to pass. The effort was even less involved than what Roland had tried, but what they did achieve is totally destroying the brand with their stunt last November. Pretty much everyone knows this that I have spoken with, only about half know Bandlab picked Cakewalk up. That is a terrible obstacle to reputation, and one that may persist to some level in the future. That "black eye" is heavily present now, since "SONAR" is still recognized, but "CbB" is unknown to many. Having a hardware vendor say "Oh, we will jump right on that!" is a stretch.
Monthly updates I actually find distracting and do not enjoy spending time on (I could write a dissertation on that statement alone, but will leave it at that). For hardware vendors to keep updated on "moving targets" is another tough pill to swallow, especially if they are constantly updating something they do not really use. You really only need to say "But wait, did you test on [most current version]?" to get someone to think "And we are doing this favor for you for... ??"