My question is 'Does it matter' I mean unless your gonna work in a big studio that uses protools then it really doesn't matter what you use...

Assuming your not in a studio that requires you to use a specific one, the only thing that should matter is "Does it allow you to accomplish your audio goals?" Period. 

This whole Industry Standard thing is such an academic discussion.

When ever this comes up, which is almost never these days, I always ask my clients: When you watch a film, do you care what camera it was shot on and what editing suite was used? Nope. You either like it or you don't. Same with DAWs. Only reason to worry about it is if you are exchanging files constantly with other production houses etc - mostly in film. And even then it does not really matter if you plan properly.
 
Use what you use and make it great. Then others will consider you the standard.

As a programmer in a world with almost daily morphing in API land occurring across zillions of "Standard Platforms" that there is a famous saying that is absolutely apropos to this topic ...
 
"The best thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from"
 
Basically companies don't have the resources to test every DAW, so they select a few.  Once selected, they will tend to remain with those even if they fall out of favor or some new hotness evolves.  Eventually inertia may force a change.  But, once you choose a standard, the tendency will be to stay there.
 
And as many have stated, you would need a lot of context in order to define "industry standard".  It typically doesn't mean what the user thinks it does.  
 
 

sirdavidabraham
In places where MAC is "standard" the discussion about Mac vs PC is rare, and if so' it's a 1 minute uninspired exchange. There are much bigger fish to fry regarding the artists, the budget, the label, the managers, the food, the mix, the publishing etc etc.

Use the tool you love and get on with it.

From my observation, the places where Mac is standard, they really don't ever use the OS.  They are running pro tools the plug ins and operate most everything from a large console/control surface, and real outboard gear.  The most they use the OS is going into a file browser, or powering on the system.
 
Having said that, I had a friend who worked at HP in Ft. Collins where they build and design the Z-series workstations, and those are used in a number of pro studios, and HP has a presence at NAMM every year.  The people using that stuff, probably don't even know they're using Windows.  Maybe one guy in the studio does.

I have gotten this answer several times from Virtual Instrument manufacturers, even as recently as this week.  I bought UJAM Amber (virtual acoustic guitar) and ran into some issues getting it running.  The company was extremely helpful and it is working fine now, but it turns out they do not test on Sonar and had to go off and do some research to figure out what I needed to do.
 
You may remember that a year or so ago many of us were struggling with many bizarre problems with EZ Drummer 2 which was not certified on Sonar and broke a lot of functions.  (Toontrack finally came out with a Sonar-specific work-around.)
 
Standard answer: "Sonar is not a supported platform but any VST should work..."
 

I've used Cubase and Studio One in the past. I'm still with Sonar 

I frequent a few music production subReddits and one of the most common questions newbies ask is "which is the right DAW for me?" Sometimes they list a few DAW's they've been pondering over and invariably people chime in with their suggestions.

Nobody ever mentions Sonar. I throw it into the mix and the response is usually "oh I've heard of that, is it any good?" or "never heard of that one, will check it out."

Bear in mind that Reddit has a notoriously young user base. What I get from this is that Sonar is not doing so well in terms of visibility among the young crowd and Cakewalk really need to fix this problem as part of their long term strategy, and I'm sure they are talking about it. That's going to mean catering a little more for the electronic/EDM crowd than they are now, by borrowing/expanding upon some of the features that other DAW's have implemented for that crowd. Things like the global modulation sources of Bitwig, or the drum rack of Ableton, more features geared toward pattern based arrangement and better automation capabilities. Sonar has a solid user base of older muso's who use the program almost as a tape machine to record more traditional forms of music, but it's not really doing as well as it should among younger users who, regardless of the genre they play, are incorporating synth and EDM type elements into their modern productions.

sharke
Bear in mind that Reddit has a notoriously young user base. What I get from this is that Sonar is not doing so well in terms of visibility among the young crowd and Cakewalk really need to fix this problem as part of their long term strategy, and I'm sure they are talking about it.

Interesting observation.  My take-away is that Cakewalk really has not taken on that much risk in offering all us old guys a "lifetime" membership.  We all have expiration dates that will come sooner than the Reddit crowd's, LOL!

I worked as a SW engineer for 27 years before retiring and I wouldn't be concerned about what one vendor says about another, particularly when it's an excuse for their lack of testing 
 
Looking at a couple reviews of Sonar Platinum ...
SOS - calls Cakewalk a major DAW developer
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may15/articles/sonar-0515.htm
 
electronic Musician - this product (is) among the handful of DAWs worthy of professional audio production.
http://www.emusician.com/gear/1332/review-cakewalk-sonar-platinum/54067
 
Music Radar - Sonar remains one of the most powerful DAWs available on Windows.
http://www.musicradar.com/reviews/tech/cakewalk-sonar-platinum-617974
 
Music Tech - SONAR has always been a mainstay of the Windows music production world
http://www.musictech.net/2015/01/cakewalk-sonar-platinum-review/
 
And these were all on the first page of a google search ...