Would be interesting to see what people would 'pay' for.
Say CW would offer a 'bugfix' membership a 'content' membership and a 'features' membership all separately. Most probably viewed over a say 3 years period the percentages of purchases for each category will end up pretty even.

I personally feel that the timing is what annoys me (a little): Content can be delivered monthly. Fine, it's not part of the sonar-core programme, mostly bugfree and I can choose to use it or not. Features could be added 2 or 3x per year...that way my system is not "changing monthly". Bugfixes do not need to appear regularly at all, that is....they can be released as soon as the releases/fixes have been tested extensively and are most likely NOT introducing new bugs!
That way I don't have to worry about being faced with a potentially unstable system every month. As it is now I've been skipping every two updates but also been missing out on the content/features to play with.

(Just my opinion right now....subject to change by other good arguments :) )

M@
That way I don't have to worry about being faced with a potentially unstable system every month.

 
Cakewalk is kicking around an idea that may solve that issue. Nor ready for prime time yet, though. 
 

As it is now I've been skipping every two updates but also been missing out on the content/features to play with.

Much of the content is downloadable separately so no problems with that. As to the features, all reports are that the rollback feature is extremely robust. Bugs often affect only a particular functionality. What I advise is downloading the update and using it. If you run into something that's a problem, roll back.

M@
Bugfixes do not need to appear regularly at all, that is....they can be released as soon as the releases/fixes have been tested extensively and are most likely NOT introducing new bugs!

Cakewalk relies on us to put the updates to hard use and discover the bugs.  Not saying that's bad since we're not forced to participate, just pointing out that the "extensively tested" part is done by us and the update must be released for this to happen.  So the sooner the better.  The introduction of new bugs (to us) is inherent in this way of doing things.

M@
Would be interesting to see what people would 'pay' for.
Say CW would offer a 'bugfix' membership a 'content' membership and a 'features' membership all separately. Most probably viewed over a say 3 years period the percentages of purchases for each category will end up pretty even.

That would not be good business for Cakewalk. They maximize profit by forcing customers to pay for the 'bundled content' that does not cost anything to Cakewalk.

Anderton

irvin
I firmly believe that the majority's opinion should rule.

While that sounds good in theory, it's a little more nuanced than that. My favorite example comes from when I was running Electronic Musician magazine. We had a record reviewer named Robert Carlberg who was both snarky and intelligent. In reader surveys, 85% of the readers said they didn't want to see record reviews in the magazine, they would prefer the space was used for something else. But the 15% who wanted the reviews loved Carlberg's writing, and many of them said those reviews were the primary reason they subscribed to the magazine. So we kept the reviews because they were extremely popular among a very loyal group of readers.

You kept the record reviews because it did not cost you much to keep them - the 85% found value in other areas of the magazine, while the 15% more than covered the cost of keeping the reviewer around. So, that's like an apples to oranges comparison.

That said, I get what you're saying, and it all comes down to what Cakewalk thinks is best for the company's bottom line. If enough users find value in certain things, that's the way to go. I can understand that.

irvin

No offense intended, but that explains why it's so low quality and generic.

Over the years in various studios I have found that the usefulness of software,  content or most anything in the production process has little to do with one persons subjective measure of 'quality' .  In every case it's intrinsic value is in direct proportion to the skill and creativity of the person using it. 
 

irvin

M@
Would be interesting to see what people would 'pay' for.
Say CW would offer a 'bugfix' membership a 'content' membership and a 'features' membership all separately. Most probably viewed over a say 3 years period the percentages of purchases for each category will end up pretty even.

That would not be good business for Cakewalk. They maximize profit by forcing customers to pay for the 'bundled content' that does not cost anything to Cakewalk.

I still can't figure out how you can justify saying "They maximize profit by forcing customers to pay for the 'bundled content' that does not cost anything to Cakewalk." I'm more than happy to address your concerns, but I need to understand the basis for what you're saying. As explained before if you're referring to the content I provide you're not paying for it, and if you consider AD, Blue Tubes, Melodyne, etc. as content, of course Cakewalk does pay something for those. However the company is able to negotiate a good price and passes the savings along to the community. Personally I would not have paid $150 for Addictive Drums, $99 for Melodyne, or hundreds of dollars for the Nomad Blue Tubes bundle, but given that they were included in an upgrade that cost $150, I think most people would consider that a reasonable amount of value.
 
It would really help if you specified the "so generic and low quality" content you think you're paying for. 

irvin
You kept the record reviews because it did not cost you much to keep them - the 85% found value in other areas of the magazine, while the 15% more than covered the cost of keeping the reviewer around. So, that's like an apples to oranges comparison.

Just to be clear I was not referring to the economics, but addressing your comment that you "firmly believe that the majority's opinion should rule." If the majority opinion ruled, he would have been excluded from the magazine regardless of the economics. However I certainly agree with you if what you're saying is that in terms of priorities, the majority viewpoint needs to be accommodated first. Then if possible, you can take care of "vocal minorities." 

Sonar cured my Cancer, Emphysema, Heart Disease, and Club Foot--What more could you ask for??

Anderton

M@
That way I don't have to worry about being faced with a potentially unstable system every month.

 
Cakewalk is kicking around an idea that may solve that issue. Nor ready for prime time yet, though. 
 

I think this is ALL some of us have been asking for. I hope it gets kicked up a notch