Anderton
Because it's your duty as a SONAR user to subsidize people who don't want to pay $9.99 or perform 9 steps to configure their own encoder.

That argument might have had some merit under the old Cakewalk pricing model.  But it is not a good argument under the subscription model.  Plain and simple, only a perversely short-sighted company would nickel and dime a customer over a $10 item when they want me to be on a long-term subscription that will be many hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars over the life of our relationship. I am not asking anybody else to pay more for the product.  I am saying that Cakewalk has the power to absorb this small cost item for the long-term benefit of a happy, growing customer base.  And in the context of a multi-year subscription, this item is insignificant to Cakewalk's P&L.
 
And for the record, I already paid that charge a long time ago.  My point is this is a dumb marketing position for a company pushing subscription-only service.
 
You are entitled to your opinion about how software products should be marketed.  I don't agree with that opinion in this case.  My suggestion is that you simply accept the fact that your opinion is not shared by everyone on this item and leave it at that.

cparmerlee
FWIW, according to this site, all the MP3 patents expire within the next 27 months, so one would think Frauenhofer should be in a negotiating mood.

Actually, it's people like you that cause companies not to be in a negotiating mood.
 
"So, you're just not going to offer MP3 for over two years? What will cparmerlee think about that, who considers MP3 encoding of such crucial importance to a program that he believes SONAR users who already can encode MP3s should pay for other users to have MP3 encoding? You already have free Ogg Vorbis encoding, but he doesn't want that. You already offer a free MP3 encoding, but that's not good enough for him, either. And he says not including MP3 causes SONAR to be considered a program only for hackers and makes it look amateurish. No, the only way you can take care of him, and the vast number of people he believes think like him, is by continuing to pay us for the next 27 months. Of course if you prefer, you can just tell cparmerlee to go suck eggs and use Ogg Vorbis, which is a better encoder anyway (but you didn't hear that from us, okay?). But you won't, because we have the Power of the Brand, which we use to exercise control over the masses. Ready to write that check now?"
 
If everyone had just used Ogg Vorbis when SONAR added it, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But people are apparently creatures of habit, and if cparmerlee's market research is credible, MP3 export is the overwhelming preference of large numbers of people, in particular SONAR users. Why would that give Fraunhofer (or Thomson, but you get my point) any incentive to lower prices on their way out the door? It doesn't.
 
How fortunate their patents will expire just as people realize there are far better alternatives. Which of course, SONAR already supports.

cparmerlee

Anderton
Because it's your duty as a SONAR user to subsidize people who don't want to pay $9.99 or perform 9 steps to configure their own encoder.

I am not asking anybody else to pay more for the product.

 
I totally understand and appreciate that your intention is not to ask for that. But the reality is that the money has to come from somewhere. If Cakewalk has to pay more for things that people don't need or have already purchased, that cost will be passed along to the consumer one way or another. That's the way everything except non-profits work.
 

I am saying that Cakewalk has the power to absorb this small cost item for the long-term benefit of a happy, growing customer base.

 
All I'm saying is that's based on wishful thinking, not reality, and I truly wish the world was such that you were right. And I must admit, I'm envious that you can see the world in those idealistic terms, and I certainly would not want you to abandon your idealistic viewpoint as the world could use more idealists. But, I've already explained that the licensing fee is not a small cost compared to a $99 program like SONAR Artist, or a $19.99 program like Music Creator, both of which do much more volume than SONAR Platinum, where a lot of the BOM already goes to third-party licensing fees. (As to whether Cakewalk should spend the time to come up with a single-program-specific version of the encoder and an installer for same, as well as protect it from usage in other programs, is a separate and more complex discussion that will be irrelevant in a couple years anyway.)
 
But let's assume you're right and the customers don't have to pay for it. Then Cakewalk does, and unless they come up with some immensely profitable product that makes sufficient money to subsidize another product, who should Cakewalk fire to cover the cost? (How about Ryan? That rabbit avatar was always kind of creepy anyway...)
 

You are entitled to your opinion about how software products should be marketed.  I don't agree with that opinion in this case.  My suggestion is that you simply accept the fact that your opinion is not shared by everyone on this item and leave it at that.

 
I’ve already said:
 
“I understand that some people, for whatever reason, will not see the merits in that approach.”
 
and
 
“Given those tradeoffs, I think the correct decision is to leave the decision about how to handle MP3 encoding up to the user. Others disagree. On the other hand I'm not sure they want to pay more for SONAR, have fewer features, or put someone out on the street; but to be fair, maybe they're totally cool with those tradeoffs, and if so, I respect their opinion regardless of whether I agree or not."
 
I am simply trying to present the reality of the situation, for example, that comparing the volume that a company like Sony does with Cakewalk is apples and oranges, or to say that Cakewalk aren't "good negotiators" when the fee is fixed based on multiple criteria that are not alterable does not relate to how the real world works. Those who have open minds may find facts helpful in forming their opinions, and I have presented facts. I totally accept that you remain unconvinced by those facts. Others may realize that what I've said is based on considerable experience in patent law, negotiating contracts, and negotiating licensing agreements, and the facts I've presented may provide a different insight on the situation. 
 
However, given that you have not brought up anything that contradicts anything I've said from a factual standpoint, I have nothing further to add, and I think people have enough information they can make up their own minds as to the course of action Cakewalk should take that would benefit the majority of their customers.
 
But I really do mean it when I said "I certainly would not want you to abandon your idealistic viewpoint as the world could use more idealists," and I'd be more than happy if that's the only fact you remember from my comments because it's the one that's most important 
 
 
 

what happened to audiophilia? can we all just agree mp3 has ruined the world.  :-) 

If anyone wants to argue a case for the inclusion of an MP3 convertor by default, then I'm all ears. I described earlier why I wouldn't need it (Post#63). Forget about marketing. Describe some typical scenarios where it would be beneficial to have this feature included.

rabeach
what happened to audiophilia? can we all just agree mp3 has ruined the world.  :-) 

If you have any kind of high frequency hearing loss, you already come with your own, personal, compressed audio!

Ian Ferrin

rabeach
what happened to audiophilia? can we all just agree mp3 has ruined the world.  :-) 

If you have any kind of high frequency hearing loss, you already come with your own, personal, compressed audio!

So most people over 30 then.
 
 

Kev999
If anyone wants to argue a case for the inclusion of an MP3 convertor by default, then I'm all ears. I described earlier why I wouldn't need it (Post#63). Forget about marketing. Describe some typical scenarios where it would be beneficial to have this feature included.

 
Referring to post 63, for me, MP3 is proofreading. Not printing. I output MP3 192 CBR, sounds pretty indistinguishable to me from 44/16 wave, whenever I want a quick reference to take with me for enjoyment, or email etc. I don't need Sonar to output the final product as MP3. Obviously I would output to a lossless high quality format for that, like wave. And I can use iTunes, or whatever program, to create a compressed format from the master for cataloging or whatever.
 
Why question someone who wants to output MP3 directly from Sonar. I mean, then you should be questioning why we need FLAC or OGG whatever and all the rest. Why not get rid of them all except for one high quality lossless format and use some other program to output other formats from that.
 
I really don't get all the MP3 hate. I really never new there was such a thing. I mean, I can understand the idea that buying a lossy format is a bad idea. But using one to store your library on a device smaller than a walkman is pretty cool to me.
 
It always surprises my when you get someone who says how horrible MP3s sound. They must be doing something different than me because at 192 CBR they are pretty indistinguishable form wave 44/16 to me. It would be cool for someone, I would be willing, to upload a 44/16 wave, FLAC, OGG and MP3 192 CBR. We could download the files, create a playlist from them on your phone or whatever and shuffle them and see if you can tell a difference.
 
I know, you already can. No point in doing that stupid test. And by you, I wasn't referring to you Kev999. But rather the person who is going to come in here saying how dumb MP3s etc.
 
Oops, I was supposed to be out of this thread. :)

WDI
Referring to post 63, for me, MP3 is proofreading. Not printing. I output MP3 192 CBR, sounds pretty indistinguishable to me from 44/16 wave, whenever I want a quick reference to take with me for enjoyment, or email etc. I don't need Sonar to output the final product as MP3. Obviously I would output to a lossless high quality format for that, like wave. And I can use iTunes, or whatever program, to create a compressed format from the master for cataloging or whatever.
 
Why question someone who wants to output MP3 directly from Sonar. I mean, then you should be questioning why we need FLAC or OGG whatever and all the rest. Why not get rid of them all except for one high quality lossless format and use some other program to output other formats from that.
 
I really don't get all the MP3 hate. I really never new there was such a thing. I mean, I can understand the idea that buying a lossy format is a bad idea. But using one to store your library on a device smaller than a walkman is pretty cool to me.
 
It always surprises my when you get someone who says how horrible MP3s sound. They must be doing something different than me because at 192 CBR they are pretty indistinguishable form wave 44/16 to me. It would be cool for someone, I would be willing, to upload a 44/16 wave, FLAC, OGG and MP3 192 CBR. We could download the files, create a playlist from them on your phone or whatever and shuffle them and see if you can tell a difference.
 
I know, you already can. No point in doing that stupid test. And by you, I wasn't referring to you Kev999. But rather the person who is going to come in here saying how dumb MP3s etc.
 
Oops, I was supposed to be out of this thread. :)

1) You can use FLAC on mobiles
2) Try listening to a Hammond rotary on MP3, it sounds like a washing machine. Dark Side of The Moon is more like Backside of the Washing Machine.
3) Most of us do understand how MP3's sound, there aren't really many revelations to be had, esp in these forums.
 
I only see one reason for MP3, and that is spoken word recordings where audio quality really does not matter.

https://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr12/articles/lost-in-translation.htm