Okay, I'll give it one last shot.
 
I think we can all agree that money doesn't fall out of the sky, and therefore licensing fees require payment. These payments must be made in advance of selling the product; they cannot be deferred until after the product is sold.
 
I think we can also agree that "payment" is not defined as Cakewalk offering an IOU based on nebulous promises that their user base will expand if they include a particular feature, especially if that feature is already available for free.
 
Furthermore, I think we can agree that the three solutions I offered are realistic ways to pay this fee:
 
1. Charge more for SONAR.
2. Keep the price the same, but remove features that cost money to free up money.
3. Fire someone.
 
I am still waiting for you to weigh in on which of these options you think would be best, or better yet, to offer another solution - and believe me, I am more than open to the possibility that there's a better option than the three I've presented above.
 
(Note: I define "solution" as something that will create a significant pool of money NOW in order to pay for the licensing fee for SONAR and Music Creator, as Frauhofer/Thomson do not accept IOUs. Also, Cakewalk does not have the kind of credit line you're used to if you work with a $2-$3 billion company, and besides, any available credit if it did exist would need be applied to something more significant than providing a third alternative to obtaining a feature that is already available in two different ways.)
 
 

Anderton

I think we can all agree that money doesn't fall out of the sky...
 

Man, my day is totally blown... I guess I should remove all the money catchers installed on my yard that the neighbors complain about.

Why didn't the guy who sold them to me share this???

Anderton
3. Fire someone.

Marketing dollar response...(see Hicks video before you take this too literally).

If this was done in typical Trump fashion, with a phone on vote on who should go (1$ a min), it could be good marketing ploy. Maybe we could create a forum esp. for this.

People pleading for their very survival can make great entertainment.

 
Let's do the same for forum members.
 
 

SteveStrummerUK
 

Kev999

WDI
Referring to post 63, for me, MP3 is proofreading...

 
As for the "proofreading" thing, it's not really recommended to use a format that entails a risk of introducing unwanted artifacts, however small or subtle, if you are going to be listening critically.
 
MP3 files certainly have their place, particulary as a suitable format for uploading music to the web. But conversion to any lossy format should only be done as the very last stage. This doesn't just apply to audio. JPEGs would be similar.

This ^^^^^^
 
Kev, talking of image files, comparing RAW/TIFF/PSD files to JPEGS is an excellent analogy for comparing WAV files to MP3s.
 
I process a lot of my own photos - all the way from the RAW file taken off the camera through conversion to TIFF or PSD to edit, and then resizing, sharpening and, if necessary - changing the file type, to end up with an image appropriate for archiving, printing, or uploading to the web. The final colour corrections and (especially) sharpening can only reliably and accurately be applied to the final file format and image size.
 
Using an 8bit sRGB 900px x 600px 72ppi JPEG image to "proof read" the 16bit AdobeRGB 5200px x 3500px 300ppi TIFF you created it from would be a ridiculous proposition. All you can proof read with an mp3 is an mp3.

Ya, this is obvious.
 
But at the same time, using this proof reading analogy, some one wants you to send them a proof to see layout, graphics being used, wording etc to check on their mobile are you going to send them the PSD file of 100 MB or a jpeg of 1 MB? This analogy can be twisted to your liking. But the technical aspects, as it seems I need to defend myself for some silly reason, I have already stated I understand.

WDI - I don't think anybody is knocking you or anybody else for having the desire to export to mp3.  mp3 is everywhere and has many uses.
 
From what I've read of this thread, the bad mojo toward mp3 is in the context of someone claiming that a product that doesn't include mp3 encoding can't be considered a professional product.
 
I won't speak for everyone, but I personally don't think anybody finding use for mp3 formatted audio is in any way deserving of less respect than those that don't.
 
I use mp3s myself and I don't even feel dirty when I'm done with them.

Paul P
 
Let's do the same for forum members.
 
 

Agreed. That's me gone then...

WDI
...as it seems I need to defend myself for some silly reason...

 
It's not really about defending yourself. Any feature request needs to be argued for in terms of workflow and from a user's perspective. This is something that has been rather lacking in this thread. It shouldn't matter if you think you work differently from other users who question why you need this feature. Everyone has their own way of working, but most people here are not necessarily set in their ways and are not averse to hearing other points of view.

WDI
But at the same time, using this proof reading analogy, some one wants you to send them a proof to see layout, graphics being used, wording etc to check on their mobile are you going to send them the PSD file of 100 MB or a jpeg of 1 MB? 

I agree 100%, which is why I do use MP3s. I further agree that audio programs, even those designed for professionals and placing a premium on sound quality, should be able to support MP3 (which of course SONAR does, in two different ways).
 
However, if you're only transferring files within a closed system of a few collaborators as opposed to the general public, most of the time Ogg Vorbis is a better choice in terms of quality vs. file size. I would draw an analogy between JPEG (MP3) and PNG (Ogg Vorbis). I use Ogg Vorbis and PNG whenever possible, for the same reasons.

Kev999
but most people here are not necessarily set in their ways and are not averse to hearing other points of view.

I am not averse to hearing other points of view at all. But it does seem to be the other way around. This is what I'm talking about. Besides, regarding your response stating why you question why someone wants to do something a certain way, I responded already and said "Fair enough".  Also, you pretty much took my quote out of context by taking only part of the sentence.
 

BobF
WDI - I don't think anybody is knocking you or anybody else for having the desire to export to mp3.  mp3 is everywhere and has many uses.

 
Thanks BobF for giving me a way to bow out gracefully from this thread. Much appreciated.
 

Anderton
However, if you're only transferring files within a closed system of a few collaborators as opposed to the general public, most of the time Ogg Vorbis is a better choice in terms of quality vs. file size. I would draw an analogy between JPEG (MP3) and PNG (Ogg Vorbis). I use Ogg Vorbis and PNG whenever possible, for the same reasons.

 
IMO the only problem with Ogg Vorbis vs MP3 is support. MP3 is universally supported. You don't have to worry about whether someone is going to be able to play MP3.