Paul P
What happens if something is broken in the last update of 2015 and you hadn't planned on continuing your subscription ?  You could roll-back to the second-to-last, but you'd in effect lose a month's worth of improvements.

This has been asked and answered several times by CW staff.
 
To rephrase the question more generically, what if the last update to any version of a product breaks something? What would you do? How to I recover my "lost value?" In prior versions of Cakewalk, there was the option of reinstalling up to but not including the last update. How is this any different?

Anderton

NeoSoul

Anderton

BMOG
 
$150 times forever adds up over time don't you think? 

Yes, no doubt it does add up. In fact 35 years from now, it will have added up to what I paid (adjusted for inflation) for a 4-track tape recorder in 1975 which had no mixer, no processors, no instruments, and a need to feed it $156 worth of tape every month. (No, that's not a typo...35 years.)

I really enjoy using Sonar.   But it is quite an unfair comparison.  Sonar doesn't do anything without a computer + audio interface

 
I think very few people dedicate a computer exclusively to SONAR (even though they should, LOL). They are amortizing the expense of that computer over multiple applications. All a tape recorder could do was push tape.
 

The $150 is also just an update cost.  To start the process, sonar costs $500 for the version under question.

 
Consider the price I quoted for my monthly expense for tape. You can't run a tape recorder without tape...over a year, that would more than cover the $500, as well as $150 updates for 8+ years.
 

I personally thought it was odd that the developers came out with Rapture Pro, but didn't add that to the premium product, they just provided a stripped down version, and offer it as a separate purchase. Even Apple gave Logic users (a full DAW that costs $200, and even includes plgins like drummer) the Alchemy Synth as a free add on, not some stripped down version.

 
When you want to dominate a market, have $200,000,000,000 in cash on hand, and more importantly hefty profit margins on the computers people have to buy to run your software, you can take certain liberties with pricing. Remember that the goal of Logic is to induce you to buy a computer.
 

The same can be said for some of the pro-channel models they have released on the side.  The model has changed, why not start including those in the package, especially since they are of no value to anyone but Sonar users.

 
Because developing software and paying licensing fees to third party developers is not free. The more things SONAR includes, the higher the price will have to be to cover the extra expenses. Then people would complain about "I have Omnisphere, why do I have to pay for Rapture Pro? And I already have the Waves Mercury Suite of plug-ins and UA's Powered Plug-Ins. Why should I have to pay for more ProChannel modules I won't use?"
 
If you don't think that would happen, look at all the people here complaining that they don't want to pay money for particular features they don't use. It's a balancing act. No matter what Cakewalk does or does not include, their choices will satisfy some people and not others. To stay in business, all they have to do is make sure that most people are satisfied.
 
 
 

I dedicate two computers to music + video productions.  
 
If we want to do an apples to apples, we can start talking about current alternatives to Sonar (and I am not a Mac fan), but you would have to include that in the discussion along with Reaper and other full power DAWs that cost less than Sonar does.  
 
My point being that Cakewalk developed things like Rapture Pro, and other ProChannel plugins that are not included with Platinum.  People are now playing for the continual development process of the flagship product with the membership system.  Of course they are free to sell it on the side to non-Sonar users (Rapture Pro), but I personally am surprised they are asking Platinum members to buy it as an add on.  
 
I understand the 3rd party add ons.  However, things like the Boz Lab thing was already free.  The only development was to make it have a ProChannel GUI.  Something like the Sidewinder plugin they developed for Computer Music Magazine would have been a better argument for development costs, IMO.  
 
The membership models works on the premise that the customer is paying Cakewalk's continual development fee.  Did a 3rd party make Rapture Pro?
 
In the previous model, something like Dimension Pro was added to the package under the development costs customers paid for, right?   I suppose I'm curious how many copies of Rapture Pro they have sold and the break down of Sonar customers vs. non Sonar customers.  
 
(I'm a major Sonar fan, I have a friend that is a top seller of Pro Tools in the country and could give me a fantastic discount year after year, I've always told him "nope, not interested")

Sorry, but what's a full power DAW?

A full power DAW MUST have everything I want, and exclude what I don't want.
 
And do this for each purchaser...
 
No prob Bob!

NeoSoul
 
In the previous model, something like Dimension Pro was added to the package under the development costs customers paid for, right? 

No. Dimension Pro was originally only available as a separate purchase just like RPro today. It was offered at a discount for those who had Dimension which was bundled with Project 5. Only after several years as a separately available synth was DPro bundled with SONAR. It might be the case several years from now RPro will be bundled with Platinum.

NeoSoul
My point being that Cakewalk developed things like Rapture Pro, and other ProChannel plugins that are not included with Platinum.  People are now playing for the continual development process of the flagship product with the membership system.  Of course they are free to sell it on the side to non-Sonar users (Rapture Pro), but I personally am surprised they are asking Platinum members to buy it as an add on.

 
Virtual instruments are a separate product line and cost center. When you get a membership, it's to SONAR, not to Cakewalk. You don't get Cakewalk's iOS apps either (another separate product line and cost center).   
 

I understand the 3rd party add ons.  However, things like the Boz Lab thing was already free.  The only development was to make it have a ProChannel GUI.  Something like the Sidewinder plugin they developed for Computer Music Magazine would have been a better argument for development costs, IMO.

 
3rd party agreements are a whole other world that often exists on the other side of the looking glass . For example you don't know (nor do I) if Cakewalk had to spend the development time on the Boz plugs, or Boz did the development in return for having products in the Cakewalk store and he wanted to bring more attention to his products...or maybe Boz was sitting around on a Sunday wondering how difficult it would be to adapt something to the ProChannel and let Cakewalk have it because...well, why not? Maybe the Sidewinder thing for CM was an exclusive, or a limited time exclusive (like CM were the only people who could have it for a year). I've negotiated quite a few contracts in my time and the process is usually extremely convoluted. 
 

The membership models works on the premise that the customer is paying Cakewalk's continual development fee.

 
Actually the premise is that it's paying for SONAR development. I suppose Cakewalk could offer an "all Cakewalk all the time" membership where you got everything Cakewalk makes, but I don't know if people would want that or not.
 

Did a 3rd party make Rapture Pro?

 
Many hired contractors were involved in Rapture Pro. Now, if a ton of Logic and Pro Tools people buy Rapture Pro, then that could possibly amortize the costs sufficiently that Cakewalk could afford to give away Rapture Pro to SONAR users as a courtesy. The whole point is that software development is not free and has to be paid for. If Cakewalk had sold Winamp for $500,000,000 like the guy who does Reaper, or had $200,000,000,000 cash on hand like Apple, then that would certainly be sufficient to cover Rapture Pro's cost should Cakewalk feel generous about giving it to SONAR users. But until then, Rapture Pro has to justify its own existence.
 

In the previous model, something like Dimension Pro was added to the package under the development costs customers paid for, right?

 
No, both Rapture and Dimension Pro were originally sold separately and only became part of SONAR years after their introduction. 
 

I suppose I'm curious how many copies of Rapture Pro they have sold and the break down of Sonar customers vs. non Sonar customers.

 
I'd be curious about that as well but as I said above, unless the non-SONAR users paid enough to justify SONAR users getting it for free, it's a moot point. Furthermore, Rapture isn't going to stop with the current version. If they make any money from RP they're going to have to put some aside toward maintaining compatibility with operating systems, future feature additions and bug fixes, cost allocation to support calls and overhead, and creating derivative programs like Rapture Session.
 

(I'm a major Sonar fan, I have a friend that is a top seller of Pro Tools in the country and could give me a fantastic discount year after year, I've always told him "nope, not interested")

 
I don't see antagonism in your posts, more like curiosity (which I always respect). I do believe most people on this forum are musicians and artists - as they should be - and may not be well-versed in the intricacies of development, cost centers, shared expenses, third-party agreements, and all that other - uh, "stuff" - you have to go through before you can even think of getting products to market, let alone how best to market and sell them. So, I don't mind the opportunity to shed a little light on the subject from time to time...not that I ever really wanted to learn this stuff, but it goes with the territory and makes for an interesting chess game if nothing else.

The partial list of all the new SONAR features the Bakers have rolled out which has been posted multiple times in this thread (as quotes ) is staggering when compared to X3 .
Since I haven't upgraded from X 3 to SPlat yet , over here , to me , it feels like I shoot a new toe off one of my feet every month that rolls by after I see all the updates and optimizations that have happened to the core program of SONAR …
I'm tired of making excuses . I need to do an upgrade to Splat before I run out of toes .
Kenny
 

Anderton
 
On second thought, it is indeed an unfair comparison. I was comparing SONAR to a 4-track tape recorder and not including a mixer, any processors, or backline. A more accurate comparison would be comparing SONAR to two slaved 24 track digital machines with a rack full of processors and a bunch of synthesizers, and of course you'd need a two-track so you could mix down to a format other than 2" tape. Under those conditions, assuming you bought a tricked-out computer dedicated to music, a brand-new really big monitor, paid for SONAR at list price, and bought only two reels of 24-track tape and just kept erasing them over and over to keep costs down, then saying that it would take 35 years of SONAR updates to pay off a recording system is wrong. It would be closer to 1,000 years 
 

That's quite an investment, Craig!  But then you had been one of a few who owned such equipment and people were booking time weeks or months ahead to get to your studio and make a recording. So this investment was very rewarding.
Nowadays powerful computers are found in every house and literally anybody can start using a virtual studio, aka DAW. Nobody's booking engineer's time, at least not to the extent it happened in the past. Of course, DAW gurus go pro and start producing music for living, but only a few become more or less prominent in this business and it's very hard for a DAW user to become rich, famous or even achieve a legendary status.
My point is, an average DAW user is a hobbyist or semi-pro. So investing in a software product is something people will think twice about before "pulling the trigger".

I recorded a 4 minute song in 1990.  It was done in the most professional studio in our area.  All world class gear, engineer/owner had credits on projects for MJ and Madonna and was lead engineer on Little River Band's last album in the 80's.  The guy took a liking to me and mentored me as I started buying gear and learning the craft just so I could augment my songwriting and kept on helping me as I stepped up through 4 tracks, then true multitrack analog and then my jump to DAW in the late 90's.  (all on PC might I add, MAC schmack, who needed SCSI anyway.)  He even stayed with me after I backed into recording others for profit.

Somewhere in the mid 2000s, he started calling me to take some of his overflow work.  I told him that made me nervous as I did not have the gear or experience he had.  He said to me; "You understand the craft and have enough tools, talent and ears to get the quality I need, you are one of the few people I trust in the area to associate my name with, I no longer consider you a student, you are my peer."

In 1990 when I recorded that song, he had near a $500,000 worth of gear.

I still have less than $20,000 invested in my studio since starting in 1994. 

All of my work was done in Cakewalk with the very bottom edge of pro-quality mics and hardware (no "B"word gear though).  Granted, I have never mixed "in the box" since I jumped to CW in the late 90s.  I have always used it as a fancy editing and tape machine that had the ability to add effects straight to the tracks before they hit the mixing board but I never had a truly high quality board either, Mackie, then 02R, now X32. (can I admit I finally have 1 piece of Behringer gear here?)

We listened to some of my recent work against that early 1990's work done on his $500,000 worth of gear and what I am doing is easily equal or superior to that.  The power of Cakewalk's products allowed me to do that.  My loyalty to Cakewalk allowed me to make music instead of learning software constantly by jumping around from DAW to DAW.  I actually used PA9 forever, all the way up to Sonar 6.  From 6 I landed on 8.5 and used that up to X2.  Each time I upgraded, I found a slowdown from a learning curve so from X2 on, I decided to upgrade every chance I get.  That makes continuing the subscription a very welcome option for me.  I have instant access to the one or two workflow changes a month I need to start learning, (they call them enhancements but not everybody has the same experience) rather than a whole new paradigm like going from PA9 to Sonar, and 8.5 to X2.
 
Granted the cost of gear and the move to software replacing hardware has brought the cost of starting a studio down so much that it hurt both our studios for a few years as any hack could buy an interface, a $99 Chinese mic, download Reaper and hang out a $25 an hour shingle to open a "studio".  I lost a TON of business to refusing to drop my price to meet that.  However that is changing slowly back as people are starting to understand it takes more to record (especially mix) than just the bare bones tools needed to capture sound.  It takes experience, knowledge, stability, acoustics and talent to name just a few.

My recording and mixing space has decent acoustics, I have been told I have reasonable talent but I know I have to constantly hone it or lose it.  Therefore, I'll keep paying monthly so that the experience with, knowledge about and stability of my chosen platform does not take me away from where I need to focus. 

Others mileage may vary, but roughly $17 bucks a month to replace about $480,000 of that $500,000 worth of 1990 gear with the latest and greatest CW product is a bargain to me.

SimpleM
I recorded a 4 minute song in 1990.  It was done in the most professional studio in our area.  All world class gear, engineer/owner had credits on projects for MJ and Madonna and was lead engineer on Little River Band's last album in the 80's.  The guy took a liking to me and mentored me as I started buying gear and learning the craft just so I could augment my songwriting and kept on helping me as I stepped up through 4 tracks, then true multitrack analog and then my jump to DAW in the late 90's.  (all on PC might I add, MAC schmack, who needed SCSI anyway.)  He even stayed with me after I backed into recording others for profit.

Somewhere in the mid 2000s, he started calling me to take some of his overflow work.  I told him that made me nervous as I did not have the gear or experience he had.  He said to me; "You understand the craft and have enough tools, talent and ears to get the quality I need, you are one of the few people I trust in the area to associate my name with, I no longer consider you a student, you are my peer."

In 1990 when I recorded that song, he had near a $500,000 worth of gear.

I still have less than $20,000 invested in my studio since starting in 1994. 

All of my work was done in Cakewalk with the very bottom edge of pro-quality mics and hardware (no "B"word gear though).  Granted, I have never mixed "in the box" since I jumped to CW in the late 90s.  I have always used it as a fancy editing and tape machine that had the ability to add effects straight to the tracks before they hit the mixing board but I never had a truly high quality board either, Mackie, then 02R, now X32. (can I admit I finally have 1 piece of Behringer gear here?)

We listened to some of my recent work against that early 1990's work done on his $500,000 worth of gear and what I am doing is easily equal or superior to that.  The power of Cakewalk's products allowed me to do that.  My loyalty to Cakewalk allowed me to make music instead of learning software constantly by jumping around from DAW to DAW.  I actually used PA9 forever, all the way up to Sonar 6.  From 6 I landed on 8.5 and used that up to X2.  Each time I upgraded, I found a slowdown from a learning curve so from X2 on, I decided to upgrade every chance I get.  That makes continuing the subscription a very welcome option for me.  I have instant access to the one or two workflow changes a month I need to start learning, (they call them enhancements but not everybody has the same experience) rather than a whole new paradigm like going from PA9 to Sonar, and 8.5 to X2.
 
Granted the cost of gear and the move to software replacing hardware has brought the cost of starting a studio down so much that it hurt both our studios for a few years as any hack could buy an interface, a $99 Chinese mic, download Reaper and hang out a $25 an hour shingle to open a "studio".  I lost a TON of business to refusing to drop my price to meet that.  However that is changing slowly back as people are starting to understand it takes more to record (especially mix) than just the bare bones tools needed to capture sound.  It takes experience, knowledge, stability, acoustics and talent to name just a few.

My recording and mixing space has decent acoustics, I have been told I have reasonable talent but I know I have to constantly hone it or lose it.  Therefore, I'll keep paying monthly so that the experience with, knowledge about and stability of my chosen platform does not take me away from where I need to focus. 

Others mileage may vary, but roughly $17 bucks a month to replace about $480,000 of that $500,000 worth of 1990 gear with the latest and greatest CW product is a bargain to me.

Excellent viewpoint.