Starise
When a person can get into something like Reaper for $60.00 for life it's ...

Not to pick nits, but Reaper licensing isn't $60 for life.  There are two levels of pricing, and the license is good for the current and subsequent major version.  This still turns out to be a pretty good deal, but it's not for life.

I think the program is great and while I may not use every new item that is presented they are available should I need them for future projects. I like looking forward to the monthly updates and have utilized many in my current projects. The forum and community here is great and a good way for Cakewalk users to communicate and share.  I am very satisfied with the program and look forward to new developments.
 
Blackie

Platinum for me is an improvement. For me I thought the break off from Roland was a positive. Splat certainly started off with a bang and it's certainly better with Gibson.

Sure the monthly updates are better than X3 and before, sadly however the QA results seem to be about the same. I don't expect bakers to find every issue, QA is hard, the product is complex, it's impossible to find everything. Heck I did it as a job for several years in silicon valley, I should know, and I know part of the model has to be the customers end up being the beta testers, that's fine by me. It's a fact of life we all must deal with if we want good and cheap software. But I still do question the model of releasing unstable or buggy software with bug fixes at the same time.

Monthly is great if all we are is beta testers, and some people want to be, and that is fine by me. The situation we have now basically. But for the rest of us, we want to run on stable releases, and there needs to be another path for us to follow. If there was a situation where there were additional stability releases every quarter with a feature freeze, a true alternative path to follow, that would be a huge improvement. That could run in parallel or part of the normal cycle. Whatever...

To say that there is no demand for stability releases (as has been stated only recently) is a ridiculous statement. This is audio software we are talking about. Some of us just want to spend time recording without issue.

Of course the arguement would be you can simply roll back, this is true and is a good feature... However..

a) We are still put into the position of having to be beta testers whether we want to or not when we upgrade. That's a pita when all some of us want to do is record, and with paying customers is a big no no.

b) Rolling back may resolve an issue, but just leaves us with other different bugs to cope with. You takes yer choice.

So in summary yup it's better, but something seriously needs to be done to improve the current situation. Bring on regular stability releases and schedule them so we know in advance is my opinion. The current model is a good start, please tweak it.

Actually just happened to open Sonar 4 Producer the other day,looked and clicked around in it for a few minutes, exploring things that I have gotten use to in the Platinum version, and found myself saying  wowwww.  And to think that back then I thought Sonar 4PE was more usable for me than the DAW's that were out at that time (specific to my style and flow of working of course).
Even looking back on X3e (very good version). 
That being said, I must admit, I think the way that the new system flows, rollouts, updates, features ect, This model is working very well for me, the program (Platinum) is almost invisible,letting me just focus on the work and not the deficiencies (not that I can state any at the moment) of the program (I guess it's relative to your priorities and what's important you workflow wise. Rolling updates, I find them to be a much more added and nice "bonus". I am not one to update immediately on every update rollout (that's just me), and try to avoid the "let me play with the new toys syndrome that can be a trap at times. My way to deal with that is to try and not update until I have finished the current open projects that I am working from the previous version (unless the new update has something in it that will definitely benefit my workflow on current projects). I'm actually still on "G" Glouchester and trying to get these projects out of the way in anticipacion for the next update which I have a feeling will be a nice step up from Glouchester for me (my personal opinion).  We could never argue about a personal matter of taste. For some it's working and for some it's not (reality).
I don't see the payment option structure as a huge difference from the option I had before, which is to be able to buy sonar straight out the gate and own it and whatever comes out on rolling updates in that 12 month period, and then consider after 12 if I want to do it again. I am one who skipped updates before the new model anyway (Started in Sonar 4PE >> Sonar 8PE>> Sonar X2 PE >>Sonar X3e PE>>Sonar Platinum) as needed for my workflow as opposed to new toys . Although i am not against new toys, finishing work is my priority and sometimes new toys can lead to sidetracking (thats just me, not a rule i would demand be law for everyone).
Short answer: Yes, after a little less than 12 months, I would say we are better off (Great Product).

For me its an overall positive. I don't mind the subscription model and to Cakewalk's credit, you do get to own the software (unlike many other vendor's models). The software IMHO has improved, though not all of the improvements are important to me. In general I stay with Sonar because I like the way things are going. 

+1 Cakewalk

Anderton

Starise
Presonus has a large hardware sector to lean on for income, Cakewalk has Tascam, Gibson and KRK. It looks like a pretty level playing field.

 
FWIW all Gibson Brands are separate divisions that are accountable for their own profits and losses.

I stand corrected...If all is owned by the same entity one could help the other correct? I want to see Cakewalk successful on it's own just the same. Hopefully all can work together to help the others. Tascam could throw in an intro copy of Sonar...Sonar can offer a discount on KRK's. Isn't that kind of thing in the works? This is more of an indirect approach.
 
BobF in reference to the Reaper comment. I seen it was 60.00 to get a license and updates were "free". Wasn't Reaper at one time a single fee? If not I'm sorry for the misinformation...even Reaper is getting slightly more expensive. 
 
In any case, it seems to come down to customer loyalty, product quality and satisfaction over price. I will spend more for a better product every time.We sometimes only hear the squeaky wheel here on the forums. There are many more who are contented and loving Sonar that you never hear from. Having said that, from my end of things, if Sonar became much more expensive in the future I would be looking at other options. I record mostly acoustic instruments and dabble in Kontakt.....I'm not a power user by any stretch, but I'm loving the things the bakers are doing.
 
 

I couldn ´t be happier with  Splat,
the monthly updates are wonderful and offer a lot of
workflow enhancments to me.
I got  Splat for a small yearly amount 
and take in hand not to upgrade - like every year, and than ....
It deepends on what a new  Sonar  version offers.
Splat offers more than enough for my needs.
 
 
 
 

I pre-paid my subscription and feel I got a great bang the buck right out of the gate with what was being offered. Aux tracks and patch points are huge imo. I'm not crazy about the CCC as it doesn't recognize much of what I had previously installed even though the folder path is correct. Year 1 was pretty good, I look forward to what's coming but I'll only renew if something big comes along.
 
Rocky

Doktor Avalanche
To say that there is no demand for stability releases (as has been stated only recently) is a ridiculous statement. 

Of course that's ridiculous. Everyone wants stable software, and it's clear some months have concentrated more on fixes or more on features. But it's also unwise not to satisfy those clamoring for more features. Cakewalk learned that the hard way when SONAR 2015 was introduced.
 
I think no one would dispute that out of the gate, SONAR 2015 was much more stable than X3 because so much emphasis was placed on "under the hood" work between versions. However, there were people who felt the new features in 2015 were "underwhelming." If they can't see that fixes were made, or if the fixes relate to issues that didn't impact them, as far as they're concerned there's no perceived value to the update. And if X3 worked for them, they wouldn't update unless they saw new features, or took it on faith that when people in the forums said 2015 was more stable, those stability fixes would create a better experience. They wouldn't know it was a better experience unless they updated, which they wouldn't do sans new features.
 
To me the biggest advantage of the monthly releases in terms of fixes is that they're ongoing, they don't stop after 5-6 months or whatever it took for X3 to stop doing fixes. Yes, of course bugs will be introduced with new features...but again, unlike the big yearly update where all features hit at once and it can take months to squash everything, it really does seem that if there's a bug introduced in a release it's fixed in the next one, sometimes even with a hotfix that occurs within weeks. This to me is far preferable to the old model, which also of course didn't have the option to roll back...so whatever bugs you had were there until Cakewalk could fix them.
 
What would make the system better is more resources for QC but that's a chicken and egg situation. The more people who sign up for membership, the more resources become available. Paradoxically, those who harp publicly and repeatedly on what's lacking in SONAR drive potential users away from the program, thus making it more difficult to fix the issues about which they complain, so then they complain more. As in other aspects of life, negativity begets negativity.
 
Of course negative issues should not be ignored, and obviously, a lot of the fixes have been driven by forum comments. But ongoing repetition of the same laundry list of issues is counter-productive. Fixes are prioritized based on multiple factors, including perceived good for the greatest percentage of active users, timing (there's no point in fixing a bug if the functionality is going to be changed in the near future), feasibility, whether or not a workaround exists for an issue (it makes more sense to prioritize issues that don't have a workaround), and impact on time that would preclude developing new features in order to remain competitive and satisfy those who don't have stability problems and want more features. 
 
Now, for some comments on features as a SONAR user who depends on it for my livelihood. What I like most about the monthly updates is being able to absorb a limited number of features at a time, and choose whether or not to include them in my workflow. I find it far less disruptive to learn a little bit every month than a whole lot every year.
 
I've also noticed that few of the new features are "global" features I use all the time in every project. Instead, they are more targeted...there are some projects where VocalSync is essential, some where Mix Recall is essential, sometimes I'm on a laptop and need the virtual controller, Drum Replacer I haven't used all that much but when I have, it's been essential and made a huge improvement...some plug-ins need upsampling, some don't...etc. So I see the new features more like new tools in the toolset than fundamental reworkings of the program.