Mystic38
At the end of the day, I have absolutely zero interest in a subscription model that drip feeds new features and new bugs along with old bug fixes. This has the byproduct of forcing multiples ongoing updates and reduces both confidence and stability in my studio system.

But you're overlooking that you've also been given a boatload of fixes, on an accelerated schedule. Overall, this has improved core stability. The relatively small (and limited number of) issues that have been introduced during an update have been fixed in the next update. For example, when the virtual controller was introduced, there were some tweaks in the next release. However, any issues in the virtual controller didn't affect the rest of the program. 
 
There will always be bugs introduced with a software update. How Cakewalk is addressing it is one option. The other option is to have all the bugs introduced once a year, then sort them out over several months. I prefer having multiple, regular bug fixes along with some new functionality, with any bugs that result sorted out in a month or less.
 
However nothing prevents you from waiting a year, installing the complete update, and benefiting from the fact that most of the bugs would have already been dealt with over the previous year instead of having them all introduced at once. So even if you wait, it's a better system because most bugs will have already been fixed shortly after they were first discovered.

Mystic38
Personally i feel the OP has a point.. in prior Sonar upgrades, there were real, tangible improvements in functionality, and when Splat appeared, my view was "is that it?" and so I pretty much saw it as $149 for AD2, and for the first time in 6 years delayed my upgrade as i did not see a valid rationale.

Much of the community voiced the opinion that they wanted improvements to the core program. Cakewalk listened and if you look at the list of fixes between X3E and Platinum, it's substantial. However what you're saying does underscore a point I've made in here several times, that the "It's working fine for me, I want new features" and the "I don't care about new features, just work on the core program" contingents will always require a compromise from Cakewalk to satisfy both.
 
I do think the general consensus is that Platinum is definitely the most stable incarnation yet of SONAR. In addition, VocalSync and Mix Recall were major new features but of course there were also MIDI improvements, zero-latency convolution reverb, DSD, VST3 enhancements, AudioSnap improvements, the new control bar, etc., as well as another year of updates which has so far yielded two major features (virtual keyboard, Drum Replacer) and lots of new FX chains, a couple expansion packs, and other content. I think that's a fair amount of stuff for $149, and there are still seven months to go.

.....and don't forget Addictive Drums 2.

What puzzles me is why people have a problem with more choices. There are more choices now in how you can buy software, and you're given a choice on how and when you want to update the software. You can follow the same procedure as always and do one big massive update, wait until you finish a project before you update, jump on the latest update (and roll back if there's any problem that actually impacts your workflow), update every few months, whatever. Cakewalk isn't forcing anyone to do anything. The only real difference is this time around, you get two years' worth of updates but pay for only one. I guess I just can't grasp why people have a problem with a system that gives control to users over how they choose to pay for and consume the software.

Anderton
What puzzles me is why people have a problem with more choices. There are more choices now in how you can buy software, and you're given a choice on how and when you want to update the software. You can follow the same procedure as always and do one big massive update, wait until you finish a project before you update, jump on the latest update (and roll back if there's any problem that actually impacts your workflow), update every few months, whatever. Cakewalk isn't forcing anyone to do anything. The only real difference is this time around, you get two years' worth of updates but pay for only one. I guess I just can't grasp why people have a problem with a system that gives control to users over how they choose to pay for and consume the software.

Craig,
 
Most people have their world view perception that generally does not extend beyond their self imposed four walls (be them physical or mental).
 
Case in point, Mystic38 (a cool guy in my book) chose to call the new SONAR purchase plan(s) a "subscription" model when for months Bakers and users alike have been clarifying (ad nauseam) that it is not a subscription plan.
 

Hi gents, 
is there a reason why you don´t like to upgrade to the
Sonar Producer edition instead of platinum
specially if you don´t like  Ad drums ?
I like  Ad drums very much, simply the presets very compressed (no prob for me),
but that is me.

Mystic38
Personally i feel the OP has a point.. in prior Sonar upgrades, there were real, tangible improvements in functionality, and when Splat appeared, my view was "is that it?" and so I pretty much saw it as $149 for AD2, and for the first time in 6 years delayed my upgrade as i did not see a valid rationale.
 
Previously, Sonar was pretty much guaranteed to be stable and solid by April/May of the following year in its current incarnation.. (which was why i updated in May) never perfect of course, but a clear well known status.
So now, having recently upgraded in May from X3e to Splat D, with install issues, bugs and within 2 weeks the E release (needed for at least one bug) there is already yet another release E1 fixing issues related to the new E release, so i am at 3 installs in a 4 wk period... 5 months after Splat was launched.. the very scenario i wished to avoid
 
This is not how i wish to proceed.
 
At the end of the day, I have absolutely zero interest in a subscription model that drip feeds new features and new bugs along with old bug fixes. This has the byproduct of forcing multiples ongoing updates and reduces both confidence and stability in my studio system
 
which leaves me in a pickle...
 
Of course I do not need to update to the F, G, H I etc however as new bugs can (and are) being drip fed with updates, then the pickle is that at any time i choose not to continue to get the "latest and greatest" release, i can very well be left with recently introduced bugs...
 
and i dont like pickles....

First off, thanks for your purchase. Appreciate it very much. I have read through your comments and while I understand your points, I am not sure I agree. SONAR is getting better with each version we roll out. We are 100% committed to improving the product in a more agile release cycle that ultimately benefits the customers. The goal is to release new features and enhancements when they are fully ready and tested. At the same time, we tackle issues that come up in the community with much greater speed. This is still relatively new but I think as we move along, you are going to see SONAR getting even better. When we released Drum Replacer, we found some issues that definitely needed to be addressed. But we didn't wait long to fix it and I think that shows our commitment. The system is designed to update SONAR on your schedule. So when you have time and feel like doing it, you can do the upgrades (which will be much faster to install), and if for some reason you need to rollback, that's very easy to do. The intention is not to introduce new bugs with every release and I don't think that's what we are doing. But if that happens, fixes will be imminent so it doesn't carry over. I think in your situation, where you don't want to mess with your studio set-up much, finding a build you like that is working for you and keeping it for 6 months might be a good idea. Then 6 months later, after a bunch of releases, you can upgrade and test out the new version to your satisfaction and decide if you want to run with it or roll back. I think either way the system benefits you. If you want the new features, they are ready and if you want to wait, you'll have something to look forward to at a later date.

CedricM
I tend to agree.
 
I wish most of the investment would go to core DAW functionalities (decent meters, noise generators, better system for control surfaces, import/export protools, super quick song making tools a la Fruity loops/Ableton Live, ...).
If going into plugings, why not make an agreement with Waves?
If going into VSTi, why not go with Synthogy, EastWest, Native Instruments, Spectrasonics or Izotope for a change. I've been using sonar since forever, and I'm tired of Rapture/Dimension.
BTW, an entry level bundled version of Izotope RX in Sonar would be tremendously useful to me, and I suspect, many others.

So how do you feel about integrated drum replacement? Or integrated vocal alignment? I would consider those investments in core DAW functionality. 

RD9
I must agree with the original premise that the add-ins shouldn't be the main reason for upgrade $$.  Many users are asking for better functionality of the core program (Sonar); in my case, I would like to see improvements in Midi editing.
 
In terms of AD, it is actually my go-to drum processor with Sonar and has been for a long time.  However, I purchased AD1 long before it was included in Sonar and upgraded to AD2 well before this version was included in the latest Sonar.  I find it works well with my Roland kit and is easy to program but would defer to other, more expert users wrt to the quality of the sounds.
 
Regarding Midi editing, I have been in the game since the Commodore 64 and Atari ST were around.  Since then I have used a couple of very good midi editors in Windows that, unfortunately, are no longer supported.   My perception is that some of these had much better editing functionality.  That said, I think Sonar is a great product!
 
R

 We've made improvements to the MIDI engine, PRV and general MIDI workflow (like the Pattern Tool). Also, how much do you think vocal alignment or drum replacement tools would cost? You can check out competitive products and see what they are going for (and they aren't integrated directly into your DAW like they are in SONAR). Also Mix Recall is a pretty cool feature that really improves core program. So you start adding this all up and the price doesn't seem too bad. 
 
Unrelated to your post but a general observation: I think software is often devalued. People don't realize that it takes a lot of time and investment to develop software. For example, LA-2A emulation softwares often give you similar results with sometimes even more flexibility for a fraction of the price. Yet people scoff at paying $99 for a product that has a hardware equivalent of thousands of dollars. Same with DAW software. How much is studio time these days anyway? You can buy a DAW for the price of a few hours of studio time and get very similar tools that studios pay thousands and thousands of dollars in investment. It seems everyone expects apps to be $0.99 or free or whatever. But the reality is these products take time to develop and test. Again, what would a good vocal alignment or drum replacement plugin cost? Console emulation? A good EQ? Quality synths? Addictive Drums 2 is only one part of the price (and a pretty good deal if you ask me). Upgraders pay a fraction of the actual cost to develop. On the plus side of software, there isn't material cost in most cases so you can charge less as it gets absorbed across a larger audience. But the value is still there regardless. 

Anderton
The only real difference is this time around, you get two years' worth of updates but pay for only one.

As I understand some recent posts, with which I tend to agree after the last half a year:
you get upgrades only but no updates.
 
To understand what I mean, look at Ubuntu Linux or even Windows model as an example. You can update the system, which will only fix bugs and close significant security halls and you can upgrade the system which also fix the same bugs and halls but in addition it also change the core system, add features, etc.
 
In previous CW model, there was updates (normally during the first half of the year) and they was independent from the feature development, which was presented as a new version (and so it was an upgrade).
 
I understand that new model save supporting costs on releasing updates. But multipurpose OS producers  have recognized that there are 2 categories of users: one want "the latest and the greatest" but can tolerate some bugs and another want "stable long supported" product but can tolerate a bit outdated content. For the first category CW new model has many advantages. But not for the second.