I do think the beta tester idea makes some sense. The pressure will be to get some changes out there to satisfy the subscriber's sense that they are getting their money's worth. The marketing people will push the poor overworked programmers to get the code out there quickly. Afterall a large subscription base is as good enough testing bed as any. As a programmer since 1980 (the glory days), I can tell you, I've been there and done that.

Jonness
What stands out to me in all this marketing hype is, as soon as you stop subscribing, you only own the prior version and the latest beta test version. This is not the same as the marketers' claim that a year subscription buys both versions X4 and X5. In truth, the X5 version will not come with bug fixes unless you continue to subscribe. Nobody is getting anything free here.

 
A beta test is the process of releasing software that is in the final stages of development to a limited number of people for testing. A Release Candidate is one that is considered almost ready for commercial release. Each update will be considered ready for commercial release. As beta testing occurs prior to the release, the update is not part of a beta test.
 
Changes occur on a monthly basis. Suppose you start in January. If a bug appears, you have until next January to fix it. If you look over Cakewalk's bug fix lists with various versions, most of the important ones occur early in the cycle. The worst case scenario is that a bug occurs in the last month of your membership and you decide not to renew. However, Noel has said that if some nasty bug crops up a fix will be made available. You can question how generously that policy will be applied but you seem to forget the purpose of this program is to create satisfied and loyal customers. If showstopper bugs occur and these are not fixed in a timely manner, customers will not be satisfied and this works against the goal.
 
Also I'm not saying this is your opinion, but not everyone in these forums understands what a "bug" is. A bug is not an implementation you don't like of a feature that works. It is an implementation that has some flaw that impacts stability or performance.
 

Behind the scenes, the marketing folks understand, once you buy into the subscription, you will be locked in for life. You will always need future bug fixes for your latest beta test [sic] version. In order to stop subscribing, you would first have to identify the most stable point to rollback to. Cakewalk's goal to create a perfect piece of software at any one point in time will be shelved in favor of the hotdog on a stick approach.

 
I was not aware that Cakewalk had shelved its goal to create a more stable platform. Where did you get this information?
 

Hey, just pay for one more month, and you might get to a stable point that allows you to stop subscribing. Oh, you didn't get there yet, well just pay for one more month, ad nauseam.

 
All software evolves over time and SONAR is not exempt. I cannot think of any significant software in the music business that did not introduce updates and bug fixes over time. Some bug fixes are free. However, when a paid update is introduced, it's extremely rare that bug fixes are made available for versions that are no longer being sold. A paid or free upgrade does not guarantee bug-free performance, now or in the future.
 

As is, I'm going to hold off and continue to use my stable version of X3 for awhile. 

So apparently Cakewalk is capable of issuing stable releases suitable for making music. There is no reason to think this will change in the future.
 
There are people who will not buy a membership and will continue to use X3. They are not locked in to anything, let alone locked into something for life by evil marketing slime.
 
FYI there would not have been any new bug fixes for X3 if "X4" had appeared. If you wanted additional fixes you would have needed to move up to the next version.

lludwick@nyc.rr.com
I do think the beta tester idea makes some sense. The pressure will be to get some changes out there to satisfy the subscriber's sense that they are getting their money's worth. The marketing people will push the poor overworked programmers to get the code out there quickly. Afterall a large subscription base is as good enough testing bed as any. As a programmer since 1980 (the glory days), I can tell you, I've been there and done that.

 
Having been a programmer since 1980, you surely know that many times software elements develop in parallel, software companies have feature roadmaps, and create milestones for these roadmaps. Cakewalk is no different from other software companies in that respect.
 
Note that Cakewalk reworked their entire installer to facilitate implementing updates on a monthly schedule in "bite-sized," modular chunks. The reaction to the CCC has been extremely positive. I think it makes more sense to consider that a harbinger of things to come rather than a one-off freak event.
 
It has been said repeatedly that one of the goals of doing monthly updates is to create a more stable platform, because features can be introduced and QAed one at a time. However, apparently this hasn't been said enough.

I must say CCC is a great success. I do appreciate downloading Sonar for only 300 MB. I still remember we used to download X1-2-3 for 6GB. 

Indeed, CCC is a good start. I hope it too will be continuously improved - personally I would really like to see a pause function, as my internet is iffy and some downloads are very big. In addition, more granularity in some of the bigger packages - for example, I'd really like to get the help files, but they seem to be bundled with the tutorials and associated content, which I never use. At the moment I can't see a way, at least within the CCC, to separate the two.
 

I can never quite understand the paranoia that pervades some of the posts here (I gather I'm not alone in this). The proposition that Cakewalk have finally perfected their evil scheme to lock us into a subscription that they will cleverly trick us into never giving up, by carefully maintaining an endless series of bugs and almost-there features... Hmm. I've honestly not seen a lot of evidence of this from them over the years.
 
Cakewalk are a business and need to make money, yes. That's the bottom line and it's silly to pretend otherwise. There is also obviously money to be made in music and audio software, otherwise the field would not be as competitive as it is and we wouldn't have the incredible array of amazing products that were unimaginable a few years ago (like some others here, I'm old enough to remember, and used to do this stuff the hard way).
 
But the key word in that sentence is *competitive*. Cakewalk have not been around for as long as they have because they are not able to deliver quality and value that compares favorably with their competitors' offerings. If they aren't able to make and maintain a product line that we users can rely on for serious audio work, and provide features and upgrades that make us happy, there are other companies who would love to have our money, and eventually they will get it.
 
So since any and all of us are free to take our couple of hundred beans a year to other companies, the onus is very much on Cakewalk to continue to be competitive, with solid stable products and innovative features. If they fail to do that, they will not be in business for long, and they've been in business long enough to know that. The new platform is their bid to continue doing it, and at the risk of repeating myself, to pretend otherwise seems paranoid and silly.
 
I also think it's absurd and disingenuous to posit them as being only concerned about money. If that were the case, there are lots of other ways to go about it - fields less crowded and competitive, with lower risk and better margins. No, I suspect they are people who care about music and audio, just like us, that's why they got into the business. They want to make a great product - well, they have made a great product, as most of us seem to agree, otherwise we wouldn't be here, and that doesn't happen by accident. They want and need to continue doing that. Making a massive investment in the product line, and introducing an innovative new business model and content delivery system, seems like a pretty crazy way to try to cash out. So why on earth would anyone assume that's what they're doing?

Anderton
 
 
Having been a programmer since 1980, you surely know that many times software elements develop in parallel, software companies have feature roadmaps, and create milestones for these roadmaps. Cakewalk is no different from other software companies in that respect.
 
Note that Cakewalk reworked their entire installer to facilitate implementing updates on a monthly schedule in "bite-sized," modular chunks. The reaction to the CCC has been extremely positive. I think it makes more sense to consider that a harbinger of things to come rather than a one-off freak event.
 
It has been said repeatedly that one of the goals of doing monthly updates is to create a more stable platform, because features can be introduced and QAed one at a time. However, apparently this hasn't been said enough.

 
Don't mind me, I guess I am jaded from the decline in programming quality through these many years. When I started out, software was rigorously tested and releasing bugged software was a good way to find yourself looking for a new job. Through the years the attitude changed dramatically because the market became flooded with non-qualified programmers at bargain basement salary points mostly due to demand for bodies. True also software has become more complex, but I have seen enough horror under the hood in programs to understand why bugs are allowed to reach the public. It is really an economic issue, but there has always been a war between programmers and marketers.
 
As far as CW and Platinum and CCC, I have been happily eased of my neurotic concerns about software failure. Everything I depend on in Platinum and support for the plugins I use has worked without issue.

liamflanagan
Hello Andrew/Cakewalk,
 
How can I upgrade from X3 Producer? I've been trying to with my new account and I get the full price with about £30 knocked off not the Intro price for the upgrade.
Also Command Center won't let me login using the details of my new account and I can't find my Serial Number for X3 Producer within my new account. Can you help me with this problem
 
Thank you
 
Liam

Liam, I had a similar problem, I couldn't even contact support. My problem was resolved by updating from ie9 to ie11
after that it was a breeze. Command centre wouldn't talk to ie9 at all.

CakeAlexS
 
http://youtu.be/WwylBRucU7w

Amazing what the English do for fun.
 
One of the best lines:
"It is made up of chemicals by sick bast...ds"

Command center worked very well for current basic functionality. It downloads the files and installs the software. No need for me to enter a registration code or serial number. Software runs correctly first time. Smile. Much easier than last several upgrades. This will make updates during the year much easier.
 
Two improvement requests:

1. I do agree with others that it would be useful for Command Center to allow us to select file destinations other than the default.
2. At some point, it would be good to have the product list include previously purchased products along with the newly purchased products.

 
The “membership” restructuring is a positive. I buy a full upgrade, just like previous years, get a good handful of new functionality just like previous years, but now can also look forward to adding even more new functionality over the upcoming months without having to wait a year or more for another upgrade. Learning new features one (or a few?) at a time probably will help me understand and use them productively faster than when lumped into an annual upgrade.
 
For new customers the monthly payment option allows very a very affordable way to explore the full product up front. And Sonar becomes a fully-owned product after the first twelve payments (just like the ownership from payment up front). Cakewalk’s membership approach is different from and much better than the subscription-non-ownership approach used by Adobe for Creative Suite (Photoshop etc.) products.