Is everybody in this forum a lawyer now? I'd be delighted to see some discussion on the potential for this new model.
 
The way I see it;
 
1. CW/Sonar is moving from an annual release model to a rolling release model.
 
This is big.
 
So what?
 
2. They offer the same payment plan as before.
- Pay a lump sum for ~12 months of software enhancements. Plus some discounted versions of 3rd party add-ons.
- AND a permanent license to use the software.
- Same as it ever was.
 
3. They are offering an ADDITIONAL payment plan to use the full program on a monthly basis.
- Use the latest release of the program on a monthly basis for a monthly fee.
- As an incentive, a permanent license is granted with 12 (consecutive?) payments.
- Up to you to determine the fit for your needs, but nice to have an OPTION.
 
4. To address the inevitable hysteria, they are offering;
- the past 12 months of development PLUS the next 12 months of development ("X4 and! X5") for the "typical" upgrade price.
- the promise of the accelerated release of yet to be confirmed new features
- the promise to deliver sufficient value in a 12 month period to make the case for signing up for the next 12 months of a rolling release.
 
I'm not betting against them.
 
5. I would expect "support" for the payment period no matter which payment option I selected.
...
 
I cannot say I'm a fan boy because music is first for me and I can use any DAW to get the job done. I AM a strong advocate for innovation and intrigued by a couple of recent moves by CW that I don't really see with their competition. 
 
The Skylight interface was brilliant. Maybe not perfect, but they managed to make a break from software emulations of dodgy hardware to create a better, more productive experience for musicians. 
 
A rolling release seems to be their next big move. The assumption is faster feature time-to-market with greater stability. This is reasonable given industry experience.
 
So... a couple of thoughts since their development resources aren't tied up with the annual Release QA.

1. "Core" tier with ala carte features
I'm not the first to mention this, but wondering about the potential for "Professional" to be replaced with a "Core" tier and the ability to add any feature for a price. This would truly provide the most value for the most users. Rather than trying to justify tier pricing with bundles of 3rd party add-ons you could select the features that meet your needs and not feel like you're stuck with a program that's trying to be all things to all people. I.e. VocalSync and drum replacement seem to be great features but may not be for everybody. I can see them being introduced at the Pt level with a period of exclusivity but potentially offered as a "Core" feature as well. If a user needed it NOW, I have no problem with CW offering it at a price that makes a Pt level membership the attractive option. CW could always continue to offer 3rd party specials and feature pricing at a discount but hope they consider the potential to enable a larger market.

2. Influencing features and priorities
Given CWs ambition to roll out features faster and better, perhaps the Features & Ideas section can be supplemented with a curated survey tool to help rank feature requests. The F&I feature implies sufficient requirements documentation for users to comment on with the assumption that better descriptions will get better feedback (and votes). Expanding the voting beyond forum members would help confirm the real market potential. (They do have emails for every purchase.)
 
Or perhaps make it a Pt membership level feature with the author of a released feature winning a free 12 month membership.
I trust that would be a better use of everyone's time than trying to redefine the meaning of a "subscription". 
....
 
I assume we all want the best tool we can get to do the job. I'd like to see CW continue to take chances like they've made with X series and a rolling release. It's a great opportunity for them to be more responsive to market opportunity but also a chance for users to influence the priorities in a meaningful way.

In principle many of have been trying to quell the hysteria and refocus all the madnesses that you've mentioned.

Alas the same few seem to be propagating the same misinformation over and over.

Welcome to the sane side of the forum where rational people can indeed see the innovation behind the cakewalk team.

It won't be long and all the subscription hysteria will be replaced by bug reports and I'll never use cakewalk products again because they've botched this new feature. It's the same every release. I wish Cakewalk the best and just hope that folks appreciate what they are trying to do.

There's definitely benefit to core type system but it's always a trade off. When you are not the market leader, it sometimes is not just a matter of trying to be better.  Value IS a feature for a good chunk of people.  Sonar could create the absolute best DAW...and still not increase market share because a superior product has never guaranteed success. i am sure you have seen inferior products that outsell great products.
 
I'm also not convinced a la carte would create a better product or significantly decrease pricing.  It would decrease bloat but prices would not likely fall significantly.  i think people sometimes assume they would because it sounds reasonable based on the retail price of the bundled products. The truth is bundled licensing agreements or typically had for much less than even wholesale.
 
I'm not going to pretend I know what cakewalk's licensing costs are, but i can make a reasonable guess about the likelihood of prices changing much by going  a la carte.  The most immediate example i can think of (and have some actual knowledge of pricing decisions) is media companies that offer core products and bundles.  Cable company A offers  Cable, tv and phone for $99.  Internet by itself is priced so that Internet by itself is almost the same price, preventing any savings by buying other services elsewhere.  It does not cost the company anything extra since the signal is already going to your home at this point but is simply filtered out. The value of the bundle is pretty much the value of one service.  I'm not saying the bundled items in Cakewalk are quite so worthless, but I have no doubt they are nowhere close to the retail value.  Nomad just put a $129 plugin on sale for 9.99.  They are willing to offer something for next to nothing, hoping that you grab a la carte items from the installer that includes all of their products. 
 
I think trying the core route is taking the gamble that you can convince those who have passed on you in the past that our product, stripped of everything is better than their products with all the bells and whistles. I think aspiring to be Logic is a better bet than trying to be reaper. Logic offers so much value that it seems like a sinister plot to corner Mac market by making purchase of any other DAW a waste.

I think it's overly complex and would be a management nightmare.  Furthermore, you can consider the entry level of sonar as the "core" and it is hugely superior to other entry level offerings IMO... many issues... "who defines what is core?"  ya gonna have a list of features to add for 5-25$ each?  And as dub says...
 
Simplicity is really much more appealing to most folks... and I like the growing simplicity of their direction. Baby, Mamma, and Pappa bear...."we update automatically... just play and make awesome music and if you need a feature, you can be pretty sure we gave it to you!"
 
Just my 2 cents...

@dubdisciple - I share your observation regarding the cost of 3rd party licenses and have always viewed bundles as relatively benign cross channel marketing efforts. They offer reasonable value if you are new to Sonar but if you have been using it for a few versions, just how many more drum kits/guitar sims. etc. etc. etc. do you really need?
 
More to your point, I'm sure you are aware of the recent disruptions in the cable domain to move to ala carte. It's been a long time coming.

I was speculating on the long term viability of the business model as I expect every DAW company will be facing the same fatigue issue. I sense an opportunity to create a deeper level of market driven capability / value added but thinking it might have to focus on a specific type of work flow or musical genre to add value. The drum replacement feature is an example. Great feature, not relevant for every user. The implication is focus provides greater value for a narrower market segment. I'm not sure I see making -every- Pt level user pay for a great feature that they just don't have a need for. 
 
I do not expect the PRICE to come down, but see an opportunity to reduce the COST to a specific user and a greater value for more specific interests. There will always be a class of user that collects (hoards?) features, VSTs, etc. but there are also many value conscious working professionals focused on their musical genre. The ability to get started with a specific feature set for your immediate needs and the potential to expand to productive, professional quality features in a capable and reliable manner could bring more users to the table.
 
FWIW, the PRICE is still a bargain, especially if you've had to spend as much as I have on HW. 

@ Vastman - Configuration management can be a nightmare. I assume the issues you allude to are either application feature integration or user licensing. Please correct me if I missed a point. Just wondering if CW could support it as a combination of the application framework (assume Sonar is modular) and the new Command Center.
 
Absolutely agree that simplicity is more appealing. I'm sure you've heard the saying, "Less is more." What I might consider simple is being presented with -only- what I need to get my job done. My musings are based on having steered more than a few guitar playing clients to CWs entry level offering. The downside to being an advocate is becoming their first line of support, with a substantial portion of their questions/train wrecks related to the "extras". FWIW, most have upgraded to the next level once they got a handle on it. But they did complain about "having to learn to fly a damn jet, etc." And no, they can't read music either, so they're not asking about notation.  
 
One could make the argument for a tier level based on Core and everything else being levels of bundled features. I assume their current tiers are designed from a marketing perspective with feature sets / perceived value targeting specific user demographics. I.e. guitar players recording demos vs. remixers. vs. project studios vs. film scorers, etc.
 
Obviously only speculating, but perhaps Core could be defined as the framework capable of integrating a user defined set of features. It appears some of that mechanism is already in place with framework concepts such as Pro Channel and Rewire. The entry level would have a fixed set of features for the target user. You want more? Sign up for Core. Other tier features to consider could be ARA integration, Region FX or specific UI features such as MultiDock, Browser, Loop Construction. Features like Beatscape can still be offered as separate modules. I can vouch for the fact that MultiDock and Loop Construction views have flummoxed more than a few guitar players, so disabling them in an entry level core would make it simpler for some users. Perhaps the Command Center will open up the possibility for seamless integration of native versions of UAD plug-ins. I'd love to have equal capability and accessibility across my rack mount and laptop.
 
I believe Omnisphere has a similar strategy with initial patch selection looking pretty simple and burying the deep editing features to keep it from overwhelming new users. But of course, only one program and price. 
....
just my two bitcoins ....
....
If a company is not the market leader, it is on them to come up with a compelling offering to increase market share. CW/Sonar has made a couple of interesting moves with the X series/Skylight interface and a rolling release model. I suspect they have a few other ideas.
 
What would you like to see them do to address their future viability as a DAW vendor?

jackson white
 
What would you like to see them do to address their future viability as a DAW vendor?

Personally, I think they are and already have been doing it.
 

@SteveC ... that -is- the way I see it. Perhaps a bit too soon, but thinking ahead to the possibilities and hoping to see more discussion on expanding the potential rather than what to call it or to pout about it. I expect CW can't disclose too much just yet or over promise anything, but that's never checked the imagination of our fellow forumites.

I completely agree!  The problem with thinking about future possibilities (IMHO) is that there's little to go on regarding this new system.  But based on past experience I have confidence that CW has a plan, that they know what they're doing, and that they'll let the rest of us in on it as they reach each milestone along the way.   From what I know as of today, this is something I am very much looking forward to!
 

Thanks for the accurate summary and your thoughts.
 
>>1. "Core" tier with ala carte features
 
We've definitely considered it while designing the current system. We don't have the support infrastructure to do per feature activation's but our design is open enough to do this relatively easily. However it was complex enough planning and implementing what we have now, since it required a company wide involvement. Doing anything more would have required a lot more resources than we have. This is only a start however so we may add new options in the future.