A solution to endless whining and debates without ever seeing the bright side and agreeing upon a solution would be nice.
 
Negative energy produces negative results. Wasting time and worrying about the fate of Gibson is pointless and no reason to scrap SONAR and move on to another DAW. Unless of course your point is to poison the fate of SONAR.
 
Positive energy produces positive results, and that's what successful collaboration is made of.
 
 And isn't that what Bandlab is really all about? 

If you come here and read 100+ posts in a thread titled "Hard Honesty, Mixed Feelings on the Fate of SONAR," there's a high probability you're going to see some venting, so why not just move on if you don't like that kind of thing?
 
On the other hand, I'm not a technical expert, but if you have a specific technical problem and you can post it here, I'll chime in if I can think of a possible solution, and so will many others.

This information has been posted before on this forum, but some people appear to have missed it.

The situation when Roland sold Cakewalk to Gibson (and for not very much money) is outined in the document that confirms the letter of intent to transfer ownership - it’s what the two parties to the sale agreed the situation was.

The document is here - https://www.roland.com/Ro.../pdf/2013/20130924.pdf

It shows that Cakewalk’s operating income was minus $167,000 in 2010 minus $301,000 in 2011 and minus $851,000 in 2012. That’s increasing losses in each of the three years prior to the sale. Net income was lower than that in all three years.

Income from sales steadily and rapidly dropped over each of those years and by 2010 Cakewalk’s net assets had also gone negative.

Sorry, but that is not a profitable company. Cakewalk had been losing money since before 2010, and two successive purchasers of the company failed to improve the situation. Furthermore, Roland were in financial trouble when they sold Cakewalk and we all know GIbson’s financial situation.

Cakewak might have been salvagable by Roland had Roland had the capital to sustain andf build the company through a loss-making period but Roland didn’t have the money or if they did they decided not to spend it on Cakewalk. The lack of capital problem applies even more to Gibson Brands. In short, Cakewalk as a stand-alone company, then Roland, then Gibson ran out of money and time so sold the company on.

After Cakewalk buried itself into a deep hole, some people predicted that giving away the application and subsequently selling a bunch of content was the method to save the company. Image Line and their FL Studio product has been cited as an example of such a business model.
 
When I add up the prices of ALL the content at Image Line's web page and add it to the cost of the FL Studio application the total is about a $1000 dollars less than I have happily and eagerly sent Cakewalk for annual upgrades. I paid Cakewalk lots of money and they spent it all on something. Further more, there is no way I am interested in, nor will ever buy, 85% of the content offered for sale by Image Line. The most money a "FL-Studio-business-model" is likely to get out of me is the cost of the DAW and maybe a couple of plugins. Admittedly, Image Line's extra content seems well made and value packed. Cakewalk's extra content, on the other hand, usually seemed like it was some third parties leftovers, and, or some sort of free sample (pardon the pun) cripple ware.
 
I wonder how much money Cakewalk spent trying to count all the revenue they squandered. The CTO mentions that in the past few years, out of the entire staff, only 2 or 3 people were assigned to development of the product, yet there are claims made that the company actually employed a person who was "paid to push a button that opens the door for visitors".
 
Other companies seem to do a lot more with much less.
 
It's a good thing a billionaire has bought the skeleton.

tlw
This information has been posted before on this forum, but some people appear to have missed it.

The situation when Roland sold Cakewalk to Gibson (and for not very much money) is outined in the document that confirms the letter of intent to transfer ownership - it’s what the two parties to the sale agreed the situation was.

The document is here - https://www.roland.com/Ro.../pdf/2013/20130924.pdf

It shows that Cakewalk’s operating income was minus $167,000 in 2010 minus $301,000 in 2011 and minus $851,000 in 2012. That’s increasing losses in each of the three years prior to the sale. Net income was lower than that in all three years.

I don't know where you're getting your dollar figures from because this document clearly states they DO NOT disclose dollar amount per share.
 
Now I'm no expert financial analysis..
 But the 'BOTTOM LINE" clearly shows a steady, however small increase in net profits per year, while the number of units sold decreased from 10,307 in 2010 to 6069 in 2012.
 Clearly poor metrics Wall St. Banksters don't want to see or invest in.
 
However..
In 2010 Net INCOME was .06 per dollar. Six cents per dollar.
In 2011 Net INCOME rose to .14 per dollar. Fourteen cents per dollar, and more than doubled.
In 2012 Net INCOME rose to .29 per dollar. Twenty nine cents per dollar, and again, more than doubled.
 
 Clearly not windfall profits typically expected by the stock exchange money changers. ( Ya know the type that would rush to invest in a Taylor Swift type and shun and ignore any new upstart talent.)
 
 But even with a downward projectory in a very saturated DAW market with such an unpredictable and fickle fan base.
 Cakewalk has not only managed to sustain itself, but modestly profited.
 
 So only time will tell if Bandlab can come up with a solution to make Cakewalk's profit margin rise in an upward projectory.. 
 It's certainly possible considering SONAR doesn't actually need any further immediate developments, considering it's probably still by far the most technologically advanced feature rich DAW made, and fully customizable to personal workflows.
 Even really excellent super star DAW's like Presonus's Studio ONE 3.5 are closing in, but still not as feature rich.
 
Cakewalk can in fact still rise to the top and be taken seriously and survive through the increase of massive promotional hype "Marketing" Tsunami of DAW competition.
It's not like it hasn't happened before.

Steev
I don't know where you're getting your dollar figures from because this document clearly states they DO NOT disclose dollar amount per share.

See the line items on page 2 labeled "Net Income."  That is aggregate, not per-share.  That shows losses of $206,000, $426,000, and $891,000 for 2010, 2011, and 2012 respectively.


Numbers in parentheses are losses, not profits.
 
These are big losses for such a small company.  It is completely implausible that the results improved under Gibson because competition INCREASED since the Roland days and Cakewalk didn't add any significant new revenue streams.  Also note that these results included TEAC, so that muddies the water a little.

cparmerlee

Steev
I don't know where you're getting your dollar figures from because this document clearly states they DO NOT disclose dollar amount per share.

See the line items on page 2 labeled "Net Income."  That is aggregate, not per-share.  That shows losses of $206,000, $426,000, and $891,000 for 2010, 2011, and 2012 respectively.


Numbers in parentheses are losses, not profits.
 
These are big losses for such a small company.  It is completely implausible that the results improved under Gibson because competition INCREASED since the Roland days and Cakewalk didn't add any significant new revenue streams.  Also note that these results included TEAC, so that muddies the water a little.

WHAT THE FAQ IS WRONG WITH YOU MAN?? I mean,,,,,,,,, who gives a FAQ??
 
I'm here to help anyone that I can to understand how to record music and sequence MIDI with Cakewalk software and that's about as far as it goes. I have no taste for your politics Conman 
 You seem to be one of the money changer soul sucking **** one pre center demons. FAQ U and the politically correct make believe unicorn you  road in on.
 

Pay no attention to the fear mongers who's only power is controlling the narrative. First you make music and than everybody makes money.
 
 It 's not the other way around............ 

Steev

cparmerlee

Steev
I don't know where you're getting your dollar figures from because this document clearly states they DO NOT disclose dollar amount per share.

See the line items on page 2 labeled "Net Income."  That is aggregate, not per-share.  That shows losses of $206,000, $426,000, and $891,000 for 2010, 2011, and 2012 respectively.


Numbers in parentheses are losses, not profits.
 
These are big losses for such a small company.  It is completely implausible that the results improved under Gibson because competition INCREASED since the Roland days and Cakewalk didn't add any significant new revenue streams.  Also note that these results included TEAC, so that muddies the water a little.

WHAT THE FAQ IS WRONG WITH YOU MAN?? I mean,,,,,,,,, who gives a FAQ??
 
I'm here to help anyone that I can to understand how to record music and sequence MIDI with Cakewalk software and that's about as far as it goes. I have no taste for your politics Conman 
 You seem to be one of the money changer soul sucking **** one pre center demons. FAQ U and the politically correct make believe unicorn you  road in on.
 

You're probably right on track to get this thread closed. What's with all the hostility and insults? I mean for someone whose mantra seems to be "shut up and play yer guitar," you sure seem to do a lot of yelling and screaming on the forums. 

Steev
WHAT THE FAQ IS WRONG WITH YOU MAN?? I mean,,,,,,,,, who gives a FAQ??
I'm here to help anyone that I can to understand how to record music and sequence MIDI with Cakewalk software and that's about as far as it goes. I have no taste for your politics Conman 
 You seem to be one of the money changer soul sucking **** one pre center demons. FAQ U and the politically correct make believe unicorn you  road in on.

 
No need for that, Steev. You engaged on the financials. cparmerlee just clarified his point for you.