I think what it all comes down to is given that in almost 1 year since Cakewalk's BIG announcement and 8 months since Bandlab essentially issued what was formerly known as Sonar Platinum free to all, the free DAW is the only movement we've seen so far with this new company.  Yeah, a completely free DAW as great as Cakewalk by Bandlab is an awesome first step, but some of us are getting a bit nervous and anxious to see what's next.  I have yet to check out Bandlab's site, but I'm a bit curious as to why Cakewalk isn't mentioned on their site after all this time.  I think we would all feel a little better if we were to see some kind of forward movement of any kind with this company beyond what we've seen so far.
 
JB

While I do get where you are coming from, I would say that I am not fearful of CbB going away anytime soon. There are a couple of reasons.

• Development of the CbB product (formerly SONAR) has continued, and primarily in the area of bug fixes. The result has been a more solid platform than we saw previously. Even with the bug fixes a few new improvements have still been released. You don't keep working on a product that you intend to drop (remember Gibson stopped all work on SONAR when they decided to drop/sell off/fire sale the product).
• The product was prominently displayed at AES 2018 (see thread http://forum.cakewalk.com/Cakewalk-at-AES-2018-NY-m3790285.aspx and https://aesny18.mapyourshow.com/7_0/exhibitor/exhibitor-details.cfm?ExhID=3766). Again, you don't advertise a product that you plan to discontinue.
• BandLab has been acquiring other music technologies. My guess (and only a guess) is they are looking for a start to finish solution, including instruments, mics, interfaces, mobile software and a flagship DAW. Again, just watching what they have done over the past year, it seems that is the route they are taking (even purchasing music magazines). It is the integration that will be difficult, but if the products they are trying to integrate are solid in performance (hence the bug squashing in CbB) it makes the integration easier. I would start looking to  see if there is the start of some integration between CbB and some of their other products in the not too distant future. If that happens (as I believe it will), you will start to see more advertising and a focus not just on BandLab, but all of the other BandLab products, including CbB. But right now, CbB is a stand-alone product, and it doesn't have anything to distinguish it from every other DAW on the market (other than being free). Integration into a full line of music products changes that. That is something no other DAW has.

Again, nothing to base this on other than what I see BandLab doing, and what it appears that they may be doing behind the scenes. Time will ultimately tell. I do wish them well in their endeavour.

Johnbee58
I think what it all comes down to is given that ...

... the software has been bought by a billionaire music fan, he doesn't need to make money from it and is buying stuff that fits his own idea of himself
/ymmv

I suspect BandLab are trying to balance getting feedback for existing bugs, whilst trying to ensure their existing customer base doesn't migrate to another DAW.
 
IMO, CbB is the most stable incarnation of Sonar to date. Having this "closed" (by which I mean no new members) and relatively experienced community report bugs and suggest improvements allows BandLab to focus on getting Cakewalk rock solid, and finally put to rest the buggy reputation Sonar has had on forums elsewhere.
 
By the time a new forum is ready, our accounts are migrated over, the new store is ready etc, Cakewalk can get the exposure it deserves without fear of the odd bug letting it down.
 

It's OK to speculate.  Nothing wrong with that.  Many of us have our opinions, but it would be nice to hear something from them.
 
JB

I don't get it. This forum uses UBB code. It appears in every way to just be a UBB forum, which are free to download and use on any site. (I used to have one.) If so, then nobody from BL "built" nor will build anything having to do with the forum. Unless they plan to build their own non-UBB forum from scratch, I don't see how they would have any control over bugs in the code if they aren't writing it.

michael diemer
 
Why can't these things be fixed? doesn't seem like it would be that hard to do.

For those of us who complained about the forum issues when they originally occurred (broken "go to last", search function etc.), we know that Cakewalk (the now defunct company) made their own modifications to the forum software (at or before version 5.1) that made the subsequent updates "very hard" to cope with. It was a business decision to not go forward with subsequent update to the forum software until a "later time" which of course never happened.  
 
This was according to Willie at the time.
 

deleted

Here's an idea for the new forum: Have it on Ning, where everyone can have their own customized page. You can showcase your music there, publish blogs, upload photos etc. Yes, it costs more than the average forum, but my understanding is the owner of Cakewalk can afford it. The Cakewalk forum would then be unique. Aside from being the best forum of its kind, it would be a place to share our music, network with each other etc. If you have ever been on the Ning Composers forum, it is quite a place (although not quite what it used to be in terms of interesting conversations, due to new leadership which has banished some of the more colorful folks there). Check out some of the home pages there. Everyone has one by default, and you can really make them shine. 
 
http://composersforum.ning.com/

Anderton

michael diemer

cparmerlee

Euthymia
They're only falling out of fashion with some people.

 
I don't know quite what to make of that.  Does this mean that Bandlab thinks its users are mostly just kids playing around, and they wouldn't know what to do with a full studio environment?  Or does it mean they think the cloud-based stuff is strong enough that a conventional studio-level tool is simply not needed anymore?
 

If that is the case, why did they bother with reviving Cakewalk at all? But you're right, it is a bit mysterious. Maybe they are waiting to see what kind of cross-pollination occurs; then they will adjust things accordingly?

I don't have an answer, but I can speculate. The program is already pretty much mature, and is a treasure trove of useful code...and they got Noel. I think this may be a case where BandLab thought they would need what CW offers eventually, but they didn't have the luxury of waiting until they absolutely needed it...so they snapped it up while they could, at was probably a reasonable price. But that's just a guess.
 
I think if using Cakewalk as a profit center was a priority, there would have been an online shop by now for buying optional-at-extra-cost plug-ins. BandLab seems to take a long view. You can see the pieces are being put into place - Heritage guitars, media, audio interface hardware, etc. There's obviously a long-term strategy, and it probably takes priority over putting lots of attention into a single program that already works well.

 
I really hope you are right Craig. The optimist in me believes you are. As more time goes by with lessening comunication and no promotion however, the cynic asks whether it could just be a case of someone with abundant financial resources buying shiny things that they may or may not play with later:)