I'll opt out. FWIW the feature I most want improved in SPlat is notation, and it's also the feature I almost never use (in Sonar), because, frankly, well... you know (insert dead horse emoticon here). How is someone going to gauge how to improve this, and other less-than-optimally implemented features (like, say, touch), for example from "analytics"? The suggested fix for Video issues in Sonar is commonly "Get Vegas". As a result, analytics might suggest that video in Sonar is rarely used, when in fact it's implemented state has caused users to move on to use something else, either in conjunction with, or instead of, Sonar. Step Sequencer? ("Use FL Studio (Reason/Geist)") Substitute your own example of a feature you don't use much but, which, if it was better implemented, you would use a lot.
In my estimation analytics will tend to drive improvements on features that are already well implemented and used (and while I agree that this should result in an improved focus on workflow of the most commonly used features - I am afraid the result will be more "Add Track" buttons), and away from user Feature Requests.

It sure feels that the feature requests users have been submitting/posting/waiting for have been a waste of time. I am frankly disappointed in the implementation rate of user feature requests - as I see it emphasis on "analytics" is going to further escalate the slide.

Sorry but the whole thing seems like a(nother) gimmick to me.
I know - just shut up and turn it off. Will do.

Well, they're not saying "we're now going to base all decisions on this new analytics data and disregard all other input".

tenfoot
 ... there are no doubt many more casual users/dabblers that use Sonar than there are people who use it productively. Add to that the likelihood that experienced computer users are far more likely to turn data collection features off -   I hope in the aftermath of all of the skewed feedback we don't see a dumbing down of Sonar...

 
Completely agree.
 
As a confirmed dabbler, hobbyist, and experienced computer user, I share the concern about these behaviors skewing the results.  Even as a dabbler, I want the most sophisticated DAW, not a "dumbed down" feature set.
 

Paul P
I'd like some more detailed examples of what might be collected and how it could help in Sonar's future.  There are very powerful functions that many probably don't know about so will never use, or that have bugs so that those that know of it won't use it either.  Does that mean the function can be removed because no one is using it ?

 
Again, I completely agree here.
 
As an example, I no longer use the Notation View.  I have moved to a second DAW's pre-release software for Notation due to the legacy feature's problems and sub-optimal workflow.  Analytics would indicate that Notation is not an important feature to me, while the truth is that I would be a heavy user if the feature's problems were corrected.
 
The collection of analytics is of no concern to me.  Only the questionable information and false conclusions that they may provide.

-- Ron

Even though this was addressed, I must ask more directly: Is there any information collected and/or transmitted from the DAW machine, processes, OS, memory, other system resources, profiles, registry, and/or file system not directly associated with the app?

John T
Well, they're not saying "we're now going to base all decisions on this new analytics data and disregard all other input".

No they're not - but honestly, how would you assess the rate of implementation of user submitted feature requests to date? IMO, I don't think I could give them a C grade in that respect (but concede they scored a couple of A's for features that were not User originated.) I see analytics as a further step backwards from the vantage point of a user still holding out hope that there will be a concerted effort to implement user submitted improvement ideas. (My 2 cents).

Anyone who has a Facebook account should exclude themselves from criticizing CW Analytics.  You're bleeding far more personally identifiable data to goodness-knows-who than will ever be exposed by CW.  If you have a store loyalty card, you are being tracked.  Your insurance company is probably selling your data to 3rd parties.
 
Look, if you're concerned you can turn it off.  The default (from what Noel said) is the unidentifiable version of data.  The version that links to your account, thereby being identifiable, is opt-in.  Let's not make a mountain out of a mole hill here, people.
 
I'm a little tired of protest for protests sake.

BRuys
 
I'm a little tired of protest for protests sake.

To be honest, that is nowhere near as much of a thing as it used to be. I can recall being told by a chap that he KNEW I was on Cakewalk's payroll because I said something mildly positive about some feature or other. This was about five or so years ago.

Place was crazy back then, IMO. It's fairly reasonable on here these days.

SquireBum
As an example, I no longer use the Notation View.  I have moved to a second DAW's pre-release software for Notation due to the legacy feature's problems and sub-optimal workflow.  Analytics would indicate that Notation is not an important feature to me, while the truth is that I would be a heavy user if the feature's problems were corrected.
 

 
I thought the same about the Matrix view and the step sequencer. Don't use 'em because they don't gel with me, not because I don't want to use a Matrix type view or a step sequencer. 

SquireBum

tenfoot
 ... there are no doubt many more casual users/dabblers that use Sonar than there are people who use it productively. Add to that the likelihood that experienced computer users are far more likely to turn data collection features off -   I hope in the aftermath of all of the skewed feedback we don't see a dumbing down of Sonar...

 
Completely agree.
 
As a confirmed dabbler, hobbyist, and experienced computer user, I share the concern about these behaviors skewing the results.  Even as a dabbler, I want the most sophisticated DAW, not a "dumbed down" feature set.
 

Paul P
I'd like some more detailed examples of what might be collected and how it could help in Sonar's future.  There are very powerful functions that many probably don't know about so will never use, or that have bugs so that those that know of it won't use it either.  Does that mean the function can be removed because no one is using it ?

 
Again, I completely agree here.
 
As an example, I no longer use the Notation View.  I have moved to a second DAW's pre-release software for Notation due to the legacy feature's problems and sub-optimal workflow.  Analytics would indicate that Notation is not an important feature to me, while the truth is that I would be a heavy user if the feature's problems were corrected.
 
The collection of analytics is of no concern to me.  Only the questionable information and false conclusions that they may provide.

-- Ron

Very good post. 
This is a concern that I share.
 

Personally I think this is a great idea and will certainly be opting in.
 
I don't get this "big brother is watching you" paranoia.
Let's face it, you're all being watched anyway.
My Amazon "recommendations" are full of stuff I've looked at on other sites.
 
I this enables Cakewalk to make a better product then who am I to complain?