35mm
I think the OP is looking at this from the wrong direction. You are paying for a license, not updates. Most software you purchase one time and get free updates that are released within one year of your purchase. After that one year period if you want to upgrade to the latest version you have to purchase a new license again (often getting a discounted upgrade fee) - that's the standard, traditional model.

no the standard traditional model was major version/minor version, with usually updates/fixes (minor versions) free until the major version was incremented (v1.0, v1.1, v1.2... v2.0) - and that would have been unusual for a major version increase within just a year... the license was for that major version and covered any updates/fixes (minor versions)
the whole "yearly" thing is relatively new (<5 years) and we're still working out the wrinkles...

I'd like to address the updates, in which the OP says aren't really impressive enough to plunge in for.
When I look at the rolling updates, I see this:

- Some selected new features--many times, features I don't see benefit from, but perhaps one or two.
- Bug fixes and enhancements, some very obscure compared to issues that I certainly run into, but can't always duplicate.

Now, that sounds like I'm trolling, but the reality is, there's a wide customer-base, extremely varied opinions on what's a priority, and exponentially difficult processes to find, report, duplicate, squash, and document issues.

When they say, choose your battles wisely, this is an understatement. Cakewalk bakers must do all of this, QA the updates, and get the rollout in a sprint every month (or just about). It's very efficient, and quite scrum-like, but when you're dealing with this type of software, it's impressive that this is possible. And I can't stress enough how much we begged, pleaded, and succeeded with this advancement in rolling software-development.

If these rolling updates are not impressive, the standard to which one measures the updates is probably too high.

brconflict

If these rolling updates are not impressive, the standard to which one measures the updates is probably too high.

I agree very much with this statement 

My take on it is this. Sonar is host for your sound. You get all these features for the fraction of the cost of say Protools and everything that goes with that. Cubase and Samplitude are marginally more expensive depending on which version you buy. I was surprised to see that Logic Pro was £199 although the disadvantage to that is, you have to change religion.
 
OK maybe the score view is more a visual guide than a composers dream but that aside. If you really need to score music, a separate program like Finale or Sibelius will suit you better. 
 
I don't really use all of the features in Sonar as it is however with every new project and scenario I am forcing myself to learn how to make better use of what I do have and not what I would love to have in it. My previous DAW was Cubase and I had to relearn how to approached routing audio etc. 
 
The support on the forum has been excellent with Noel the CTO chiming now and again to help with issues. So what's not to like? Nothing is perfect in life though. 
 

interpolated
You get all these features for the fraction of the cost of say Protools and everything that goes with that. 

How upated are you on this?
 
ProTools is $599 new, Platinum $500.
To stay current PT is $99 annually, Platinum $250.
To reinstate expired by more than a month - PT is $299 and Platinum $250.
 
Make your pick if PT is alternative.
More content in Platinum for sure, but $150 extra a year and something 100% of your choice?
You can buy stuff for that money too.
But consider PT cpu hog compared to both Sonar, Cubase, Samp and Reaper.
And you need AAX plugins or use wrappers like Metaplugin or Patchwork to run VST if some plugins are exclusive.
But cloud collaboration is probably the best there is - nobody is close - share a track that is common and that is what you update like a version handling.
 
But all inclusive - Platinum is really high priced to stay current, compared to anything else.
Most expensive major version upgrade, next to Sonar, is probably Samplitude $199 and new release every year.
Cubase Pro is about $175 every two years for major version, and half that on x.5 version every year - so annually $87 to stay current.
 
So when I saw how new pricing policy were on Sonar I was really surprised - and did they really check competition?
At least I understand why they hide prices for rolling updates from anybody buying up on Platinum.

lfm

interpolated
You get all these features for the fraction of the cost of say Protools and everything that goes with that. 

How upated are you on this?
 
ProTools is $599 new, Platinum $500.
To stay current PT is $99 annually, Platinum $250.
To reinstate expired by more than a month - PT is $299 and Platinum $250.
 
Make your pick if PT is alternative.
More content in Platinum for sure, but $150 extra a year and something 100% of your choice?
You can buy stuff for that money too.
But consider PT cpu hog compared to both Sonar, Cubase, Samp and Reaper.
And you need AAX plugins or use wrappers like Metaplugin or Patchwork to run VST if some plugins are exclusive.
But cloud collaboration is probably the best there is - nobody is close - share a track that is common and that is what you update like a version handling.
 
But all inclusive - Platinum is really high priced to stay current, compared to anything else.
Most expensive major version upgrade, next to Sonar, is probably Samplitude $199 and new release every year.
Cubase Pro is about $175 every two years for major version, and half that on x.5 version every year - so annually $87 to stay current.
 
So when I saw how new pricing policy were on Sonar I was really surprised - and did they really check competition?
At least I understand why they hide prices for rolling updates from anybody buying up on Platinum.

I've never paid over $125/yr for Sonar, sometimes lower. They almost always offer discounts for renewals. I will admit $250 for Platinum is a bit pricey compared to PT $99. However, if you look at the alternative $24.99 price/mo. for a full year (perpetual license) vs. $24.99 comparison for PT indefinitely (non-perpetual license (subscription only)), the deal looks a bit better. Platinum is also limited only by your hardware. PT is limited by hardware and license. Sonar Platinum certainly is more feature-rich than PT. You can't mix Surround in standard PT, and limited to 64 tracks at 96Khz, for example.

Keep an eye on your email Inbox for Sonar renewal deals, and watch the forums. You might be surprised at how valuable Sonar pricing is.

brconflict
However, if you look at the alternative $24.99 price/mo. for a full year (perpetual license) vs. $24.99 comparison for PT indefinitely (non-perpetual license (subscription only)), the deal looks a bit better.

For a small project studio to just rent PT 2-3 months and do that project - no strings attached - it's an alternative.
Not for all year usage, I think.
 
Maybe campaigns is way to go, I don't know. Just keeping back to my own thinking why I never went for Producer back in the day - the annual penalty in price of updates. That a lower threshold would encourage an upgrade.
 
Artist=$49 annually.
Pro=$75 annually.
Plat=$99 annually.
 
seems more like lowering threshold to go for it and be in the same realm as competition.
 
$245 for Platinum, and maybe campaigns at $149 or $129 is still high.
It's not that much happening in a year.
If you are already set in plugins and instruments - what is there?
 

Platinum is also limited only by your hardware. PT is limited by hardware and license. Sonar Platinum certainly is more feature-rich than PT. You can't mix Surround in standard PT, and limited to 64 tracks at 96Khz, for example.

Avid policy to strip down versions to sell hardware - and then keep adding penalty to those that did - is no better.
And userbase had their say - share went from $18 to $8 until management  corrected some in policy. Now share is about $5 still.
 
But nobody can deny that PT is kind of reference for serious studios. But probably changing as I write and loosing territory all the time.
 
Plenty good thinking in Sonar to compete too. And Cakewalk is maybe together with Cockos Reaper team the most dedicated to improve in the business, I think.
 
But lacking what PT, Cubase, StudioOne do, and to some extent Reaper and Samplitude - VCA's would give headroom to do anything smoothly as a project grows. Reaper and Samp can't do true nested - so lack a bit.
 
I did not do notation as I tested PT, so can't say how it measures up. But Cubase is really, really good in this field.
 

Keep an eye on your email Inbox for Sonar renewal deals, and watch the forums. You might be surprised at how valuable Sonar pricing is.

I am checking out Cakewalk every spring a bit to see what happends. I ran Sonar Studio 4 and 8.5, X3 and Artist 2015(actually Cakewalk Pro 3.0 in the 80's and first windows 3 version 1.0 and 1.25) - and will probably get Sonar Pro at some point if it gets closer to Cubase Pro. If to have Sonar as backup it's good to be as close alternative as possible.
 
Notation and nested VCAs is on the top of my list of needed features. Other really nice things in Cubase is handling of relative automation ghost curves to get visuals while doing that and then can freeze into automation when you feel you are done. Works for VCAs too. Multiple marker tracks are really useful too, make one with timebase time to be used for video scenes, one with bars+beats timebase for recording postiions and one for normal playback and mixing. One marker track is active at a time. And same with multiple ruler bars and can select grid as time or bars+beats.
 
Cubase new video engine is imminent and on next maintenance update - so might be something there too to look at for competition. I ran video in Sonar but when I set markers for scenes it was off a bit the next time I opened project - so not really usable.
 
Testing Reaper 5.4 just now one simple thing struck me as excellent thinking - when changes in tempo track, you get a marker with new tempo printed right there, no need to to look at obscure tempo track and hover mouse or something. Little things like that makes a big difference the more hours a day you sit and work with mixes. And doing video I found that I do a lot more of tempochanges to fit different scenes.
 
Region in Reaper is also excellent, it taking everything including tempo track with you if moving it. Creating inserting nodes as needed.
 
Is new ripple editing in Sonar doing this?
Allow to move full section of project?
Can you lock a track, like video - and have that untouched?

I believe the reason PT became so big or dare I say "The industry standard" was because of their control surfaces.
The C24 was out of this world once upon a time. Now that CS have become more interchangeable and are more cross platform they lost a lot of their gold dust they accumulated back in the early 2000's.
I personally believe Avid took that for granite, thinking their customers would stay loyal (and bring in new customers) no matter what. Another part of their demise was Drivers. Or should I say, lack there of.
 
They also probably figured by keeping potential buyers on a leash (ball and chained) to their hardware devices would solidify more sales. that seemed to back fire a bit. Oh well you win some you lose some.
 
Important to note though is indeed loyalty. If (the producer in the studio I worked at in Boston who introduced me to digital audio) had handed me Pro tools back in 1999, I may still be using it now. Familiarity, learning a new DAW, reinventing the wheel keeps a lot of users from moving to different DAW's. I use Cakewalk because I've been using it for almost 18 years.
Funny thing is, when that producer handed me Cakewalks Pro audio and said "Learn it, this is the future".
I laughed and said; Don't sell the tape machines yet. I thought it would never last. Glad I was wrong. Even funnier...
I still have my tape machines

Interesting stuff. First I agree that $250 is way too high and why I would not even consider that. I have found with software you need to keep your eyes wide open and take the opportunities when they come along. If it seems to high, wait, it will always come down and in the case of Sonar I have not had to lay out much cash since 8.5. I even bought Home studio. Same with 3rd party plug ins. I have a lot of powerful stuff on my computer and I doubt if it cost me much over $700 in the lat 6 years. 

chuckebaby
I believe the reason PT became so big or dare I say "The industry standard" was because of their control surfaces.
The C24 was out of this world once upon a time. Now that CS have become more interchangeable and are more cross platform they lost a lot of their gold dust they accumulated back in the early 2000's.
I personally believe Avid took that for granite, thinking their customers would stay loyal (and bring in new customers) no matter what. Another part of their demise was Drivers. Or should I say, lack there of.
 
They also probably figured by keeping potential buyers on a leash (ball and chained) to their hardware devices would solidify more sales. that seemed to back fire a bit. Oh well you win some you lose some.
 

You are probably right about that.
For anybody that never saw the film Soundcity - I recommend it strongly.
Such inspiration in many ways, I watch it every couple of months.
 
Anyway, there is quite some history over ProTools as well and how that introduction for music production influenced everything. And ProTools was also early to this digital thingy - and the leader of the pack.
 
As one story in film it took about two hours to render a song on computers of that day.
 
Overall it's about how Dave Grohl bought the legendary Neve board console at Soundcity and also made a really nice film on history of that studio, used by Nirvana, Tom Petty, Neil Young, Fleetwood Mac as many others, and also recordings in Grohls new location for an album also featuring Paul McCartney. An album I also purchased on cd with excellent tracks.
 
Anyways, enough off topic....