"Who is using this API to create the software in question is still an open question for me. It is obvious that only hardware producers get real money from final customers. Big part of that money is for the software. How that money are spent? Had AV Tango payed for Cubase support and could not agree with Cakewalk on that? I have no idea. But I think that question is again in MARKETING"
 
I fully agree Alexei about all you said , specially the last thing quoted here ....
 
The key element i'm trying to point out is trying to appreciate the futur level of implication of Cakewalk in the contrôle surface area , nothing more or less ... i know it's not easy , i know it's not difficult also , and i know all can be done if there's a real "volonté" to do so .And i can only base my jugement on 2 elements : PAST facts & actual signs ....
 

Zo
Thks for your time , presence and patience .
 

Of course it would be great if SONAR supported everything out there, or everything out there supported SONAR. But it always has to come down to priorities. So, two factors with control surfaces...as mentioned, there aren't that many in use compared to the universe of DAW users. Second, there are controllers that work with SONAR (Softube, Mackie, Artist Series). To me this means that SONAR meets the "minimum requirement" for controller supporter. For many, probably even most users, meeting that minimum requirement will be enough. For others, like you, it won't be.
 
But ultimately, I think more SONAR users would want ripple editing, PRV enhancements, and easier arranging because that affects everyone. Cakewalk would probably think so as well, so because there is at least some degree of controller support, they place their priorities on items with more "universal" appeal.
 
All DAW companies have to make decisions about what they can and cannot do, so by definition a certain percentage of people will always be disappointed that what they want has not been addressed. The only thing the user of any DAW can hope for is that enough has been addressed that they can make the music they want. 

Thks ... crystal clear ... so to end with this , concerning the update from avid eucon 3.5 is cakewalk want s to work on it or no ? ( witch will imply that we have to stick with old version , forget about new stuff like the protools dock )