Anderton
Because it's your duty as a SONAR user to subsidize people who don't want to pay $9.99 or perform 9 steps to configure their own encoder.

That argument might have had some merit under the old Cakewalk pricing model.  But it is not a good argument under the subscription model.  Plain and simple, only a perversely short-sighted company would nickel and dime a customer over a $10 item when they want me to be on a long-term subscription that will be many hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars over the life of our relationship. I am not asking anybody else to pay more for the product.  I am saying that Cakewalk has the power to absorb this small cost item for the long-term benefit of a happy, growing customer base.  And in the context of a multi-year subscription, this item is insignificant to Cakewalk's P&L.
 
And for the record, I already paid that charge a long time ago.  My point is this is a dumb marketing position for a company pushing subscription-only service.
 
You are entitled to your opinion about how software products should be marketed.  I don't agree with that opinion in this case.  My suggestion is that you simply accept the fact that your opinion is not shared by everyone on this item and leave it at that.

cparmerlee

Anderton
Because it's your duty as a SONAR user to subsidize people who don't want to pay $9.99 or perform 9 steps to configure their own encoder.

I am not asking anybody else to pay more for the product.

 
I totally understand and appreciate that your intention is not to ask for that. But the reality is that the money has to come from somewhere. If Cakewalk has to pay more for things that people don't need or have already purchased, that cost will be passed along to the consumer one way or another. That's the way everything except non-profits work.
 

I am saying that Cakewalk has the power to absorb this small cost item for the long-term benefit of a happy, growing customer base.

 
All I'm saying is that's based on wishful thinking, not reality, and I truly wish the world was such that you were right. And I must admit, I'm envious that you can see the world in those idealistic terms, and I certainly would not want you to abandon your idealistic viewpoint as the world could use more idealists. But, I've already explained that the licensing fee is not a small cost compared to a $99 program like SONAR Artist, or a $19.99 program like Music Creator, both of which do much more volume than SONAR Platinum, where a lot of the BOM already goes to third-party licensing fees. (As to whether Cakewalk should spend the time to come up with a single-program-specific version of the encoder and an installer for same, as well as protect it from usage in other programs, is a separate and more complex discussion that will be irrelevant in a couple years anyway.)
 
But let's assume you're right and the customers don't have to pay for it. Then Cakewalk does, and unless they come up with some immensely profitable product that makes sufficient money to subsidize another product, who should Cakewalk fire to cover the cost? (How about Ryan? That rabbit avatar was always kind of creepy anyway...)
 

You are entitled to your opinion about how software products should be marketed.  I don't agree with that opinion in this case.  My suggestion is that you simply accept the fact that your opinion is not shared by everyone on this item and leave it at that.

 
I’ve already said:
 
“I understand that some people, for whatever reason, will not see the merits in that approach.”
 
and
 
“Given those tradeoffs, I think the correct decision is to leave the decision about how to handle MP3 encoding up to the user. Others disagree. On the other hand I'm not sure they want to pay more for SONAR, have fewer features, or put someone out on the street; but to be fair, maybe they're totally cool with those tradeoffs, and if so, I respect their opinion regardless of whether I agree or not."
 
I am simply trying to present the reality of the situation, for example, that comparing the volume that a company like Sony does with Cakewalk is apples and oranges, or to say that Cakewalk aren't "good negotiators" when the fee is fixed based on multiple criteria that are not alterable does not relate to how the real world works. Those who have open minds may find facts helpful in forming their opinions, and I have presented facts. I totally accept that you remain unconvinced by those facts. Others may realize that what I've said is based on considerable experience in patent law, negotiating contracts, and negotiating licensing agreements, and the facts I've presented may provide a different insight on the situation. 
 
However, given that you have not brought up anything that contradicts anything I've said from a factual standpoint, I have nothing further to add, and I think people have enough information they can make up their own minds as to the course of action Cakewalk should take that would benefit the majority of their customers.
 
But I really do mean it when I said "I certainly would not want you to abandon your idealistic viewpoint as the world could use more idealists," and I'd be more than happy if that's the only fact you remember from my comments because it's the one that's most important 
 
 
 

If anyone wants to argue a case for the inclusion of an MP3 convertor by default, then I'm all ears. I described earlier why I wouldn't need it (Post#63). Forget about marketing. Describe some typical scenarios where it would be beneficial to have this feature included.

WDI
Referring to post 63, for me, MP3 is proofreading. Not printing. I output MP3 192 CBR, sounds pretty indistinguishable to me from 44/16 wave, whenever I want a quick reference to take with me for enjoyment, or email etc. I don't need Sonar to output the final product as MP3. Obviously I would output to a lossless high quality format for that, like wave. And I can use iTunes, or whatever program, to create a compressed format from the master for cataloging or whatever.
 
Why question someone who wants to output MP3 directly from Sonar. I mean, then you should be questioning why we need FLAC or OGG whatever and all the rest. Why not get rid of them all except for one high quality lossless format and use some other program to output other formats from that.
 
I really don't get all the MP3 hate. I really never new there was such a thing. I mean, I can understand the idea that buying a lossy format is a bad idea. But using one to store your library on a device smaller than a walkman is pretty cool to me.
 
It always surprises my when you get someone who says how horrible MP3s sound. They must be doing something different than me because at 192 CBR they are pretty indistinguishable form wave 44/16 to me. It would be cool for someone, I would be willing, to upload a 44/16 wave, FLAC, OGG and MP3 192 CBR. We could download the files, create a playlist from them on your phone or whatever and shuffle them and see if you can tell a difference.
 
I know, you already can. No point in doing that stupid test. And by you, I wasn't referring to you Kev999. But rather the person who is going to come in here saying how dumb MP3s etc.
 
Oops, I was supposed to be out of this thread. :)

1) You can use FLAC on mobiles
2) Try listening to a Hammond rotary on MP3, it sounds like a washing machine. Dark Side of The Moon is more like Backside of the Washing Machine.
3) Most of us do understand how MP3's sound, there aren't really many revelations to be had, esp in these forums.
 
I only see one reason for MP3, and that is spoken word recordings where audio quality really does not matter.

cparmerlee

Anderton
Because it's your duty as a SONAR user to subsidize people who don't want to pay $9.99 or perform 9 steps to configure their own encoder.

That argument might have had some merit under the old Cakewalk pricing model.  But it is not a good argument under the subscription model.  Plain and simple, only a perversely short-sighted company would nickel and dime a customer over a $10 item when they want me to be on a long-term subscription that will be many hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars over the life of our relationship. I am not asking anybody else to pay more for the product.  I am saying that Cakewalk has the power to absorb this small cost item for the long-term benefit of a happy, growing customer base.  And in the context of a multi-year subscription, this item is insignificant to Cakewalk's P&L.
 
And for the record, I already paid that charge a long time ago.  My point is this is a dumb marketing position for a company pushing subscription-only service.
 
You are entitled to your opinion about how software products should be marketed.  I don't agree with that opinion in this case.  My suggestion is that you simply accept the fact that your opinion is not shared by everyone on this item and leave it at that.

What subscription model. You pay for your software and you own it. You want to pay for it in instalments? You can. But then you don't own it till you've made your last payment. It's credit if you take the monthly payment option not a subscription. It's just an additional choice to the previous model. What's changed is how Cakewlak deliver the updates. And even then you don't have to take them when they're offered, you can choose to install updates at monthly, 3 monthly, any monthly, or even annually if you want. The choice is yours.

That model has nothing to do with MP3 encoding and I for one don't want to pay for a feature I hardly use when I don't have to and have the choice to opt in or out or even have another option and install a free encoder. For which Cakewalk even provide instructions. Clearly it's not a money making exercise for Cakewalk.

Agreed on all counts

If you buy 12 months it's bought outright and you own it, if you do it monthly for 12 months you are on a payment programme and own it afterwards. If you do it less than 12 months you are on a rental programme. All software manufacturers want you to continue to use their product and upgrade to the latest. Stop talking pointless tosh.

cparmerlee
It is a subscription model because the company wants you to keep subscribing.  That is the whole point.

By your definition all software companies that release upgrades are subscription models. How come you keep getting things wrong? See my previous post.

cparmerlee

BobF
IT IS NOT A SUBSCRIPTION MODEL

It is a subscription model because the company wants you to keep subscribing.  That is the whole point.
 
Do you plan to extend your subscription in 2016?
 
I agree you don't have to, but obviously the point is to influence you to do that.  Are you going to or not?

I don't have a subscription.  I will likely buy another year worth of updates though.  See, if I decide not to buy another year worth of updates, I can continue to use those that I bought this year.  In perpetuity. 
 
Get it?  It's just like it used to be with two exceptions.
 
1.  There is a payment plan available (which I do not take advantage of)
2.  I don't have to wait a year for new features and enhancements
 
Cool, huh?
 
 

WDI
2) I just ripped Time from Dark Side so I had a wave version. Placed them both on a playlist on iPod and went back and forth not knowing which is which. I was listening with Bose QC15 headphones. At times I felt there was a difference. Then I would get confused as to which one I thought actually sounded better. I know there has to be a difference. The wave is 44.1 at 68.7 MB. The MP3 is 192 at 9.4 MB. So ya, I would hope there is a difference. I had a difficult time hearing a difference the way I was doing it. It did not sound like a washing machine regardless.

I'm with you.  At MP=128 I can usually tell a difference, but I have just gotten to where I do 320 all the time.  That is still a big reduction in file size and it works with just about any device that can use MP3s.  At 320 I cannot tell a difference -- certainly on on any of the material I do.  With just the right material on the greatest speakers in the best acoustical space, maybe I'd be able to hear the difference, but that isn't what I do.

Doktor Avalanche
Should have listened to great gig in the sky... Hammond at any lossy bitrate is truely awful... If you can't hear it A/B it, it's as clear as mud. I give you that mp3 works quite well for uncomplicated dance music.

Well my Disc 1 for Echos is no where to be found that has that on it. I could get it off of record though if you think that would work.

cparmerlee
[And that being the case, a $10 investment to eliminate a sales objection that could potentially mess up a multi-year subscription is smart marketing IMHO.

 
You still don't get it and with all due respect, you seem to have virtually no real-world knowledge about marketing. I'm not dissing you, marketing is one of those subjects where everyone can think they're an expert (like managing a baseball team) but it's not simple. Marketing does not exist in a vacuum. Marketing co-exists with sales, development, manufacturing, operational and executive, legal, statistics/data analysis, and financials.
 
SOMEONE has to pay that $10. Here are some questions for you:
 
1. Given that money doesn't fall out of the sky, who should pay for it?
2. If you say "consumers," why should they subsidize others who think paying $10 for an encoder is outrageous, or that doing nine steps is too onerous a task to avoid paying that $10 - is that fair?
3. If Cakewalk, they will need to trim costs somewhere to pay for it. Should they:
a) Fire someone in tech support? And if so, should customers have to wait on hold longer to accommodate others who think paying $10 for an encoder is outrageous, or that doing nine steps is too onerous a task to avoid paying $10?
b) Include fewer features that require licensing fees in the future in order to pay the licensing fees for MP3 export, which is a freely available option anyway?
c) Raise the price of Cakewalk products to pay for the licensing?
4. What makes you think that your assessment of Cakewalk's present and future marketing plans bear any relationship to reality?
5. Have you looked up the definition of "subscription software"? It is "software that ceases operation if you stop paying for the subscription." Does SONAR become non-functional if you stop paying?
 
I realize I said I had nothing more to contribute to this thread...and in terms of information, I really don't. But I keep hoping that if I explain how the process works enough times, you'll a) understand the real-world realities involved, and although I know this is a long shot, b) if you really are an expert in marketing and running companies, you can come up with some brilliant solution of how to pay for MP3 licensing that doesn't involve penalizing existing users or firing people at Cakewalk. If you do, I would be truly grateful.