Starise
It seems we have extreme views at each end of the issue, and comments that amount to blanket statements that are intended to make it appear everyone in that group is on board with an idea.
 
Audioicon, the statement you quote above is only partially true since we have  hardware manufacturers who have set out to design a good software/hardware integration in hardware/software they make. Even they make their hardware to work with other software. They are savy enough to do BOTH. Case in point- I own a Presonus interface that works wonderfully with Sonar, yet it integrates slightly better with Studio One. Since this is a one time setup the slightly less intuitive setup isn't a problem for me. I mean, I do it once and I'm done. I tend to use Sonar more often than Studio One. The only real difference to me was SO seen my inputs/outputs and identified them. Setting buffers was slightly easier. Both setups are no brainers for me though.
 
From this perspective I see no real benefit to spending huge amounts of money on the  R&D of dedicated hardware. I CAN however see a benefit to Tascam/Cake making the existing hardware more friendly to Sonar if that is possible.How would we do that though? What is unfriendly now? And what do you consider to be high end hardware? Both Tascam and Roland have a large prosumer base. What would you like to see integrated? I/O is already integrated as  ASIO or WMA drivers. As I mentioned Cake is working close with Microsoft to make sure Sonar works with all new I/O tech Microsoft comes out with. So far as I know, Cakewalk is the front runner on this. 
 
Avid has their market, Sonar and the others have their market. Many large studios are suffering. Bad for Avid. Good for Sonar.Why buy a system that ties you to dedicated hardware? 
 
So what would the kind of integration you want look like? How is this an advantage to you or anyone else?

Great input, thanks!

Here is my story:

My first Interface was a Presonous FirePod, before than, I was recording directly to Hard-disk systems, no computer. All my sequences was done on hardware sequencer.

When I started using the FirePod, I struggled with integration, drivers were terrible at the time, the entire system was buggy. I spent more time trying to make things work than making music.

Then I got an MAudio 1814 and things were very improved, later the Mackie Onxy and now the RME UFX Plus.

Why did I ask this questions/make this post.

Given that the RME cost me close to $3000.00, I started to ask, what if TasCam had something like this for Sonar, which is not exclusive but tightly integrated? 

While RME is the greatest is terms to stability, it's way overly complicated, nothing is Obvious, and their ToTalMix routing system is the worse I have ever seen. I started spending more time reading their manuals, and eventually have been able to use the systems as needed.

So what would the kind of integration you want look like? How is this an advantage to you or anyone else?

 1) I would have a hardware (not exclusive) but design for seamless integration, meaning I will spend more time         making music. Better compatibility, auto routing and input/output assignments, driver updates with Sonar releases, optimization tips that are design for maximum performance with Sonar.

 2) Please, look at the Sonar forum and read all the issues people are having with getting things to work.

 3) Large user based, meaning a lot of users may have the same hardware or setup, so you get better knowledge         base.
 
I am sitting here thinking, what if RME Acquired Cakewalk? 

I posted this question because TasCam makes this stuff, this is their bread and butter, digital recording and so I am under the impression that part of the interest here will be some integration between the two entity.

There are some great statements in this thread but the one I've seen most keeps cropping up: "build better compatibility between products ..".
That's the answer.

Anderton

Audioicon

abacab
If you make a hit record, your audience will not care what you used to record and mix it on.

This is such misleading and overloaded statement.

I think what he's saying is that the listener doesn't care. Most of them probably don't even know what a DAW is, let alone care about the means of production. The only people who might care are other DAW owners.

That's because they all think it's Pro-Tools and every good looking picture is Photoshop. 

Just giving you a hard time.

Audiocon, you make some good points, but to get one problem out of the way - ProTools.
 
ProTools is used in most professional studios today because it is the standard.  They were first with digital recording and have never screwed up enough to warrant users changing DAWs in a pro setting.  Not to mention the amount of hardware already tied up.  I just had an owner complaining to me about having to decide to upgrade his software's hardware dongle.  He was talking about spending 10 grand, I think.  But they haven't screwed up, most pros learn on ProTools and just never leave.  Kinda like MS in offices.  If you do office work at a firm, you ain't gonna spend an extra $1000 per station for a new OS that your people will be less efficient on for a while.
 
But it seems to me Cake had an idea that touch would be the new controller standard.  That is why they changed the look and functionality on SONAR, I think - more touch friendly and not a million drop down menus.  And I love working with touch - XY pads are the bomb on touch and even better than joysticks (tho not as cool looking or named).  But there are a lot of functions that don't work so well on touch - very small precise control movements are better served with a mouse, typing is better on keyboard (duh), but knobs and sliders work fine with touch if done right.  One thing that is much better tactilely are faders, since you can feel them and not have to keep your eyes glued to the screen.  The touch sliders (w/ LEDs) on the maschine Jam are an excellent alternative means of fadering.  If they were a little bit longer they would be even better.
 
I published an idea for a controller many moons ago in SOS, for synths, mostly, and it was based on a touchscreen (long before there was anything commercially available) with some knobs and a Faderport style fader offset from the screen.  That is still a good idea, I think.  But in that case it had an integrated computer, which is the way for CAKE to go for a holistic system.  A computer tuned for and that comes with SPLt installed (Hello Jim!), for stability.  A 27 inch or so touchscreen with, say, 6 knobs and a moving fader (or touch slider like Jam) built into the case of the touchscreen.  That would be something to set SONAR apart from the DAW herd and give the pro crowd a run, or at least but a scare on 'em.   And great for home use, too.  Plus, it wouldn't break the bank to design, and they could sell the Screen controller separately for other DAW users, too.  It still might be a bust, but at least it wouldn't be the same ole stuff again and again that has failed.