Westside Steve Simmons
I can't imagine why Gibson wouldn't rather just sell the whole ball of wax to somebody? Or why some other entity wouldn't be interested in it? What would possibly be in their interest in Killing It Off?
Especially if something like Reaper is still a viable product.
WSS

What incentive is there for anyone to buy a company that's losing money?
 
Or put another way, what could a buyer bring to the party than Gibson couldn't?
 
I don't get all the 'whys' and 'ifs' about this. If Cakewalk was making money, Gibson would have either kept it, or at least have had something tangible to sell.

+1
 
I really don't know why anyone's still debating this now. Cakewalk failed, because it didn't sell enough copies of Sonar. No-one wanted to buy a failed company. That's it.

Do you know about the deal you have to make with Gibson in order to be a retailer of their guitars?
This has been in place for quite awhile.
You have to stock and sell every single guitar they make. 
You can't just offer some, or take stock of some. 
You have to take it all. This outrageous rule took down many small retail shops I imagine
 
Sorry but this is not true.  I owned a Music store  in the 90's and I doubt if the rules have changed much since then. Here in Canada Yorkville Sound is the distributer for Gibson and Epiphone. It still is I see by adds in magazines. 
Might be that deal applies in the US and if you buy direct from Gibson. 
 
I could order one Guitar which I did a few times for customers. Gibsons were about the same as opening a box from China. They always required a lot of set up.
 
My best brand was Godin and the Seagulls. I also sold Ibenez, Yamaha and Samicks. 
 
Yamaha was a hard company to deal with as they DID require you stock X amount of inventory as well as the profit margin was smaller. But at least Yamaha stuff sold and their guitars often came out of the box 100% ready to hang on the wall.
For the money Gibsons were a sub standard build quality back then. The Epiphones were sometimes better built. So I sold mostly the Epiphone Les Paul and SG's. but they were both a small part of sales and not a money maker for me. 


Of note was I had a Fender dealership for all products except the Guitars. It was a different distributor for the guitars and I just didn't bother as at the time the quality was junk unless domestic or made in Japan. 

Can one of you that keeps telling us cakewalk has a huge base be kind enough to provide figures to support this. I'm disputing it. I just have no frame of reference. Most polls i have seen put it behind all the major names. In all of my musical circles it is non-existent. I personally know only three people who have used Sonar as main DAW in the last 5 years. None of them are under 40. Cakewalk obviously wasn't selling enough to stay afloat or even be attrsctive to a buyer. It is totally possible cakewalk may be more valuable as a loss for Gibson than selling it at even bigger loss.

jamesg1213
Cakewalk failed, because it didn't sell enough copies of Sonar. No-one wanted to buy a failed company. That's it.

+1 but did anybody know Cakewalk was for sale.
If yes, it has been a very well kept secret. There is always a buyer if the price is is set correctly.

panup

jamesg1213
Cakewalk failed, because it didn't sell enough copies of Sonar. No-one wanted to buy a failed company. That's it.

+1 but did anybody know Cakewalk was for sale.
If yes, it has been a very well kept secret. There is always a buyer if the price is is set correctly.

Yes, more 'if, if, if'
 
Yawn.

I don't think it's quite fair to call Gibson management dense. I think they are reacting to a desperate situation. Guitar sales have been in a downspin for years and it doesn't appear likely to end any time soon. So, it's not like they're sitting around with bags of money. If they can't figure things out, they could lose the whole ship.
 
Nor do I think it's fair to say Gibson doesn't care about Cakewalk users. Right now, they care very much about not having to close their doors for good. They care about making the very best decisions about recovering and paying off their massive debt. They care about the possibility that they might have to fire all of their employees.
 
Old-timers (like me) have a hard time picturing a world without rock guitar gods, but that's the world we're in now. It's all about makin' beatz, I guess. That's also one of the reasons why places like Guitar Center are also in desperate financial straits. 
 
The leadership at Gibson are trying to predict and survive the future. They probably bought Cakewalk (and other brands) as a way to leverage into a music world that simply doesn't drool over Les Pauls the way it used to. And those Les Pauls? That's their core business! I have no idea what I'd do if were Gibson right now.
 
Whether that was a poor decision to buy Cakewalk or poor management since the decision or just bad luck, it didn't work. It appears more and more they believe their future is in consumer electronics. So be it. 
 
Personally, I wish them the best. I hope people will be able to buy Gibson guitars for many years to come.

KeithAdv
I don't think it's quite fair to call Gibson management dense. I think they are reacting to a desperate situation.

I would venture to say that Gibson management was dense, but that it goes back a long way. Businesses go under when they forget why they are in business. Yes, every business wants to make money, but nearly every business out there started by wanting to provide a product or service to the public. Makes no difference if it is the corner bakery or the manufacturer of a world class musical instrument. They become a good company by listening to the customers, providing a quality product or service, and selling it for a fair price.
 
But when a business becomes more about making money then anything else, things go bad. When more money is the mantra, they begin to find cheaper places to make their product or hire people who aren't really qualified to provide a service, all to reduce their cost - but they keep their prices the same so they can make more money. It works for a while, but people ultimately realize the name alone is not worth the money and they quit buying.
 
A smart business will realize this when they get off track and work very hard to get back to where they were. Its hard, as once you lose the trust value with the public, it is hard to get it back. It can be done, but it isn't easy. The longer you wait, the harder it is. Others will instead look for the next great thing to 'invest' in, that will make them even more money. Sometimes it works, but more often than not it doesn't.
 
Gibson is no different than any other failing company. Look back and you will see a company who use to make a great product and worked hard at making a great product. Then they just worked hard at making money. Now they have neither. Most companies will fail as they are too far in debt to ever get out. Some of these companies continue as Zombie companies. They sell their name (their only thing of value) to put on products, products they don't build, service or control. Others never make it to zombie status.
 
Time will tell what happens to Gibson. But there is nothing new to see here....

industrial sabotage 

If I had an if for every if I'd be richer than all the bitcoin holders.
 
If only.