What everyone is missing, is all software has hit a maturity point in this particular cycle of technology. As I've mentioned - there is no money in software anymore. Crapple, not only helped put the final nails in the coffin of the music industry (Pete Townsend famously called Crapple a digital vampire, and not even The Beatle's could force Crapple out of the music industry - copyright), but Crapple also brought about the current situation of software no longer being profitable. The 3 dollar app.

For the most part...and I've said this before too, Sonar works very well. It's only when you start using crap 3rd party plugs, or older bits of interface technology does Sonar have a fit. Certain Windows configurations and hardware too.

It's an interesting time, we're on the cusp of the next big push technologically. The PC, Mac included is not going to change that much more - it's the same as software...the PC is a mature product. Almost 20 years ago...we still played through the nose for DVD burners and 100 gig spindle hard drives that we're unreliable...Maxator anyone? It's the interface where the next big push will come from. What we need to think about in reference to Sonar, because support and capability isn't really an issue...yet, but what we need to start organising is how we keep legacy products running into the future. All the major DAW makers need to address this, because no one still gets it, that depending on how you use said software - a DAW like Sonar is now an instrument. For me...I don't want to lose my stradivarius...and nor do I want to learn to use another stradivarius. I still have my Fender acoustic guitar, that I brought for 500 bucks in 1991, I painted it and this seems to have deepened the sound and protected the guitar from aging. I also have my Yamaha electric, which I brought in 2000...it needs to be rewired...but it too is still a great guitar. Humbuckers. I'm a one instrument kind of guy.

I never had an issue with the name of the software. Never even gave that a second thought. I did look up the term "cakewalk" once.
The so called "industry" is probably 99% mirage if you see it as this giant that makes the decisions on what's in and whats not. What's in is what we say is in since we buy their stuff. Larger studios are dwindling. You can make cinematic movie tracks in a bedroom.
 
If you want Cakewalk to suddenly be embraced with love by everyone who records I hate to disappoint. The daw competition disdains a free daw. I believe Cakewalk will be more in the limelight because of the recent direction Meng is taking. It might even get to be something like the Mac when it first came out. The thing everyone is using, and that's not a bad thing.
Maybe it will get to the point where hardware makers will come looking for Meng so they can get their hardware working with CbB. In the interim I hear that there is already a functional low priced interface marketed by Bandlab.
 
When I heard you were using a Yamaha Montage I knew where this was going. They probably have excellent support for Cubase for obvious reasons. FWIW Cakewalk has more synth hardware interface functionality than most. Try sending sysex in Studio One. Things might have changed but midi hasn't changed. Doesn't the montage have a software program that manages and calls up presets? 
 
Audiocon you are a smart guy. You could probablr write an interface for the Montage to CbB. I'm not that detailed when I record my hardware. I send CbB a midi channel and an audio channel. Then I write the synth setting in the channel notes. Works fine on smaller projects.

My Cakewalk usage has shrunk by about 80%. I have moved on, but not completely away. I drop in occasionally to see if the boffins have come up with a new feature I have to have. I have hope but certainly no expectations and I feel that's fair to me a and Cakewalk. The only software I've ever seen in a studio is PRo Tools and Logic so I've no idea if the big boys are any more or less enthused by Cakewalk.

I really dont't care what people think about the DAW that I use. 
 
What I do care about is the support from 3rd party hardware and plugin vendors.  That matters! 
 
And community support counts, as well as educational and tutorial resources.  Some products seem to have extensive viral media coverage in this regard, in comparison to the competition...

It's been this way since I started using Cakewalk and the reason why I went with Cakewalk in the first place was that it seemed like a bit of an underdog and I like underdogs! A hardware manufacturer or software developer will aim its products at the most popular markets. If a product needs special development in order to support different DAWs, they will start by developing for the market leaders which are traditionally Cubase, Logic, Protools et al. Cakewalk simply doesn't have the market share for some manufacturers to want to support it. That may all change in the future though if Cake grows in popularity by being free.

35mm
It's been this way since I started using Cakewalk and the reason why I went with Cakewalk in the first place was that it seemed like a bit of an underdog and I like underdogs! A hardware manufacturer or software developer will aim its products at the most popular markets. If a product needs special development in order to support different DAWs, they will start by developing for the market leaders which are traditionally Cubase, Logic, Protools et al. Cakewalk simply doesn't have the market share for some manufacturers to want to support it. That may all change in the future though if Cake grows in popularity by being free.

Not sure I agree with a marketing theory that assumes "FREE" will gain a bigger market share.
It could go either way, depending how the market reacts. If there is no effective marketing, then it will not get noticed. If people flock to it because it's free, it's not a sustainable business plan. More time must pass to see how it all turns out.
 
Those market leaders you mention have many of the same features as Cakewalk by BandLab . . . they've all been slugging it out for a few decades. The bottom line is which DAW enables you to create the type of music you prefer, easiest.
 
So. since Cakewalk continues to do that, I'll keep using it. However, we've yet to see the "new" Cakewalk come along with any groundbreaking new features. (Yes, I'd just like to see something bigger to gain confidence in the future of this program) We know Noel and the bakers are certainly capable of keeping it moving forward, but can they keep pace with the well funded, and larger user base other DAWS ? . . . this remains to be seen.

The fact that you had to make up a story rather than take one from actual history speaks volumes.
 
In real life, all of those companies you mentioned are thriving. And could never give their products away for free because there is so much cost in materials and labor to produce each individual unit.
 
This is unlike with downloadable computer software, where the cost of goods for an individual unit (not development, which in this case was overwhelmingly paid for in one payment) is in server space, bandwidth, maintaining a user database, etc.
 
How about we examine the examples of Netscape, Opera, Chrome, Firebird, and Internet Explorer? I don't know if you consider it cheating to use a real life example instead of making one up, but it's all I got. I was a business major at university and they encouraged us to do that. Hard habit to break.
 
20 years ago Netscape owned the marketplace, the company was the biggest software IPO in history to that point. Its browser was a commercial product, regarded as the industry standard, untouchable, kind of the Pro Tools of its time.
 
Microsoft, a well-funded company (as is Meng's), came along and bought up the slightly out-of-date Mosaic and started giving it away for free as Internet Explorer. It was not well-regarded at first, but Microsoft persisted and threw better and better engineering talent at the project.
 
Other browser companies jumped in like Opera, also a payware browser, but much cheaper and less bloated than Netscape had become.
 
Google became a powerhouse, a company based on giving away all of their services to the consumer for FREE, including their browser, Chrome. They make their enormous fortune by upsells and selling to businesses services that their employees learned to use as individual consumers. People don't need to be trained to use GMail or Google Docs or any of that because most of the time they have already been using them. Because they became the industry standard by giving them away for free to consumers!
 
Fast forward 20 years to now. Chrome, rooted in the freeware world, has almost 2/3 of the market. Internet Explorer and Netscape (now evolved into Firefox, long since freeware) are still around with about 1/10th of the market each, and a plethora of others, with Opera still around (now free), Edge, a new (free) one from Microsoft, and many others, many of them using code from Chrome, which allows its code to be used for free.
 
And that godawful name! GOOGLE Chrome? "Google" sounds like something that would come out of the mouth of a toddler.
 
It beat out "Opera," "Firebird," and "Explorer," though. I guess squeamish people can just call it "Chrome."
 
Consumering Lesson #0: This is not your father's software industry. Upsells and in-app purchases rule. Kick back, enjoy the free stuff, let the people do what they do. We don't need to understand it any more than a client needs to understand everything that we do when we engineer their project. Don't build your entire studio on a skillset with one DAW. Everything goes away. Everything changes. Also, as long as the name trips off the tongue, you're good to go. It will take on its own meaning
 
Guys, no matter how much it pisses you off that people like me now get your expensive tool for free, the new owner is never going to start charging us for The DAW Formerly Known As SONAR that you paid so much for. The new licensing model is in place, the bird has flown. We are already seeing the value in not needing to justify selling licensing fees by stuffing in flashy new features at the expense of bug hammering. The thing was a crash monster 4 months ago and is now a rock.
 
Your licensing fees created a GREAT DAW and new users like me are in your debt. Now you and I and tons of other people get a new, better product without the fees, you get to keep what I understand are some killer plug-ins that none of the rest of us is even able to buy yet.
 
Also, no matter how much the name may embarrass you, "Cakewalk" has 30 years of recognition behind it. Meng's company bought the Harmony guitars brand so my guess is that he understands the value of a brand's strength.
 
I propose that for all of you who think "Cakewalk" sounds too lame, how about you call it 'Walk. Like Strat or Tele? "I'm gonna go into the studio and lay down some badass tracks in 'Walk.'" Or "Cake." Do you remember when it was cool to call money "bread?"
 

Keano66
There were once three cars: A Ferrari, A Porsche and a Rolls Royce. They were all good cars. People paid money to buy these cars - they were so good. It was hard to tell which was the best, as they all had merits. Some said the Ferrari was the fastest, some said the Porsche was the more stylish and others said the Rolls Royce was the more elegant. They were all good and the people valued them equally and exchanged money for them.

And then, inexplicably, the Rolls Royce makers said to a stunned market, that everyone could have a Rolls Royce for free. What? The people who didn't own the Rolls Royce proclaimed that "this must be proof that the Rolls Royce must have been a defective car to begin with, for if they are giving the car away for free, it must mean that it is inferior".

Marketing lesson No.1: Have faith in your own product because if you don't, then nobody else will.

And change the bloody name. Cakewalk? Embarrasing. Give it a name that reflects how utterly great this software really is. Make it sound special. Make people WANT to desire it.

bitflipper

I wonder what word processor Tom Clancy used. Surely, if I wanted to be a successful fiction writer I'd need to know that!
 
 
 

Exactly. It's the guitarist, not the guitar.

There are 3 main DAWs - Protools, which has AVID and thus a company that owns the major audio and video editing software.  They will really have to screw things up to lose their position.  Live!, which, captured the "DJ" performance market for, not surprisingly Live performance (it is in the name).  Finally their is Cubase, which works well on both OSs and is owned by a large and successful megacompany that makes physical things, not software.  And a lot of music hardware, not just motorcycles, with which they can introduce and capture large swaths of home musicians.
 
When I was first deciding which PC DAW to go with years ago, there was Logic, Steinberg and Cakewalk.  Cake was the first one to incorporate Loops naturally, so I went with it.  And I don't regret it.  Today their are far more choices, which means a middling-sized company like Cakewalk was squeezed by both the majors and the new, minor players which were small with a small staff that didn't require much overhead (Reaper was a one man job).  Bitwig, hardware company Presonus, Mixcraft all had these advantages over Cakewalk, which couldn't take advantage of Roland's hardware distribution since they never developed for the Mac.  If I was Roland I'd be pissed too that not only did I buy a DAW but had to license another one for my Mac company.  But they knew that going in.  I guess a program to turn PC code to mac code didn't quite work.
 
There is just too much small competition in the PC market for a mid-sized company with all the associated overhead to make it on its own.  If there is a hardware stream to suckle off a large DAW can work, or a small company off revenues.  But I think Bandlab is on the right track with a small-sized company they can afford to carry long enough to make it work.  Ideally, they want a lot of people using their free DAW and free social site, with enough users to pay for major software development.  In the meanwhile, enjoy one of the best DAWs out there for literally nothing, with nice clean up programming on a monthly basis, and hope Bandlab reaches liftoff.

I don't think Yamaha is a good reference. given they sell Cubase.
I have a Yamaha ES Rack.
The firewire multitrack interface is only supported in Cubase.
 
As long as CbB supports the usual standards there will be enough compatible plugins to keep us amused.