Why wouldn't the company just sale it off it's valuable assets and cut their loses, instead of just dumping it in the garbage can?
 
Cakewalk is such a great company and has so many great products, I'm about 100% sure they would find a buyer in no time.
 
Either Gibson got something up their sleeve, or they are just totally selfish to the faithful customers.

Not if it loses money.

I concluded here it was denseness: 
http://forum.cakewalk.com/The-denseness-of-Gibson-management-m3690336.aspx
 
:D
 
..but who really knows, maybe they tried and wanted TOO MUCH MONEY! Knowing Gibson, that prolly wouldn't surprise anyone, ha.

kday
Why wouldn't the company just sale it off it's valuable assets and cut their loses, instead of just dumping it in the garbage can?
 

Because writing off a substantial loss for a business asset that you acquired for way undervalue is a better for your bottom line then trying to sell the asset; especially when you are facing bankruptcy.
 
It's business, it's ugly, but that's how the game is played by some.

When Cakewalk made a contract to give us all future updates for free, they made a Faustian mistake.
 
No company will buy a product line or business that has no future revenue, and that is exactly what Platinum has attached to it.
 
I knew it was a last ditch effort last year when they made the lifetime updates for free contract.  Probably so did Cakewalk/Gibson.
 
I have to say this is really a big drag to have to change a DAW I have used since Dos 3. But I have seen it coming for a very long time. This future was cast very long ago. Probably before Roland was the owner.

mritenburg
Because writing off a substantial loss for a business asset that you acquired for way undervalue is a better for your bottom line then trying to sell the asset; especially when you are facing bankruptcy.

Not if the parent company is losing money, as I believe Gibson is.
 
The reason they didn't sell it is really, really simple.  There aren't any buyers.  SONAR is a very mature product; one of the best ever created in its category.  But they have been losing more money every year, mainly because it is a really crowded field.  The financial track record is clear.  The product lost money under Roland.  it lost money under Gibson.  Nobody wants to give it another try because the results would probably not be any different.
 
Ironically, the impressive improvements that the Bakers made in the past 24 months of monthly updates sealed the fate.  The product is truly great now, yet it still loses money.  There is nothing anybody else could do to make the product profitable.
 
Gibson might have been able to sell the code and brand name for a few dollars.  They obviously did not receive an attractive offer.  They may find there are pieces they can sell off piecemeal, but I doubt they will bring much.  Basically we are talking the plug-ins.  Most of them are rather dated by now, and nobody will pay anything for the ProChannel stuff because no other DAW uses that architecture.  So basically I think we are talking the Adaptive Limiter and the recent LP plugs.  How much do you think an investor would pay for those?

ProChannel VSTs are simply VSTs constrained in size to fit the PC template.  The EQ and SSL buss comp are as good software as I've found, and the rest of the line good.
 
But, as far as worth - Gibson is likely to be bankrupt or sold next June when a large chunk of their $500M debt needs serviced.  A bankruptcy judge can sell the code to me for a $ if that is the best offer made.  A new owner, same thing.  And I hope to gawd there is new management soon.

AT
The EQ and SSL buss comp are as good software as I've found, and the rest of the line good.

I liked the Concrete limiter.  I wish that were available as a VST I could take to other DAWs.  But I think I used the Concrete Limiter less once the Adaptive Limiter arrived.
 
If you are talking about the Quad EQ, it does the job, but there are loads of similar EQs around.  I agree about the S compressor.  I liked that one a lot.  I used it all the time for side-chain ducking until Neutron came out.  Neutron allows side-chaining to a dynamic EQ, so you don't have to duck the entire track.  You can duck the frequency rage that is the problem area.
 
The half-life of innovations in this business is about a year, or two years in the best case.  A technology that is really good one year is so-so a couple of years later, and is really dated by year 4 or 5.  It is a tough business.  I have worked around software development for 45 years.  The field of audio processing is, by far, the most active area of rapid innovation.  I doubt there is any other software area that has so many really brainy people developing code that is truly amazing.
 
Perhaps one could argue something similar is happening in the field of automated driving, but I am not nearly as impressed with those actual results as I am in the audio field.  Automated driving is about 75% hype today, IMHO.  The innovation in audio is real.

gprokap
Not if it loses money.

They wouldn't lose money if they gained money buy selling the assets to another buyer. But if they're going through some financial debt problems, then selling profits wouldn't go to them anyway. it would go to their creditors so it would be like giving Cakewalk away instead of gaining a profit.
 
The only reason I see Gibson not selling Cakewalk is because they would lose a brand, making the company worth even less to shareholders, and also they would lose money because they have to pay debts. That's assuming they're in great debt.
 
If they're not in debt, then it would be better to sell Cakewalk like Roland did to at least make a small profit back in the process.

kday
If they're not in debt, then it would be better to sell Cakewalk like Roland did to at least make a small profit back in the process.

You need a buyer.  You cannot sell without a buyer.  Who do you think is willing to buy this?  If Gibson sold Cakewalk outright, that generally would mean that the buyer would take on any of Cakewalk's debts and obligations.  It is not just a matter of buying a product that hasn't made any money in a long time.  The buyer would also be looking at the cost of employees, pensions (if any), leases, obligations to third parties, ongoing infrastructure costs, office leases, and so on.
 
There is no buyer that makes any sense to Gibson.  If there were a qualified buyer, this would have been sold.