Audioicon

kday
Either Gibson got something up their sleeve, or they are just totally selfish to the faithful customers.

I do not think Gibson knows what Gibson wants.

Gibson wants the world to be like it was in 1969.
 
But things have changed.
 
They don't seem to have any Elon Musk type to give vision from the top.

pharohoknaughty

Audioicon

kday
Either Gibson got something up their sleeve, or they are just totally selfish to the faithful customers.

I do not think Gibson knows what Gibson wants.

Gibson wants the world to be like it was in 1969.
 
But things have changed.
 
They don't seem to have any Elon Musk type to give vision from the top.

Damn! You should be on the board or atleast in the boardroom. 

pharohoknaughty
Gibson wants the world to be like it was in 1969.

I don't have any first hand knowledge of this.  But everything has changed since 1969.  Never mind all the changes in the studio and production end, or even the creative end.  In 1969, everybody wanted to play the guitar.  And if not the guitar, people played piano, drums or band instruments.  Today, students are under such time pressure to prepare for college that many schools offer minimal musical opportunities.  I know high schools in my area that used to present three large concert bands.  Now they are lucky to have one good band.
 
On the guitar scene, just hanging around the music stores, I don't see so many kids.  It seems to me that most of the people buying guitars are adults, many of whom are playing on Contemporary Christian bands on Sunday.  If not for the churches moving to this genre, there would barely be any market for guitars now.
 
So basically, Gibson's entire business is turned upside down.  And I doubt Gibson is the only one struggling.

pharohoknaughty
They don't seem to have any Elon Musk type to give vision from the top.

God forbid that.  Tesla is losing BILLIONS of DOLLARS every year and has never made a penny in profit -- ever.
 
https://finance.google.co...TIMcWpnuLI7ijAGO95OIBQ

 
After bankruptcy restructuring, they will still own the code.  The question is, did they retain any of the engineers from Cakewalk to work on it?

For Gibson, best case scenario is to rename/rebrand Sonar as something they bundle with every guitar sale.  This will release them from any obligation to provide lifetime updates.
 
Its a property they own that they can use after bankruptcy to rebuild.
 
 

cparmerlee

pharohoknaughty
They don't seem to have any Elon Musk type to give vision from the top.

God forbid that.  Tesla is losing BILLIONS of DOLLARS every year and has never made a penny in profit -- ever.
 
https://finance.google.co...TIMcWpnuLI7ijAGO95OIBQ

 
Its true.  Tesla is a "hobby business" to give a positive persona to a guy who made his money in a very thuggish and negative business; credit card processing.
 
 

cparmerlee

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?

Perfectly said.  You can't sell something if no one will by it.

cparmerlee
 
 
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.
 

Lol no.

Hello, I'm Cakewalk user since Pro Audio 9 till SONAR Platinum (with lifetimeupdates).
I understand Cakewalk could be difficult to sell because of its debts, and maybe the lifetime updates complicates the attraction of potential buyers. But remember, all that belongs to Cakewalk and SONAR brands.
What if the SONAR CODE has been already sold, just before the announcement? Is it so stupid what I'm saying? Ofcourse Gibson wont tell us nothing about that, they only could inform us if the Cakewalk brand is sold, but it didn't happen. So, we should be alert for any new DAW appearing in the market, because it could have the SONAR heart, without any advice.
The only (and important) thing that throws my guessing away, is that if SONAR CODE has been sold, Gibson must stop providing downloads for existing users, and it didn't happen too.

It's likely Gibson has tried most of these options to get where they are now. With a healthy dose of mismanagement and bad marketing / choosing poorly their target market. Sprinkled with lack of concern for existing customers....