As supplied in previous thread by Cake:
http://blog.cakewalk.com/developer-notes-sonar-x3-vst-enhancements/
 
I think an explanation has already been given as to why several times in the previous thread.

You might be able to get the VST3 Standard from Steinberg for a price you wouldnt want to pay. On the other hand when you upgrade to X4 , the vst3 standard will probably be in there,but dont forget that the X4 will be a complete new Sonar with all the options of a DAW and fully improved. In saying that, you get what you pay for as far as USING Sonar. As far as ownership, cakewalk are the owners of Sonar and you are only a user. Sonar has upgraded at no cost 5 times at the expense of +/- 35 hard workers that are getting paid every month to develop this software to the point that you can use it.
You have a studio. Charge your customers a one time fee and then give them  for the next 5 songs they make FREE MIXING and see how far you get.
MONEY MAKES THE WORLD GO ROUND !!!

Excellent reply from Anderton (you have eased my concerns), thank you. As for Alex try and be a little more professional with your responses, thanks.

BluerecordingStudios

Anderton
So, I thought it might be important to explain the difference between terms like specification and standard; 

I dont blame CW for not implementing this standard function yet, but I wonder why they are not going to implement it in some of the next X3 update.

 
You don't have to wonder: it depends on user demand, resources, and what else needs to be implemented. A vocal minority sometimes extrapolates their desires, and thinks the rest of the world has the same needs and priorities. It does not.
 

As I stated before it is not fair to pay twice for something that should be in VST3 in the first place. Sorry for this link, but Steinberg developed VST3 standard and you can clearly see what functions are considered as standard of VST3. http://www.steinberg.net/...technologies/vst3.html

 
Well, Cakewalk could have simply not integrated vST3 at all, and waited until they had the time, resources, and user demand to implement all elements of the spec. I, and I believe many others, would rather that Cakewalk implement what they could in light of the above constraints than implement nothing at all.
 
A CD can hold 74 minutes of music. Many bands release CDs with 45 or 50 minutes worth of music. I'd rather they do that than rush out more music just to fill those 74 minutes, or not spend time making the mixes they already have as good as possible because they feel they need to fill the time.

jscomposer
As for Alex try and be a little more professional with your responses, thanks.

 
Oh sorry Sir, I shall try and do better next time ;).

jscomposer
Excellent reply from Anderton (you have eased my concerns), thank you. As for Alex try and be a little more professional with your responses, thanks.

Careful, as Alex could serve you another link
 

Yum!

CakeAlexS

jscomposer
As for Alex try and be a little more professional with your responses, thanks.

 
Oh sorry Sir, I shall try and do better next time ;).

A typical response, thanks. You guys should really take paying customers more serious.

jscomposer

A typical response, thanks. You guys should really take paying customers more serious.

I doubt CakeAlexS cares whether you've paid or not
 

More Whining
A typical response, thanks. You guys should really take paying customers more serious.

It's the paying customers not taking you serious.
The Cakemen were quite courteous and professional in their responses in answering this particular inquiry yet again.
Just because someone has the word 'cake' in their user name doesn't make them a Cakewalk employee.