Consumers think of release numbers as an indicator of forward progress. I've heard many declare that they won't buy any X.0 release because it probably isn't done yet. Some clever developers simply call their first version 1.1 rather than 1.0 for that reason, or even 2.1. Microsoft's first version of SQL Server was 6.0.
I think the Firefox team just took that idiocy one step further, with a major release every few weeks. "Look: it must be better, we're already at version 24 and those losers at Microsoft are only up to 10!" Chrome must be even better, it's at version 28!
Native Instruments takes the opposite approach, with "minor" releases that are incompatible with the previous minor release. Libraries created under Kontakt 4.2.3 would not run in Kontakt 4.2.0. NI has never implemented even the most trivial enhancement without making sure that it a) cost money and b) broke compatibility with previous versions.
Other audio software companies are just as guilty. Some changed the major version number - or in one case, even the name of the product - when all they'd added was 64-bit support, just so they could charge for the "upgrade".
Cakewalk's far from the worst offender, although it broke the traditional numbering system with SONAR 8.5, which should have been called 9.0. It was a paid upgrade, not a fix release. 8.3, OTOH, was treated as a fix release. Then they went all Microsoft on us and called the next version X1. At least they didn't call it "SONAR 2010".
At one time a car company adopted the slogan "...where quality is Job 1". I had a sign in my office at the time that read "Microsoft, where quality is Job 1.1"