Come on guys... The best subscription model there is, is the one from Image-Line...
 
Flstudio, free updates for life!!!
 
Although it's a much smaller company, their business model seems to work..they still manage to grow for over 20 years, 
 
Though we have to admit that CW upgrades are not very expensive...
 
Cheers!
 
V
 
 
 

Vlab..image line's model is the exact opposite of what we are discussing. You buy once and own every update for life with no additional fees. I think it's a great policybut no sure I their purchase model is practical for most software makers.

The issue of updating older software is going to become murkier in the years ahead, because software companies are basically riding on Apple's and Microsoft's coattails. There are really two types of updates, bug fixes because something never worked properly, and compatibility updates. I think companies should do bug fixes for programs so that customers get what they paid for, although realistically, I've never seen a bug-free program so it seems to be bug fixes exist along a continuum - from "if this doesn't get fixed, customers are going to be really upset" to "if we don't fix this bug, hardly anyone will even notice." But I suspect not all bugs divide themselves so neatly, so then it becomes a resources vs. results dilemma.
 
Compatibility updates are a different matter. I really respect companies that take ancient programs that worked under something like Apple's System 9 and transitioned them to OS X, but I assume it's pretty easy to reach the point of diminishing returns when a handful of people continue using a program on an operating system that most users have abandoned. At that point a company has to decide how much longer people will stick with an older OS. That seems to be more prevalent with Windows; Apple users transitioned pretty quickly to OS X, and their approach to 64-bit compatibility - while flawed - made it easier to bring existing users along compared to Microsoft's more "clean break" approach (an interesting role reversal for the two companies, actually).
 
Again, I really sympathize with the users who depend on what are, in reality, pretty small companies in the music business to make things right, and the companies who are always fighting a resources battle. I'd be much harder on software companies in general if I saw expensive cars in their parking lots...:)
 
I do feel X2 made a serious effort to fix a lot of long-standing issues, like making the LP EQ and Compressor actually useable! Those probably could have been fixed a long time ago, so I found it encouraging that someone at CW went back and re-visited those effects after all these years. Frankly, I'd given up on them as being just too annoying, but now I use them all the time. Hopefully CW will continue to target a mix of long-standing issues and new features in future updates.
 
P.S. And speaking of the LP 64 EQ - I've tried A-Bing it with other EQs with parameters (frequency, Q, gain, etc.) set to the exact same values, and to my ears, the LP 64's highs are often noticeably better.

Anderton, do you use the PC EQs or do you prefer to use the LP 64 EQ? I often use the PC EQs because they are so easy and right there. It's rare I bother with the LP 64 EQ.
 
Also, I believe I remember a great section in your video about how to use the MultiBand Compressor. I'm surprised you now comment on it being unusable.

I believe that the LP64 is more of a Mastering EQ, which you would use on the final mix. It is resource intensive. PC EQs are more suited for individual tracks. The LP64 has always sounded really good.

Hi all and with much respect for Craig, i followed this article with much concern. 

i started out with CWPA a long time back in Win95 or NT4, as fas as i can remember. At that time CWPA was the most advanced MIDI sequencer. i could remember connecting a whole bunch of synths, MIDI stuff through the Layla 24/96. Although then, there was always a slight latency issue however, we always managed to work thru. Fast forward to today its really a totally different ball game...

one of the things i am seriously concerned is that software can only get bigger with installs. Companies will always have something new to add; things like soft synths, sounds, samples, effects...etc. However, i have yet to come across a dedicated DAW; a pure DAW as it is.
 
When CWPA started, it was touted to be an extremely comprehensive MIDI sequencer; MIDI in, MIDI out, mixdown to audio and then export out. Weather we master to 8-track within CWPA, or to ADAT, or with Sonic Foundry's Sound Forge was another matter. Things were simple. That's what music production is.
 
In honesty, i gave up on CWPA when they hit version 7+. I am sorry to say the entire interface was a mess; there were too many windows going on, too many icons which until today i have no memory of what they look like or what they do. The first versions of Sonar weren't any better, in fact things got even more cluttered and yet more icons...
 
Sonar X1 was a breath of fresh air; the interface has been cleared up so much, the work flow is great with the docking and tab system, ProChannel plugins, stability and major integration with both hardware and VSTs. There are issues, but nothing like the days of old... 
 
Perhaps the model i sincerely hope Cakewalk would consider is to develop a powerful yet stable DAW without all the bells and whistles of forced built in synths, sounds, samples, effects... etc. Just develop a tool dedicated to the music production process and continue to improve on its strengths. Perhaps retail this DAW at a reasonable price. If there is perhaps a new feature in the MIDI PRV like the colouring of corresponding keys, perhaps, long time and dedicated users will be willing to pay a very small fee for the update. Saying this is fair towards Cake and users alike because this is a new feature and programming codes will have to be rewritten and integrated for this.
 
My long time yearn is for a feature, similar to Cubase, MIDI Chord harmonies... unfortunately, over the years, Cake's PRV has never changed until X2.... yet this feature is still not avail.... (sad)
 
ON A SIDE NOTE: Sony has just released Sound Forge Pro 11. it comes with an integrated iZotope Mastering Suite... why would i wanna pay for a forced upgrade when i have Sound Forge Pro 10 and iZotope Ozone & Advanced Mastering Suite...???? Doesnt make sense..... 

as far was additional synths, sounds, effects, etc... perhaps Cakewalk could sell them separately as plugins. For those who would like them, they are able to make the payment to Cake for the development. i am saying this because, i have no use for most of the other features and i am quite sure, there are many on this forum who would agree too. Personally, i do not use the Matrix view, however, for those who have the need for this workflow, they have a choice to make that purchase. Also, for ProChannel, no matter how good the reviews are, personally again i do not use them. The choices for sounds is even a greater subject for discussion... it all depends on the genre of music we produce hence the choice of synths... thus all of these should be available as plugins; after all plug ins are what they really are...
 
i believe that the main DAW should be the main focus and not developing additional incentives to justify a bulk purchase of stuff we dont need. what producers and musicians want is a stable workbench to showcase their works... the audience is not gonna to know the difference which EQ was used to cut the mid's or add hi's... or which compressor was used to side chain the drums.... etc. The line between analouge synths are even worse... to the audience they all sound the same, so frankly and IMHO, it really doesnt matter. But what does matter, is which DAW platform the performance was made on.
 
When you go from studio to studio there is no way to demand that we want ProChannel or iZotope or Waves to be on the final mix... we have to work with whats available there. its back to the basics... a powerful yet stable DAW is essentially back to the basics and thats the support users need to count on Cakewalk for. Whats the point of having a car with all the interior luxury money can buy, but square shaped wheels...????

As Craig mentioned Adobe's model, though i have never used their CC collection, i am still on CS6. i can honestly tell you, with Photoshop, Fireworks, Premiere and After Effects there is nothing CS6 can do which CS3, CS4, CS5 and CS5.5 cant. Unfortunately the same cant be said about Flash and Dreamweaver... the web is now being developed by clowns who just put in codes and stuff which nobody can agree on.....  
 
It all boils down to the matter of workflow and competency. Sure there are improvements in both CUDA and OpenGL, honestly it doesn't matter, hitting the "ENTER" key will still give you the result in almost similar times. Quite frankly, editing a video in native AVCHD (Sony) its is even faster in Premiere CS4 when compared to CS6.... As for Photoshop, how much different can can changing a dull red to a bright red be...??? its all just a tool... the workflow and the steps remain the same. Are we paying for new, prettier icons, layout differently while the back-end engine remains the same... 
 
its times like these when we would ask ourselves, was the cash spent worth while...??? i dont wish to go on about the latest hardware and all, that is another totally different topic altogether....
 
written with much respect to Craig Anderton and all....
 
many thanks for reading... 

garrigus
The way some companies are doing it (and this is the way it should be done, if you're going to offer a subscription) is to offer a yearly subscription fee. For that entire year you get any new versions/updates. If you stop paying, your software still works, forever. Plain and simple. Some also offer 6-months, etc.
 
Scott

--
Scott R. Garrigus - http://garrigus.com - SONAR X2 Power! - http://garrigus.com/?SonarX2Power
* Author of the Cakewalk Sonar and Sony Sound Forge Power book series: http://garrigus.com/?PowerBooks
* Author of the Cakewalk Sonar ProAudioTutor video tutorial series: http://garrigus.com/?ProAudioTutor
* Publisher of the DigiFreq free music technology newsletter: http://digifreq.com/?DigiFreq
* Publisher of the NewTechReview free consumer technology newsletter: http://newtechreview.com/?NewTechReview

Scott, I agree with your ideas in regard to subscription models.  I use one software that is full functioning for a set price every year.  Included is all updates, service packs and major upgrades.  Very easy to maintain.

I hate the idea also. Ampfixer and Make Shift explained my feelings for the most part. I like Scott G's comment too....if the subscription I paid for never dies (like Cake) once I stop paying for that version, that's fair. However...
 
There are lots of things within the software industry that I think need to be revisited badly before we ever make the subscription thing more common in my opinion. Like we can sit here and fire off quite a few legit things that are wrong with our criminal justice system in the USA, software is to me, in the same boat. It's one of the only business models that basically says "up yours" if it doesn't work for a particular person. You open it/download it, 9 times out of 10, it's your loss if it doesn't work and it's rare you get your money back.
 
Dongles, iLok's, whatever other piracy tools they use (thank you Cake for NOT doing things like this. Please don't ever change.) often times hinder those of us who are paying customers. I'll never forget the problems I had with iLok or the dongles of old where I paid top dollar for something while my bud across town used an ASSIGN crack that had none of these things hindering his performance. We that pay, shouldn't have to "pay" for thieves.
 
But anyway, (I just wanted to give you an idea as to why I said things should be revisited beforehand) though software is the future and has more pro's than cons, with innovation comes hardship which gets passed on to us more times than not in MY experience.it makes you feel like it's all about money in a lot of situations. With the economy the way it is, I see things as getting worse for consumers. I know a great deal of time, research and man/woman-power goes into everything software, but there are quite a few companies that really have me scratching my head to where I wonder how they remain in business. I also know that software can be more problematic than building a car engine I'm sure. BUT, that doesn't give it the right to be higher and mightier than any other thing we pay for in life. In a sense, software to me seems to do whatever it wants to do while having us by the stones.
 
I also agree with Mike Mccue about how some software has way more than we need and we sort of have to get it anyway. To me, Adobe Audition 3 is insanely good and nothing Adobe has out today touches it in certain areas. We don't need any more bells and whistles. That program did what it did better than many others costing 2 times what it cost. Innovation, though great (I'm one of the guys that is a bit upset that I'll not be alive to see what the world is about in 4013 if it's still around) can be the death of us as well. Too many cool things can sometimes overwhelm you right out of using this stuff. Add a subscription fee to that to where things stop working and well, I personally feel we're better off using older operating systems on older computers using software that worked for us without all the bloatware we seem to be seeing these days. I'll pass on subscriptions and will try my best to keep using what works for me.
 
I have machines here with old operating systems that run certain programs. I'm totally happy with them to be honest. They work. They aren't loaded with things that I will never use and once I pay for them, I can use them until I pass on or the machine with that OS dies. I respect software and of course those who create it...but it wouldn't take too much for me to stop keeping up with technology while sticking with several programs of "basic stuff" that work instead of all in ones that annoy me. The more in depth these things seem to get, the more problems we all have. This in turn forces you to be good with computers and that gets old too and I've had enough of that in this lifetime. Add subscriptions and other piracy gizmo's to further frustrate me and I search for other means or heck, I'll change my career. No sense doing something you hate due to how the software companies have sort of forced you to accommodate them for things you may not enjoy anymore, ya know?
 
The perfect subscription to me is the one that doesn't exist that also doesn't punish me with piracy crap for purchasing it.
 
-Danny

Will subscribe to C Anderton vids ! Learn me a lot & fun watching.
Some want updates faster, seeing posts here maybe most wouldn't subscribe.
 
But X1/X2 Skylight screen (BRILLIANT !) -in my view- is Sonar's best feature. 
Personally I would like 1 layout for everything in Sonar.
FE; each tool an on/off button in top left corner & green when on, peak meters in & out on the right, a simple dot/strip on each knob to see value easily...
Be able to doubleclick any value and enter via keyboard.
Maybe combine onboard VST's like Dimensions, Rapture & ZTA
A pallet to put stuff on you use a lot, would be nice.
 
Sorry, drifting away...

keyzs
Hi all and with much respect for Craig, i followed this article with much concern. 

i started out with CWPA a long time back in Win95 or NT4, as fas as i can remember. At that time CWPA was the most advanced MIDI sequencer. i could remember connecting a whole bunch of synths, MIDI stuff through the Layla 24/96. Although then, there was always a slight latency issue however, we always managed to work thru. Fast forward to today its really a totally different ball game...

one of the things i am seriously concerned is that software can only get bigger with installs. Companies will always have something new to add; things like soft synths, sounds, samples, effects...etc. However, i have yet to come across a dedicated DAW; a pure DAW as it is.

I certainly didn't sense any lack of respect or confrontation, just worthwhile opinions presented in a rational way, so no problems there. You can find stripped down programs like EnergyXT, which has something like a 2MB footprint. It's a clever program that can even do a few things the "big boys" don't do, but of course, the editing options are very limited.
 
A lot of what you see in terms of "sprawl" s that the features people want from a DAW vary. For example, someone's definition of a basic DAW might not include virtual instruments. Another might find staff and notation essential, while another might need a Matrix view for more groove-oriented work. And while it's true there are plenty of choices for plug-ins and you can use those instead of what's included with Sonar, there aren't any compatibility issues with Sonar and Cakewalk's plug-ins; and when collaborating with other Sonar users, there are no issues about who owns which plug-ins.
 
One of the (very few) things I do miss about 8.5 was the extent of the possible customization One friend found Sonar too complicated so I made a custom layout which was basically an ADAT with faders - 8 tracks, transport, record, solo, mute and that was pretty much it.
 
What you're describing in terms of a DAW sounds similar to what was actually a commercial goal at one point - Yamaha's OPT standard. Sony and Cakewalk were the only two companies I know of other than Yamaha who actually put this into their program builds (IIRC, Acid 4 and Sonar 2). The idea was that you could have a modular DAW. If you wanted a MIDI Editor, you'd use a MIDI Editor plug-in. If you wanted notation, you put in a Notation plug-in. And so on. It seems this would suit your needs exactly - a basic core that you could "accessorize" as desired, and differently people could accessorize differently. But, for whatever reason, OPT never caught on and has become the proverbial footnote in history.