cparmerlee

gprokap
Nobody else will buy a PC only product.

I think that is probably true.  It is not just about Mac.  Android is quickly becoming a necessity, and that's an area where Presonus is weak.  I'm not saying it is necessary to port a full-function DAW to Android, but I think the future of DAWs involves a lot of convergence and interoperability:

• Go-anywhere, any device collection/development of ideas -- Momentum was probably on the right track here.
• Multiple control modes.  Not just a mouse, but traditional control surfaces, pad devices, touch screens, voice commands, you name it.  AN open architecture is better
• More AI, useful wizards that can quickly lead to good results
• Seamless integration of the notation, MIDI composition, and audio tracking worlds -- StudioOne+Notion has taken a few baby steps here, and Cubase + Dorico will evolve.
• New intuitive, highly graphical ways of visualizing the mix, finally moving away from the 1970s "racks of gear" UI paradigm

Android can play a key role in several of those areas.  I don't think many people would take a "Microsoft DAW" very seriously.

 
I think the idea is making a "garage band" type product for Windows, with a possible "Logic" type program as an option.  That only would work with the deep pockets of Microsoft.  Microsoft desperately wants their surface line of products to infiltrate the music business, and they have to start somewhere.
 
I agree with you on Android, but the problem with Android is there are too many platforms to support the hardware.  Not sure what that would look like but these devices are becoming more and more a part of our lives, I think there is market potential there.

denverdrummer
I think the idea is making a "garage band" type product for Windows,

Or a PowerTracks (from PG Music) level product.  No way Microsoft would step up to a studio-grade product.  Their interest is all hobby / amateur grade stuff.  They don't ever do "deep dive" products.  Their products are as superficial as they think they can get away with, in order to have something for the largest audience.  They leave the sophisticated products for other vendors who can follow a more specialized business model.
 
I'd be delighted to be wrong about this, but I don't think it is in the cards.

It goes deeper than just the Surface (see what I did there?). The Surface was developed for the same reasons... to grab the creative market from Mac. That is MS's aim - to leave no reason for anyone needing a Mac. For that reason, a DAW offering from MS would not be a kid's toy. It would be a Logic Pro killer! A Garage Band equivalent would also be bundled into Windows.
 
The wording in their ad on KVR is very telling;
"My team at Microsoft is looking for audio software engineers and program managers with experience building best-in-class products. If you want to be a part of the future of music creation in multiple dimensions check out the following openings and apply! "

35mm
(Microsoft employment ad) If you want to be a part of the future of music creation in multiple dimensions ...

It is interesting.  Clearly something is afoot.  But still I would expect anything Microsoft does will be on the lightweight side.  it always is, the only exception I can think of being SQL Server (which is an Enterprise product.) The consumer stuff is always lightweight, but accessible by the masses.  The "multiple dimensions" comment is the most interesting to me, as they are probably thinking along the lines of a distributed system where "the DAW" is not a single thing, but is instead a combination of elements that can be on different platforms.  I would not be a likely user of Momentum, but I think there is a great deal of merit to that direction.
 
Let's take a step back.  Today's DAWs, in almost every case, are software representations of the most complex recording studios ever constructed, using the paradigm of big consoles and racks for outboard gear.  But relatively few people are really producing "studio quality" albums for commercial distribution.  Most of the DAW usage and most of the DAW users could do with a greatly simplified environment.  And simple doesn't necessarily mean less capable.  We have a whole lot of clutter that comes from painstakingly trying to simulate the hardware studio environment with all its levers, buttons and patch cords.
 
I believe there are other ways to approach this space that could produce better, faster results for the majority of users, and make the "audio workstation" accessible to millions of new users, including just about every singer-songwriter, and most music students.  Microsoft is not known for shattering old paradigms.  On the contrary, just about everything they have done amounts to modernizing or miniaturizing very old paradigms.  Powerpoint is an electronic way of putting together a slide carousel that sales people have used for over 50 years.  Word is a cheaper version of the dedicated word processing systems and typesetting programs that came before.  And so on.
 
Along the way, Microsoft adds refinements and productivity boosts, but mostly is comfortable with the old paradigm.  We do see them being a bit more imaginative with the Surface Dial, so who knows.  They have an elaborate (although probably far from best in class) drawing system with the Surface Studio. Maybe they are thinking about doing something very similar for audio, at least for the UI of the "next generation DAW."
 
I certainly welcome any new ideas Microsoft can bring forward, but I just don't see a strong intersection with SONAR.  If Microsoft were going that direction, they would have acquired SONAR before starting to hire their team.

35mm
I am gutted at the loss of Cakewalk & Sonar. I literally feel like a good friend has just passed away! So I have been reading quite a bit about this and trying to make sense of it all.
 
What if;
Gibson scrapping Cakewalk rather than selling it could be strategic. They may not have a buyer for the Cakewalk brand, but they could have a buyer for the source code and the patents associated with it. Cakewalk and Microsoft were working quite closely together in recent times. Microsoft with its "creator's" edition of Win 10 has clearly got its sights on the Mac market. Microsoft is right now starting development on a Windows DAW to rival Mac's Logic Pro. It could be that Sonar's (and other Cake products) code may be on its way to Microsoft. MS would likely put their own management and development team together (they have already placed ads for audio developers) for it which may include a couple of folk from Cakewalk who know the code well but would probably leave the rest searching for a new job. It may even be that Microsoft would have instigated this whole situation, maybe approaching Gibson with a deal - they know they are in financial crisis after all. Microsoft would need Cakewalk out of the picture and take the development of 'their new product' in-house. They probably wouldn't need the customer database as we are all Windows users anyway, but they would need to get shot of any obligation for honoring the lifetime free updates, so that would be another good reason to kill off Cakewalk.
 
OK, so this is just a theory. But maybe some of us might come across some Sonar quirks again one day when we are working in the new Microsoft DAW.

This makes absolutely no sense.
Why would they announce it like this? Look at the chaos. Even Steinberg is making offers. How does this benefit anyone?

Think about it:

We want to sell the source code, why? So lets get rid of all the users and potential customers and increase sales of our competitors. 

Your premise does not add up.

As I recall, P5 was a one-man, one year project.  It is entirely possible for Gibson to "kill" SONAR but let the Baker(s) go w/o any non-competitive agreement.  And maybe some take "some consideration" from MS in return.  I wouldn't bet on it, tho.
 
Most likely Gibson killed SONAR because they need a tax write-off.  Of course, when they go into bankruptcy next year ( $100s of M due next June and their stock gets a junk rating), a judge can order them to sell any intellectual property for $1, if that is the best that can be got for it.  Unless they are using it in some of their Philip's consumer products ;-)
 
But to quote Rumsfeld, "you can't know what you don't know," and we don't really.

another double post  

cparmerlee

35mm
(Microsoft employment ad) If you want to be a part of the future of music creation in multiple dimensions ...

Let's take a step back.  Today's DAWs, in almost every case, are software representations of the most complex recording studios ever constructed, using the paradigm of big consoles and racks for outboard gear.  But relatively few people are really producing "studio quality" albums for commercial distribution.  Most of the DAW usage and most of the DAW users could do with a greatly simplified environment.

This is rubbish. I used to work in commercial recording studios, and today's DAWs are not representations of them at all. Any crossover you see comes from the fact that you are recording audio with it and the necessities therein. Virtually every "studio quality" album for commercial distribution is recorded on a DAW these days. You need the advanced features you are talking about stripping out if you are doing any serious work. And... there are plenty of greatly simplified DAWs for the home users already, such as Sonar Home Studio etc.

AT
Most likely Gibson killed SONAR because they need a tax write-off.

Not likely.  For a tax write-off to work, you need profits to "write off" and I doubt Gibson has been profitable in recent years.  Moreover, as an ongoing operation, Cakewalk losses would already be a tax write-off.
 
I think the picture is fairly clear.  Caskwalk has been unprofitable for a long time.  Roland thoght they could get some synergies, but they couldn't, so they sold to Gibson.  Gibson thought they could get some synergies, but they didn't.  The losses have been accelerating, yet even recently Gibson evidently approved the Momentum thing.
 
That means that the decision was reached fairly abruptly, and was most like brought on by financial problems at the Gibson level, not the Cakewalk level.  My guess is that Gibson needed additional working capital and they could not get any banks or investors to chip in without showing dome drastic cost cutting actions.

Audioicon
We want to sell the source code, why? So lets get rid of all the users and potential customers and increase sales of our competitors. 

All the sonar and many other DAW users are already Microsoft/Windows users. It would take MS quite a while to develop their DAW even using the code from Sonar - may a year or 2. They wouldn't care less about Sonar customers transferring over to other DAW in the meantime. They know that plenty of their existing customers will buy into it when it arrives and most of all, they know it will impact on Mac and stick another nail in Apple's coffin. It may not be what is happening - I said it's just a theory. But it would make perfect sense for MS to pick something up that is already mature, fully developed and proven as a base for their own DAW. Plus put Cakewalk out of business and take it in-house. Why would MS buy Cakewalk when they just want the code and patents associated with the products?