This subject has been touched on in many forms throughout the years. One of the many reasonable answers is who makes what marketing agreements across audio interface mfgrs and DAW software providers to appeal to their target groups to create a buzz and the aforementioned "gear envy".
We'll never know Cakewalk's internal plan but it's safe to consider they have some sort of plan.

You don't really want this. You just want someone to blame because if they said it was designed for SONAR then it has to work or else.
 
Proprietary is a bad word. It's like handcuffs that really fit nicely.
 

When I think of integration I am reminded of the way Presonus has integrated their hardware. The only real advantages I can see are their interfaces don't need to be set up. There are a few perks, like wireless use of iPad with wifi, streamlined latency/driver code written into the software making latency almost nil.
 
You can use any other interface and do the same thing in 5 minutes in Sonar if you're tech savvy. Might take a little longer if you need to read a manual. Interface manufacturers really don't want you to have problems, so they try to make the process as smooth as possible.
 
One of the trades in Sonar not being Mac centric was that Sonar kicks a** with windows. They are focusing  on Windows hardware. Just look at the most recent advances in bluetooth, touch screen and surface dial. No other maker is more closely integrated with windows for things like core and load balancing. Meanwhile, Presonus, Cubase and others are busy splitting their resources writing and updating TWO platforms.
 
Almost all control surfaces and interfaces work with Sonar. FWIW I recently seen a computer advertised in Sweetwater that has a Tascam interface and comes loaded with a full version of Sonar ready to go optimized for audio recording. 
 
 
 
 
 

John
but keeping those things going is not something most software companies do well. 

Yep, wonder how Pro-tools did it.
All I am hearing are arguments about what's not possible.

Cactus Music
Plain and simple there would not be enough of a market for it. 

Or maybe. Just maybe it wasn't that great.
Again, Cakewalk is own by a company which also own Tascam.

Let's look to the now.

I have 2 "designed for" CW hardware, and both have so many questionable design decisions that I tend to call both "epic fail":
 
Peavey Studiomix. Nice looking, build like a tank, expensive when released, but:
* what they was drinking while making the decision to send fixed RPNs instead of CC? That creates 4x number of MIDI messages, make the device incompatible with almost anything and also was a reason for trouble with many units (if one message from 4 is corrupted, that produce unpredictable result)
* 2 encoders per strip and... only one button. There is place for more.
* The device is bi-directional (for faders), why could not they put some LEDs?
* it could be used with computer interface and it has a preamp. With one XLR only. No HiZ, no TS connectors, no 6.3 headphone output.
I mean as a unit for home users is was not cheap and not all-in-one. For pro users it had a questionable set of "non-pro" features.
 
Roland VS-20:
* digital gain with finite knob (saved $0.05 ?)
* hardware effects, but no stand-alone mode and no possibility to control it from the device (the last they could easily do in software)
* USB 1, so 2in2out.
* Rather complicated (software controllable!) routing, without save/recall and only with partial control from the device
* except transport, not really usable as a control surface (in original implementation)
So, they put quite some possibilities into the hardware and so was the price tag. But as with Studiomix, it was not shining in any category. Too expensive as 2x2  USB1, unusable as BOSS guitar processor since no stand-along and far from easy to use software, not a control surface. I mean for the price asked, people could get FR Solo + small guitar processor + Korg Nano. And so get much more functional and easy to use device combination (which is still supported, unlike VS-20).

For the software part - whoever thinks that Pro Tools or any software DAW or for that matter any application doesn't have it's own problems in the field, is looking through rose color glasses and may not be fully in the know. It's a good product but would be an error to think it's perfect and no one can match it.

Just remember what happened to WordPerfect. 😊

rscain

THambrecht
 
I think that a lot of users buy rather a "cheap" Behringer X-Touch (with very loud faders) instead of a quiete AVID Artist Mix. What should Cakewalk or Gibson do now?

Just for the record, I have an X-Touch and the faders are dead quiet. I don't know where that whole loud faders thing got started. Maybe someone got a bad unit, maybe gear snobbery, who knows?
Just wanted to put that out there.
Carry on.
 

 
I am with rscain here.  I have the X-touch and if the audio is at even a modest level, I don't hear the faders.

I think the issue here is what would the benefit be, or the why buy?  Why buy this cakewalk branded hardware?  It may or may not be lower latency.  It may or may not be easier to set up.  It may have more features that integrate with Sonar better (i.e. control for prochannel, etc.)
 
Also, there is a big assumption that all of the Gibson brands are "integrated" corporately.  I get the feeling based on the way Cakewalk is managing Sonar, that this is not the case.