Universal integration protocols seem to satisfy the vast majority of users. The user is free to use whatever hardware they like with Sonar. Interfaces considered high end work with Sonar like RME and Apollo. I'm not sure what the argument is in favor of this?

It is not going to happen because there is no market for it!
 
I believe that horse has been beaten fully at this point. 
 
It has nothing to do with whether or not Gibson chooses to invest in Cakewalk.  No sane business person would take the financial risk of developing dedicated hardware for a single DAW software application.

 
But it's fun to beat dead horses!
 
I agree. If it happened there would be something users don't like about it. 

What a brilliant post. Nice one

abacab
It is not going to happen because there is no market for it!
 
I believe that horse has been beaten fully at this point. 
 
It has nothing to do with whether or not Gibson chooses to invest in Cakewalk.  No sane business person would take the financial risk of developing dedicated hardware for a single DAW software application.

Amen, exactly well said.

abacab
No sane business person would take the financial risk of developing dedicated hardware for a single DAW software application.

I guess the people at AVID are insane.


Did you even read the post?

BMW are design to tightly integrate with Germans, Ford (if you travel outside the US) is specifically design to integrate with the American population.

Can Americans drive BMW and Germans drive Ford, sure.

The term tight integration means: "Pre-configured for Sonar so that Users have maximum flexibility and very little set up." For example: 

Presonous does this, MOTU does this, Cubase does this.

The problem here is that Cakewalk has always appealed to every day musicians and IMHO, it has hurt the software by making it appear as if it is something you buy at Best Buy and start recording. This is not true.

There is so far, software can go, but the idea that any investment in a system is considered a waste by so called dedicated fans and users, tells me Cakewalk will see more pass-around.

The idea that any investment in a system is considered a waste by so called dedicated fans and users, tells me Cakewalk will see more pass-around.  Well, they say that insanity is failing the same thing over and over again with no changes.  Cake itself did a hardware unit back in the day w/ Pro I think.  It is referenced in this thread (did everyone read that?).  Then with SONAR and Roland they did 2 controllers - the VS series.  Ya mon, those sold like wheatcakes at a gluten-free convention.  Both were excellent pieces of hardware LIMITED by their exclusivity to SONAR.  And Roland has no reason to update them since they pass-arounded Cake.  I imagine they lost a lot of money making those units, so sold off the software half of the loss - Cake.
 
AVID is in a unique position in that PT is used almost exclusively in large, expensive studios that can afford to spend $10,000s on hardware controller integration and they've always been a hardware company.  I think I've mentioned that.
 
There are plenty of companies that make hardware controllers to fit your pocket and needs, except they all depend upon a layer of software to work w/ SONAR.  That would be a lot cheaper to fix than sinking another $250,000 in a hardware solution that keeps failing.

Allen and Heath r16

It seems we have extreme views at each end of the issue, and comments that amount to blanket statements that are intended to make it appear everyone in that group is on board with an idea.
 
Audioicon, the statement you quote above is only partially true since we have  hardware manufacturers who have set out to design a good software/hardware integration in hardware/software they make. Even they make their hardware to work with other software. They are savy enough to do BOTH. Case in point- I own a Presonus interface that works wonderfully with Sonar, yet it integrates slightly better with Studio One. Since this is a one time setup the slightly less intuitive setup isn't a problem for me. I mean, I do it once and I'm done. I tend to use Sonar more often than Studio One. The only real difference to me was SO seen my inputs/outputs and identified them. Setting buffers was slightly easier. Both setups are no brainers for me though.
 
From this perspective I see no real benefit to spending huge amounts of money on the  R&D of dedicated hardware. I CAN however see a benefit to Tascam/Cake making the existing hardware more friendly to Sonar if that is possible.How would we do that though? What is unfriendly now? And what do you consider to be high end hardware? Both Tascam and Roland have a large prosumer base. What would you like to see integrated? I/O is already integrated as  ASIO or WMA drivers. As I mentioned Cake is working close with Microsoft to make sure Sonar works with all new I/O tech Microsoft comes out with. So far as I know, Cakewalk is the front runner on this. 
 
Avid has their market, Sonar and the others have their market. Many large studios are suffering. Bad for Avid. Good for Sonar.Why buy a system that ties you to dedicated hardware? 
 
So what would the kind of integration you want look like? How is this an advantage to you or anyone else?
 
 

AT
AVID is in a unique position in that PT is used almost exclusively in large, expensive studios that can afford to spend $10,000s on hardware controller integration and they've always been a hardware company.  I think I've mentioned that.
 

Okay, fair enough. But you mention the above which is what I keep asking myself, honestly.
How and why Cakewalk/Sonar isn't up there as you described.

So why isn't Cakewalk/Sonar being used in mostly large expensive studios? Or; a version of Sonar targeting that king of audience and the rest of us can get there if we can.

Ins't this what the different versions are for.

You do know there is/was the Pro-tools LE and Pro-tools MPowered/MBox.

So what does your post saw about Sonar/Cakewalk target market? 

I guess my conclusion here is that Cakewalk was born and raised in a certain category and will remain there forever.

Because nobody, well most will not buy high End integrated systems for Sonar given it's targeted Market. I get it.