Oh and P.S...I hope everyone at Cakewalk are ok. You've done a great job over the years, and put up with a lot of abuse...including some from me. I apologize for that. 
 
Peace and Love Neb 

azslow3
With all respect Craig,  but...
You was very close to that all. So:

Anderton
a) Software theft is still a huge problem...

a) The first was an argument when new copy protection was introduced. Had it any success? Was it worse the money invested? If no, why it is still there? If yes, why you again mention that?

 
I always get I trouble when I talk about the industry in general because people assume I am talking only about Cakewalk.
 
You are correct that copy protection is ineffective and does not stop software theft. However that means software theft is still occurring. What percentage would have been purchased is unknown. I suspect it would be low but even 5% would make a big difference to software companies, and could mean the difference between breaking even to keep the lights on, and making a profit to fuel further development.
 

I was tracking almost all your posts, CW posts, outside info... What I have not seen is any spells HOW Gibson tried to make it success.

 
Keep reading...
 

yevster

Anderton
All of this is more complicated than it appears on the surface. For example, I don't think digital performer is keeping Motu alive. I think it's the interfaces. Pro Tools, Cubase, Studio One, Ableton, Logic all have hardware components. You can't download hardware from a torrent! Software theft is still a huge problem, and a software-only company like Cakewalk has a really tough climb ahead of it. If everyone who used Sonar had paid for it, the situation could be very different. Also bear in mind that it has to compete with Logic, backed by a company with 88 billion dollars in the bank or more, Audacity which is free, and Reaper, which was bankrolled by someone who made half a billion dollars selling a program to AOL.

 
With all due respect to Craig, I don't think any of his proposed explanations hold water.
 
The competition with Logic is also an insufficient explanation, as every DAW competes with Logic, and every DAW (aside from Cubase) has a full-featured product tier at the $200 level. Sonar did too, yet somehow it is the only one is being shuttered.

 
First, you seem to have missed my main point, which was that hardware is keeping a lot of software companies alive. Cakewalk = no hardware = skating on thinnest ice. Second, everyone competes with Logic, and I think that's one reason why Pro Tools' market share is down. There is no question Logic impacted Digital Performer as well. Reaper has taken market share from Cubase, Sonar, Studio One, and others. Audacity has impacted Sound Forge, Audition, and Wavelab. Because Cakewalk was indeed skating on the thinnest ice (with part of that being Windows-only), it fell through first. It may not be the last. Maybe "thinning the herd" will transfer some resources to the remaining companies so they can be healthier.
 

I propose an alternative explanation: Cakewalk existed in a bubble. It had a tendency to promote from within. Product managers became executives, QA people became product managers - there seemed to be no product leaders coming from the outside who were not already deeply entrenched in the company or Sonar. This kind of insularity and groupthink can render a company unable to respond to changing markets and demands. Long-time users of the same product can fail to notice usability flaws and design defects that are glaring and, perhaps, prohibitive for a newcomer.

 
I'll address this and Azslow3's points just this one time, and then let it go. I wanted to talk about industry-wide issues rather than issues unique to Cakewalk but since you raised the issue, I largely agree. For the past year, I've disagreed with Cakewalk's management (different from Gibson management; Cakewalk was an independent division in Boston) about Cakewalk's direction as well as SONAR's direction. To be clear it's not uncommon in business for people with strong opinions to disagree about a company's direction, and it's nothing personal. In any event, I was not part of the decision-making process.
 
Last fall, Cakewalk was doing well from the lifetime updates and I based my optimistic assessment of the company's future at that time, when people were saying lifetime updates would kill Cakewalk, around the follow-up plans - a few public, most not - that were in place, and which I believed would be very successful. For whatever reason, almost all those plans were not pursued. I'm not saying that had I been listened to Cakewalk would still be here; I don't know. All I do know is that what was pursued didn't work.
 
I don't agree that Gibson "didn't do anything." Gibson is not really a software company, and I believe it generally entrusted Cakewalk's future to Cakewalk, as well as kept it going for almost four years even as it kept piling up losses. Also, Gibson gave a lot of my time (and I'm not cheap) to help Cakewalk - the eZine, the 30th anniversary freebies, expansion packs, writing press releases, beta testing, two books, the Tip of the Week, forum maintenance and user support, convincing TASCAM to pack SONAR in the TASCAM interfaces instead of Windows Cubase (there was no Mac solution, but my friends at Ableton took up the slack), working out a deal with Big Fish Audio that was going to come to fruition in full starting in January, doing seminars and workshops at AES, NAMM, and GearFest...I feel it was a lot. I also did much of it on my own time because I wanted to see the company succeed. (I still have content sitting on the shelf, including some cool expansion packs, that never was distributed to the community because Cakewalk management believed content has no value.)
 
Even though I was helping only with the peripherals, not the core business plan, I hoped it would help. It didn't. I tried. Peace out.

This makes a lot of sense to me.  I would be happy paying an annual fee to help finance Cakewalk, donate money, and even have a dongle to help with theft.  (I have never had a problem with a dongle including the one I have for Steinberg Wavelab).
 
I was always worried about this.  The lifetime subscription seemed dangerous.  And I had no problem paying for updates.  I want the software engineers to be well paid and have good morale.
 
THANKS Craig for what you do to help people on this forum and thanks to all the Cakewalk people.
 
Let's have a little optimism here and not assume the worse.  But that is not stopping me from checking out Cubase 9.5.
 
 

Anderton
All of this is more complicated than it appears on the surface. For example, I don't think digital performer is keeping Motu alive. I think it's the interfaces. Pro Tools, Cubase, Studio One, Ableton, Logic all have hardware components. You can't download hardware from a torrent! Software theft is still a huge problem, and a software-only company like Cakewalk has a really tough climb ahead of it. If everyone who used Sonar had paid for it, the situation could be very different. Also bear in mind that it has to compete with Logic, backed by a company with 88 billion dollars in the bank or more, Audacity which is free, and Reaper, which was bankrolled by someone who made half a billion dollars selling a program to AOL.

Consider Studio One. It's worth it for PreSonus to have developed it if for no other reason so that it didn't have to pay license fees to another company to include software in their interfaces. The fact that it has taken off on its own is welcome for them, of course, but that's in addition to other valid reasons why it should exist.

I truly believe Gibson wanted to make Cakewalk succeed where others had failed. Unfortunately despite years of trying, it just didn't happen. I think there was some hope that something would pull it out at the last minute, like momentum. The person behind momentum was convinced it would be a huge success, but when it was introduced, it did not garner much interest and certainly did not garner much income...certainly not enough to justify keeping the company going. It's definitely a sad turn of events, but I can tell you that Gibson did want Cakewalk to be successful, it just couldn't make it happen any more then Roland could.

I do think that the announcement from Gibson should have been more specific about what will happen with the community, and the current owners. However the transition team at Cakewalk is going to be tying up loose ends, and don't forget that Cakewalk has always been a very customer-centric company. I think they're going to do everything they can to make sure existing customers can use the software for as long as possible so that people have time to transition to something else if that's the path that they need to take, or to see if by some chance something does happen with Cakewalk.

We will see what the future brings. Remember that the music industry is a fashion industry and everything can change in a matter of moments. Sometimes that works against you, as it has in this case. But, sometimes that works in your favor. If I could see the future, I would be buying and selling stocks, not writing books, doing seminars, and consulting.

In retrospect, there were probably things that could have been done to save Cakewalk. But while Sonar had an undo function, life does not, and that's why we are where we are...

Anderton
All of this is more complicated than it appears on the surface. For example, I don't think digital performer is keeping Motu alive. I think it's the interfaces. Pro Tools, Cubase, Studio One, Ableton, Logic all have hardware components. You can't download hardware from a torrent! Software theft is still a huge problem, and a software-only company like Cakewalk has a really tough climb ahead of it. If everyone who used Sonar had paid for it, the situation could be very different. Also bear in mind that it has to compete with Logic, backed by a company with 88 billion dollars in the bank or more, Audacity which is free, and Reaper, which was bankrolled by someone who made half a billion dollars selling a program to AOL.

Consider Studio One. It's worth it for PreSonus to have developed it if for no other reason so that it didn't have to pay license fees to another company to include software in their interfaces. The fact that it has taken off on its own is welcome for them, of course, but that's in addition to other valid reasons why it should exist.

I truly believe Gibson wanted to make Cakewalk succeed where others had failed. Unfortunately despite years of trying, it just didn't happen. I think there was some hope that something would pull it out at the last minute, like momentum. The person behind momentum was convinced it would be a huge success, but when it was introduced, it did not garner much interest and certainly did not garner much income...certainly not enough to justify keeping the company going. It's definitely a sad turn of events, but I can tell you that Gibson did want Cakewalk to be successful, it just couldn't make it happen any more then Roland could.

I do think that the announcement from Gibson should have been more specific about what will happen with the community, and the current owners. However the transition team at Cakewalk is going to be tying up loose ends, and don't forget that Cakewalk has always been a very customer-centric company. I think they're going to do everything they can to make sure existing customers can use the software for as long as possible so that people have time to transition to something else if that's the path that they need to take, or to see if by some chance something does happen with Cakewalk.

We will see what the future brings. Remember that the music industry is a fashion industry and everything can change in a matter of moments. Sometimes that works against you, as it has in this case. But, sometimes that works in your favor. If I could see the future, I would be buying and selling stocks, not writing books, doing seminars, and consulting.

In retrospect, there were probably things that could have been done to save Cakewalk. But while Sonar had an undo function, life does not, and that's why we are where we are...

AndertonPro Tools, Cubase, Studio One, Ableton, Logic all have hardware components.

but cakewalk failed with the roland hardware, and didn't do anything with the tascam opportunity, what's that all about?

Maybe Roland just didn't see enough benefit for it to be worth holding on to Cakewalk. Personally I think Roland's direction of recent years has been very questionable so maybe their strategic planning is not as effective as it should be.

Momento, whoever was behind it at Cakewalk was a serious mistake as was the Apple migration project.  Wasted money. 

Of course much of what happens behind the scenes is only speculation. Having said that , I believe much of what I've read is probably true in coming from people with a background or experience in business.
 
I find it interesting that a few old time posters who haven't been seen for years suddenly show up when the ship looks to be going down. Are these the people offering solutions? No. They are here to either stir things up more or get some kind of perverted thrill seeing a good 30 year company bite the dust. I don't have any time for you and you know who you are.
 
Like everyone else I have my own thoughts which may or may not be right. Two years ago I went to Boston. while there I tried to locate Cakewalk out of curiosity. They were in some office building that would take an act of God to get into, at least for a non Bostonian. I never attempted to get closer when I seen where it was.They weren't receptive to visitors, even those who just wanted to see a store front or a sign. If you weren't invited, then don't try to come around. This was the feel I took away from there. No one here led me to believe that a 5 minute meetup with one of the Bakers was something that could happen, though I think that would have mean't a lot to me as a Sonar user to pop in shake a hand and say hello. 
 
Boston is an expensive area to live in. Rents and taxes are high there. Software is portable, so I had to scratch my head in wondering why they couldn't relocate to save money? I'm certain they could have cut their operation expenses in half by moving somewhere else.
 
I suspect that some of the coding was subbed out. I notice a trend with companies like iZotope. Notice the distinctly Indian accent of the man in the videos describing how Neutron works.
 
I tend to believe the Cake office in Boston was largely a marketing office with a few coders.
 
Trying to be too many different things and loosing the base was probably the largest mistake.
 
I don't think the skylight interface killed them. It was a great improvement to work flow. 8.5 was an old school piece of software. Cake needed to move into something else. I simply LOVE what they did with it. I don't think I speak alone when I say most welcomes it but a few old timers would never accept the new way.
 
A sign of the times I am sure of that. Adapt or be assimilated. I think they tried to adapt but wasted too much energy on apps and not enough in customer support. There are always hindsights. 
 
If Cake survives as something else in the future please use these mistakes as lessons learned.

.
 
 
 
 
 

Good advice!
Pay attention children.
T

Anderton

I was tracking almost all your posts, CW posts, outside info... What I have not seen is any spells HOW Gibson tried to make it success.

Keep reading...

Effectively, you write that Gibson has not "tricked" Cakewalk and you with the devil plan (I have linked before), so Cakewalk has written own suicide sequence internally and precisely followed it till the end (with some attempts to choose different roads, but declining these attempt). While you and Henry was watching from outside, with thoughts "Hm... what are they doing?"
I (and many other here) prefer to blame Gibson (or Trump with Putin... or Trump only... in Germany the last was prime line till Jamayka )
 
But with the point that Gibson has "invested" you as the help for Cakewalk I agree by 200%. I think that your activity in the forum, eZine and "the content" was more valuable then most questionable features and movements these years (related to the convincing way you have explained and supported all that).
I mean if you will mention only one another DAW during next several days on this forum, this DAW will probably be installed on 50% of Sonar computers