Several subscription possibilities have been proposed in this thread that 1) I would find superior to the Adobe model, and more importantly, 2) I would find superior to the current model of selling software.
 
Also brconflict's comments about support got me thinking. If features were introduced sequentially, CW could concentrate on in-depth support of that particular feature and then move on to the next one when it's introduced. It seems this would make the learning curve flatter, users would have a more in-depth knowledge of each new feature as it appears, and support personnel could hone their skills on a particular feature without distractions.

Anderton

dcasey
Hey Cakewalk/Tascam/Gibson - whoever might be reading this stuff; I've been a Cakewalk customer since Pro Audio, and at this point a gentle nudge would send me into the arms of another vendor.  Cakewalk moving to a subscription model would be more like a punch in the nose, and if I'm going to bleed - I might as well bleed all over Studio One or Pro Tools (for all the wrong reasons).  
 
That should give you a good indication of what I think about a Cakewalk subscription.  No thanks.

Why do some people automatically assume that if Cakewalk was going to do something like a subscription model, it would be the crappiest, most customer-hostile model possible? Remember, this is a company that steadfastly refuses to use intrusive copy protection methods like dongles. It's a little disappointing a small company that trusts its customers (and put out five rapid-fire, free updates to X3) doesn't get some trust back in return.
 
The software world is a tough place to carve out a piece of the pie. Cakewalk is the kind of company that understands the way to get a bigger slice of the pie is to...cook a better-tasting pie. 

 
Yes, I agree. This speculation is based on nothing more than a survey question. We've always been customer focused and doing surveys is a way for us to ensure we are meeting the needs of customers. On a more positive note, the satisfaction level with customers using X3 was off the charts, which again shows we addressed many of the concerns with SONAR in the latest release. You can be assured we'll be doing the same for future releases. Our goal, as always, is to have happy customers.

Anderton
If features were introduced sequentially, CW could concentrate on in-depth support of that particular feature and then move on to the next one when it's introduced. It seems this would make the learning curve flatter, users would have a more in-depth knowledge of each new feature as it appears, and support personnel could hone their skills on a particular feature without distractions.

I like that idea. And it would be best to add features in the form of patches vs. total new installs. That way, the user doesn't have to re-download the entire Sonar sub-version.

brconflict

Anderton
If features were introduced sequentially, CW could concentrate on in-depth support of that particular feature and then move on to the next one when it's introduced. It seems this would make the learning curve flatter, users would have a more in-depth knowledge of each new feature as it appears, and support personnel could hone their skills on a particular feature without distractions.

I like that idea. And it would be best to add features in the form of patches vs. total new installs. That way, the user doesn't have to re-download the entire Sonar sub-version.

Again, duly noted. I really appreciate your contributions to this thread. They hint that perhaps the biggest problem with subscription software isn't the concept, but how companies are implementing it.

Sounds good in theory. But the only feasible way to release 'one feature at a time' is to get rid of the backlog first. I've been involved in QA projects under the banner 'release often, release early' and it was a nightmare (but it is the norm!). The reality is that QA can only do so much with limited resources, and you rely on your customers finding at least 25% of the bugs or design problems whether they like it or not. That's why customers and QA always need to 'partner up' to progress..

CakeAlexS
Sounds good in theory. But the only feasible way to release 'one feature at a time' is to get rid of the backlog first. I've been involved in QA projects under the banner 'release often, release early' and it was a nightmare (but it is the norm!). The reality is that QA can only do so much with limited resorces, and you rely on your customers finding at least 25% of the bugs whether they like it or not. That's why customers and QA always need to 'partner up' to progress..

I definitely like the thought of teaming up QA. What I always want to see is a way that users can suggest possible issues, and rather than having to navigate through a complex technical reporting process and uncontrolled testing that could ultimately result in not-duplicated or redundant, the QA team or Support could ask, "Do you see the issue when you do {this}?" to hone in on an issue to see if it's either related to another open issue, or if {this} makes the symptom go away. I never saw that in my experience.
 
In the Telecomm/Data industry I grew up in, Engineering would ask those questions because they already know what the symptom *might* be related to, especially if something's changed in that area. Having that interface, even through an agent would allow unreported issues to flourish and be revealed where users otherwise would just have no incentive to report something odd. In my case, I became disenfranchised to the response (or lack thereof) to any potential bug reports I would submit. It only takes one or two reports to feel they are not really being reviewed. I know they are, but I had no way of knowing if I submitted one correctly, or if it was even useful.

I wish Cakewalk would start a new, fresh DAW. Project 5 v3- all new code.
 
Veterans like Noel must be frustrated bumping against the flaws in the decades long design. "If I could do it all again- this is how I'd do it" :)

backwoods
I wish Cakewalk would start a new, fresh DAW. Project 5 v3- all new code.
 
Veterans like Noel must be frustrated bumping against the flaws in the decades long design. "If I could do it all again- this is how I'd do it" :)

Maybe it might be easier with a Subscription model, where the current software can remain, meanwhile a whole new DAW could be developed under the same model, so that, if it fails, nobody is really out any purchase costs, and the duality in the two platforms could exist so people could try it out as it's being developed. This is much like the Minecraft way of developing. They released the platform to people with the disclaimer that "this is still under development". Assuming Sonar's current train is nearing a dead-end or something.

Anderton

brconflict

Anderton
If features were introduced sequentially, CW could concentrate on in-depth support of that particular feature and then move on to the next one when it's introduced. It seems this would make the learning curve flatter, users would have a more in-depth knowledge of each new feature as it appears, and support personnel could hone their skills on a particular feature without distractions.

I like that idea. And it would be best to add features in the form of patches vs. total new installs. That way, the user doesn't have to re-download the entire Sonar sub-version.

Again, duly noted. I really appreciate your contributions to this thread. They hint that perhaps the biggest problem with subscription software isn't the concept, but how companies are implementing it.

Sorry guys, I disagree, when I put my money down, I want to own the license, I may want to cancel a subscription for some reason, and if I do, I still want to be able to use the software I paid for. 

bz2838

Anderton

brconflict

Anderton
If features were introduced sequentially, CW could concentrate on in-depth support of that particular feature and then move on to the next one when it's introduced. It seems this would make the learning curve flatter, users would have a more in-depth knowledge of each new feature as it appears, and support personnel could hone their skills on a particular feature without distractions.

I like that idea. And it would be best to add features in the form of patches vs. total new installs. That way, the user doesn't have to re-download the entire Sonar sub-version.

Again, duly noted. I really appreciate your contributions to this thread. They hint that perhaps the biggest problem with subscription software isn't the concept, but how companies are implementing it.

Sorry guys, I disagree, when I put my money down, I want to own the license, I may want to cancel a subscription for some reason, and if I do, I still want to be able to use the software I paid for. 

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, could be there's still an option to do that, but you'd not get the latest updates when they are ready, you'd have to wait for the next full release.