Matron Landslide
anydmusic
My guess is that keeping the servers running will help Gibson if they try to monetise the Cakewalk assets as the activity on them is evidence that might support the viability of Sonar Phoenix to a prospective buyer.
SONAR wasn't viable for Roland, it wasn't viable for Gibson, how many more examples are needed before someone says, "hey, there's something not quite right here" instead of blaming everyone and everything else except Cakewalk. People on these forums have been making excuses for Cakewalk for years, and that's part of the problem.
The buck has to stop with Cakewalk, lay the blame where it should be, they failed to develop a product that people in the outside world (outside this little bubble) thought was good enough compared to the available alternatives, they failed to develop a product that wowed those in the outside world, there wasn't a huge stampede of new users knocking down the doors hungering to use SONAR. Cakewalk and SONAR have a massive reputation problem, and have had for years, take a walk outside the comfort of these insular forum walls if you want to see what people think of Cakewalk/SONAR, you are not going to like what you see and hear, that's just how it is.
When the topic is DAW's, SONAR is pretty much always left out of the conversation, most times it doesn't even get a mention, why is that? 3rd party devs often leave SONAR out of the 'tested with' lists and don't test on SONAR (yes there are those that do, but if you are to be honest . . . ) why is that? Users on these forums frequently post things like they don't actually know anyone else that uses SONAR (in real life). When they say to people that they use SONAR, the other person either gives them a weird look, or hasn't got a clue what SONAR is. Users have frequently over the years posted things like "I'm tired of having to make excuses for using SONAR" or "Why isn't SONAR considered as a professional product"or "why isn't SONAR listed in Compatability lists" and on and on it goes. Why is that? If SONAR really was as good as people here seem to think it is, it would be taking over the world, be on everyone's tongue, be making that much money no one in their right mind would want to get rid of Cakewalk. Unfortunately for Cakewalk and it's users, the majority of people in the outside world do not agree with the insiders opinion, most seem to have a low opinion of Cakewalk and SONAR, again that's just how it is.
Roland buys Cakewalk, Cakewalk loses money, is not viable, Roland ditches Cakewalk,
Gibson buys Cakewalk, Cakewalk loses money, is not viable, Gibson ditches Cakewalk,
can you see a pattern emerging? can you see a common denominator? Instead of blaming everyone and everything else, lay the blame where it is desereved, lay it at Cakewalks feet, it's time to let go of the delusion that Cakewalk can do no wrong, the buck should and must stop at Cakewalk. You can continue blaming Gibson if that makes you feel better, or the phase of the moon, or global warming, or the fact that every day's name ends with a 'y', or whatever you like, but like Mr Anderton said, Gibson didn't kill Cakewalk/SONAR, they just buried it. Also as Mr Anderton pointed out, Gibson probably extended Cakewalks life by a few years. I think the fact is Cakewalk/SONAR have been terminally ill for some time for many various reasons, and the blame must be laid squarely at Cakewalks feet, they failed in creating a product that captured enough peoples minds to make it viable. In the end, they could not compete with the opposition regardless of how good insiders think SONAR is, the majority of those outside disagreed, and disagreed strongly.
I disagree with the thrust of your argument. Sonar is a great DAW, arguably the best, because it's the most complete. Audio. Midi. Mixing. Mastering. Notation. Great VST and VSTi. Something for everyone. If anything, it was bad management that killed it. Sometimes companies just fall behind and don't know how to compete. Perhaps the management simply did not have an aggressive enough posture. Not enough outreach to places like Sweetwater. Whatever, the reason is not the software. It's a bit of a misconception that the best product always survives, simply because it is the best product. There are many other forces at work. The market is not as perfect a sorter of products as we would like to think. The best does not always win. The race is not always to the swift. Human nature gets in the way. Trends develop, people jump on bandwagons, etc. I think you are just looking for a scapegoat, and your analysis is simplistic. Not to mention insulting to the Bakers.